I know that plenty of people were happy to call for the Norwegian wealth fund to purchase the club but I don't know if it includes the same people. It's possible that the people vocal against state funds were against norwegian state funds too.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I know that plenty of people were happy to call for the Norwegian wealth fund to purchase the club but I don't know if it includes the same people. It's possible that the people vocal against state funds were against norwegian state funds too.
I dont think the west is all glory. There are differences between cultures which is totally normal, but a few things cross the line like human rights or treatment of women. Thats all. No need to make it anything bigger than that, like politics or racism. Its none of that.
It's madness. Apparently this is a great bid by a guy who is definitely independent of the state, despite all of his links to the state, but who is completely flush from being the chairman of a bank that makes $2bn in revenue and who is bidding through a company that doesn't currently exist. Ineos are peasants on the other hand with their 18 billion euros in revenue (more than 60 if you include their joint ventures), we won't be able to keep the lights on for more than a fortnight if they take over.
I'll ask again, since I got no takers from page 24.
Serious question, and not calling any particular poster out, but how many people boycotted the World Cup on moral grounds?
As in, didn't watch a minute due to Qatar's reputation on human rights, or sports washing?
I watched every game I could.
Does that make me a bad person?
Serious question, and not calling any particular poster out, but how many people boycotted the World Cup on moral grounds?
As in, didn't watch a minute due to Qatar's reputation on human rights, or sports washing?
I watched every game I could.
Does that make me a bad person?
Fulham are owned by a Muslim who was born in Pakistan. Are they often lumped in with PSG, Newcastle, City and potentially ourselves? The reason the UK royal family or the US government wouldn't bid is that those are democratic nations (despite the royals and the US governments being cnuts), there would be huge public outcry if money was wasted on such nonsense as buying a football team.
This is getting out of hand. The Emir of Qatar is all near-all-powerful, dont be obtuse. Its frankly weird seeing this type of argument from you, you seem otherwise reasonable. The money comes from him, ie. the state. He is the state. There is no discussion about that that starts with honesty.
I get there will be less potential buyers but why would the business model be affected by size? That seems a rather naïve view to take unless you think all owners must operate like the Glazers unless they are countries..How many of those clubs were purchased for 5-6bn£
Money innit
People have repearedly stated this isn't the case, yet you seem determined to push it. A state has powers incompatible with owning a football club.
Said mother of 3 didn't criticize anyone though, it's a BS argument both ways, if you don't practice what you preach you shouldn't really be critical of someone else doing it
As far as I know the books at PSG haven't been cooked, they actually went about it completely differently to City and it's also a bit more complicated to cook books for french clubs since the books are systematically monitored for reasons that have nothing to do with FFP.
What PSG did was to declare actual sponsorships and let the UEFA reevaluate them the way they wanted. The source of the money is known and the figures paid are known by everyone. City should have done the same thing but for some reason didn't.
The British empire was just as bad. Countries & colonies change. Qatar & saudis dont treat women the same or have the same human rights.
I think the money will come from the state, I have never said it wouldn't.
The issue is us saying I dont agree because of their human rights, their rights to women.
We are playing politics against a country that is trying to improve. If INEOS is getting money from Sachs, JP Morgan to buy the club = good
If a individual is getting money from a state = bad.
I dont see why we need to be hypocritical about that because those companies are just as bad, Goldman sachs has been sued for sexism and genderism.
If the government was in central control of the economy and gave that money to a member of the royal family for the express purpose of buying the club with no intention of it being paid back? Then yes it would. Otherwise no.
Qatar for me, i don't believe we will ever see the upgrades necessary in the infrastructure under Ratcliffe and not in the short to medium term for definite.
We have already stagnated and rotted the club from the inside for 18 years I'd rather not wait another 10-15 on the chance we might get some serious investment.
We have already lost so much time and ground we established from being the best in the country, drastic changes are need quickly for the infrastructure of the club and i'm sick of waiting.
We have already stagnated and rotted the club from the inside for 18 years I'd rather not wait another 10-15 on the chance we might get some serious investment.
We have already lost so much time and ground we established from being the best in the country, drastic changes are need quickly for the infrastructure of the club and i'm sick of waiting.
Is it possible to create multiple polls within a single thread?
Nope.
Given money?
It was a loan guarantee mate. That's not being given money by the government.
I think we know why *cough* £400m sponsorship from Etihad in 2011 *cough*
GS has never put gay people and dissident journalists in jail, because they don't have the power to.
You're just playing silly beggars now. The difference is obvious to anybody that wants to see it.
Let me also tell you something, if Qatar own Manutd, I can promise you, no gay person would be put in jail going to Old Trafford
Did they? Overspending and being fined for breaching FFP is a bit different to cooking the books
Well they over valued their sponsorships, breached FFP rules and were fined. We can call it whatever we like it not much better than what City have been up to.
Some of what they have done or been accused of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs_controversies
No, she absolutely did (I said so): the mother of three is a United fan. She doesn't want Qatari ownership. Is she a hypocrite?
But that's a dumb way to do it, you don't think? PSG have a dozen of actual sponsors some are inflated and others aren't, by doing that when the FFP committee has to deal with them, they can't just squash a single ridiculous 400m agreement that is actually worth 50m, it's an accumulation of sponsors from actual companies that can't be erased by the FFP.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that bank (QIB) is also majority owned by QIA - a state owned investment fund. The math is simple for anybody to do.
I also found this...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f.../Who-really-Qatari-bid-Manchester-United.html
It's a bit different perhaps, still cheating and breaking the rules though.
They're not majority owners but they are the main shareholders. They're also the 2nd main shareholders in Credit Suisse where he used to be on the board.
It isn't. It is about accepting or rejecting a cultural practice that formalizes and mainstreams blatant discrimination, not about the religion. The NFL owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and Fulham FC is Muslim and no one cares, because he's not a state actor and he is completely integrated into western norms. When a guy comes from and represents a nation state from a region with discriminatory practices that don't align with western values, but wants to buy a club in the west, these questions will be raised as to where he stands on the issue, which is why he could've put the issue to bed in his statement. A missed opportunity that will continue to linger in the background as long as he's in the picture.
Last edited:
Yes that's why City getting away with it (until now) was so mind boggling, it just made no sense.
Good post
I am not updated on this. So, have a genuine question for people considering Ineos. Why do we think they are going to be different from the glazers? They would be interested in profits and definitely be taking dividends out like the Glazers.
Its hugely different and not limited to ME owners.
The falsifying of accounts is as far as I know City and Juve. Hardly a middle eastern issue.
Reservations about state ownership is one thing.
Suggesting middle eastern owners are known for illegal levels of financial corruption in the sport is unsubstantiated.
Spend £5 billion to take out £33 million every year?
I'd hope they would, but also for starters there's a reason why democratic governments don't outright buy sports teams (and foreign ones at that) for significant money: the citizens would almost certainly question how that investment benefits them, when compared to investment in whatever national projects exists.
Please make it transparent so we can see who the real leeches are on the forum.
Again your thinking Saudis & Qatari people & human rights are the same.
Do you have a single freind who lives there & complains about living there? All i get is compliments.
No which is why I said in my first post I get what you are saying, ie about not making generalisations.