They wouldn't take dividends. Sir Jim at least would likely actually go and watch them play. I think something would be done about the stadium. There'd still be debt, but very likely much healthier debt and much more affordable with an actual end in sight.
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.
Depends if Chelsea are playing at home on the same day.
I only watched in social situations, not on my own, and didn't watch any highlights on the official rights holders' YT channel in the US. I know it's hardly a full boycott, and I was generally still aware of what was going on especially towards the end of the tournament, but it was my feeble attempt to minimize my contribution to the whole thing.
I don't think watching makes anyone a bad person, not watching doesn't make me a better person, but at least I think I'm consistent in rejecting Qatar's attempts to buy attention and influence then, just as I am now.
Does anybody, who wants Jim over Qatar, wants him because you think that he will be better owner or it is only because of "moral" reasons?
And if its about moral reasons then how far those moral reasons go; would you rather Glazers or Qatar?
And if its about moral reasons then how far those moral reasons go; would you rather Glazers or Qatar?
Last edited:
Don't think that's a fair comparison Shad Khan is probably culturally Muslim at best and is basically American/western in his ways. (I mean he changed his name from Shahid to Shad so that should speak volumes)
It is different, if I'm not mistaken City allegedly committed fraud by lying about the origin of funds which includes using offshore and shell companies. PSG stated where the funds were coming from but the UEFA has a panel that evaluates the market value of deals and adapts them, that process is a bit dubious but it's the rules which were created after the deals were created if I remember correctly. An other thing about PSG which was monitored by the UEFA were loans from I believe QNB.
The point being that there is a fundamental difference between PSG and City, PSG plays with the rules and try to stay at the limits while City allegedly disregarded rules that go beyong Football and are accounting and fraud issues. That's the part that people need to keep in mind City are accused of fraud.
States shouldn't own football clubs so even though Jim is a cnut he's still the better option of the 2. Plus for those insisting this isn't a state bid then how can they back the Qatari offer when we have no idea who the guy is or how he made so much money (how is he making so much as the chairman of a bank that makes $2bn in revenue?) and the company through which the bid is being made doesn't currently exist.
You know, the bit where you said City didn’t need to cheat. The part that…was the only part.
Maybe go check the part where City were in the league before the take over, and then the part where City spent big, and then the part where City cheated without not needing to do it?
Explain to me the alternate reality you are imagining where City don’t fudge their numbers, work within FFP and gain the success that they have done on a shoestring budget. I’m honestly intrigued to hear it.
Got it
PSG tried to cheat the FFP rules with creative accounting (more than once). I believe they got caught and fined both times.
Do we need to have a long winded off topic discussion about PSG in this thread?
I never really got the stock going up based on takeover rumours. If someone wanted to buy the remainder of the stock after buying out the Glazers what price would they need to pay? What’s the rules around that in terms of delisting?
No one is suggesting they are. The guy is affiliated with the Qatari state and Qatar has a particular policy on LGTBQ. Therefore, there will always be scrutiny as to whether he accepts or rejects the Qatari state's position on the subject. If he's silent about it, then that won't be particularly reassuring to a section of United fans - both during the bidding process, but especially if were to become the owner.
I would suggest the bigger difference is that he's not acting on behalf of a state. However, if the people supporting a bid from a state where people are imprisoned for being gay and migrant workers are treated appalling want to pretend that they're actually the only tolerant ones and that the opposition to the bid is due to Islamophobia then good luck to them.
Thanks for responding honestly.
I thought I could, but failed at the first whistle. You did much better than me.
There seems to be a lot of people here that are claiming the moral high ground, who haven't been in rush to declare that their standards were upheld during the World Cup.
I dare say some have even been using the "H" word, to other posters.
My bad for being a buzzkill!
I did go to respond, but I don't really understand your point.
If I watched the world cup, I'm not allowed to not want a Qatari owner?
My point would be irrelevant, for you to just answer honestly.
Not being a state is a difference indeed. As for the rest, I don't wanna start this debate again (in here) but the reason Islamophobia is mentioned is the accusation people have no issues with similar or worse state level crimes but make an exception for the middle east, and not just in football. I have no interest in debating whether or not it is or isn't Islamophobia. My personal opinion is that probably 95% of the folks (at least here or fairly educated ones) are not Islamophobic. Personally, I think there is some ignorance and unconscious bias and most people speaking against Qatar do so from their own (percieved) morals standpoint and not to be racist.
PSG were sanctioned for overspending(more than once), as have many clubs, in fact it's generally the same clubs Marseille, Monaco, Juventus, Milan, Besiktas plus someone else. These clubs are sanctioned for not respecting the break even rules.
And the inflated sponsorship deals investigation was from 2015 and is a single case, it's the 100m deal with QTA. And a similar case than the one Galatasaray were involved with and both clubs were let free.
Are Millwall up for sale?
People's morals are being called into question regarding human rights, by people who likely put theirs to one side, whilst the World Cup was on.
No, but openly gay United supporters in Qatar will be.
I'm well aware of Goldmen Sachs, I suggest you reread my post.
of course your point is relevant, you're supposedly trying to gauge in a discussion.I watched it the least amount I've ever watched a WC, part of that was to do with when it was, part of that was my general dislike for our team at the moment and in general because of not being enamored with the whole situation.
Certainly wouldn't be worth buying if they were!Are Millwall up for sale?
People's morals are being called into question regarding human rights, by people who likely put theirs to one side, whilst the World Cup was on.
I don't see the equivalence. One was not your personal decision, FIFA and Qatar colluded for this to all take place in Qatar. If you asked everyone the same question at the time on who should host the world cup, USA or Qatar? I'm sure they'd hold the same moral stance.
If you're now asking who the binary choice of Ineos and Qatar ownership should be, the same moral stance would be applied.
come on man, this is absolute nonsense. I would be apoplectic if the Royal Family spent our tax money on a fecking football team, and almost everyone would be if the US Government tried to buy us - it’s not like we don’t have 20 years of hard evidence of our fan base constantly protesting our current private US owners.
But okay, I’ll flip it. How about the US did try and buy us, and all the people who’ve spent countless hours in these threads pointing out how equally awful and oppressive the US has been, or even some of those from muslim countries who would feel a significant moral disconnect if it were to happen, were the ones who felt uncomfortable or unable to support?… What about if Israel bought us? Would it THEN be okay to tell them to suck it up and deal with it without a fight? Would it be okay to to tell them their opinion was in the minority so shouldn’t matter? Or tell them they were being overly political, or even, at a stretch, racist?
If you wouldn’t, fair play. But you’ve got to be even handed with this shit before you start throwing around accusations like that. We don’t have any evidence people would feel like that. But we do have plenty of evidence that people are against state ownership when it’s other teams, but are suddenly fine with it when it’s us.
That is - happily - a practically impossible scenario.
But you're kidding yourself if you think the people who are against Qatari ownership would be fine with United being owned by the US government or the UK royal family.
Seriously, do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that a significant percentage of the people who have a problem with Qatar being United's next owner would be just fine with Manchester United being (de facto, in practice) owned by the US government?
If you do - if you actually do - then you don't understand where the anti-Qatar people are coming from at all. Which - to me - is borderline unbelievable given that you must have read plenty of posts on this subject on here.
So this is only an issue if Qatar buys us? Its not an issue if Ratcliffe or any other buys us?
Yes it's a moral decision and yes I'd rather keep the Glazers. I didn't watch the WC in Qatar either in case that's a followup.
Ratcliffe can't imprison people for the sexuality or profession, so no. We wouldn't be owned by an entity that persecutes people for their sexuality.
Surely you can see how this logic goes? Would you be happy being owned by the CIA just because they're only torturing people abroad and not on British soil?
Genuinely, how are you not getting what all these posters are telling you? You're surely the most active poster in this thread and must be on a wind up.
He clearly knows that ethically he cannot square his own morals with Qatari ownership, but instead of accepting that he's made it a crusade to convince everyone else in the world that none of it matters and it's all okay.
Like, I don't especially care if you're in the "I don't care about humans rights as much as I care about Man Utd being good and the Qatari Emir pumping money into the club through some random underling to get around ownership rules is the best chance I've got of seeing Mbappe in a United shirt", in a way I respect the honesty of it and I kind of wish I could think the same way.
But the "everything else is just as bad and it's not state money and you're just racist for not wanting it" is way too much. If you can't be honest with yourself then what's the point?
I think the poster genuinely believes they've got their gotcha moment every time they respond and isn't understanding they really aren't.
I dont think you got what I meant. I meant this issue in Qatar will still be there regardless of who buys us until they change their laws.
I.E. If Qatar buys us that Untied fan openly gay in Qatar gets jailed.
If Ratcliffe buys us, the United fan openly in Qatar still gets jailed.
This is why, I dont want to get into the politics of the countries involved.
I get and respect people when they say, the reason they dont want Qatar is because they dont want state ownership. Fair enough.
Bringing all the political issues, moral high ground, it is an issue for ANY buyer that puts 5bn.
My apologies if the post didnt come across like that.
That's a shame. I can't really be bothered to create so many different seperate polls. They'd all descend into the same chaos this one did.
Right.
I hope you have the same energy. Now you have said what I think...
So you are not happy with Qatari human rightsut are okay with all the human rights broken to produce the iphone or android phone you are using?
YOu are happy to forego all those human right principles for shoes and clothes you wear right?
If you cant be honest with yourself... whats the point? I see you will hide behind the term "Whataboutism" here.
As long as it suits you, its fine.
I have said my piece, I am not big enough to influence the human rights issues and any other moral issues that come with such big ownerships.
If I went my day thinking about these things, I wouldn't get anywhere, its the harsh reality.
Finally, STOP putting words in my mouth, as I never said if you dont accept you are racist.
You're not making any sense now, mate.
Ratcliffe, for all his faults, isn't directly involved with the LGBT situation in Qatar.
Do you - seriously, really - not see the fundamental difference here?
So is this about state ownership being crap investment for the government or western human rights being better than the middle east? Because this hasnt always been the case and human rights of states can change pretty quickly.
Then full respect to you, man.
Everyone needs to be able to justify their choices somehow.
Strawman arguments and whataboutism are en vogue for those who prioritise a football club winning games and trophies, and signing whoever people want, over human rights.
Imagine what people are capable of if they were actually personally getting paid off... Honestly, scary thought.
I clarified my post, I understand I did not communicate this post properly, my apologies.