Oh absolutely.
To see a huge amount of United fans now contort themselves to make excuses... It's sweet. I love it.
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.
Oh absolutely.
To see a huge amount of United fans now contort themselves to make excuses... It's sweet. I love it.
PSG is run properly
It's too late to ask that. The moment they allowed Abu Dhabi,Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Abramovich into the league, it was over.
The only thing that can be done is strict FFP regulations (which do seem to be coming now)
I don't agree that endless money should be spent, there should be some sort of parity to remain competitive.
I don't think any United fan really want that to happen either, we just want the debt cleared and enough money to have top class facilities. We can buy our own players like we always have.
Thanks.
Yes, I think it is totally obvious that Sheikh No_One_Knew_His_Name_Yesterday is just a frontman for the state of Qatar buying the club. Also, I completely agree with the criticism for the human rights there, admit that the state buying the club is not the same as some company buying the club, and that them buying United is first a political decision, second a financial one, and maybe a distant third being them fans of United.
We will obviously be similar to City and Newcastle in that aspect, but I also think that is the only way to compete (except Apple/Amazon or some extremely rich person like Ballmer/Bezos buying us).
Ideally, state ownership should have never been allowed, but that’s not the case.
I'm not any more morally opposed to Qatar ownership than I am to a planet destroying petrochemicals company taking over, or to huge tax-dodging, workers rights abusing companies like Amazon.
What is in Qatar's favour is that you can be sure they will want to prove themselves to the 'the good guys' far more than other businesses who may want to take us over, and will be much more likely to deliver on clearing the debt and better infrastructure.
One of my concerns with Qatar is because of how rich they are whether they will meddle too much in the football side (although there is arguably just as much if not more danger of this with any other owner).
My other concern is that you will also never hear the fecking end of it in the press if they takeover, and any success we have going forward will be tainted in a lot of people's eyes (including our own fans)
You can already see now journalists who have been conspicuously silent about United since we got good again (eg. Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew) have suddenly started to pipe up saying how Qatar would destroy our soul as a club, etc.
What is in Qatar's favour is that you can be sure they will want to prove themselves to the 'the good guys' far more than other businesses who may want to take us over, and will be much more likely to deliver on clearing the debt and better infrastructure.
One of my concerns with Qatar is because of how rich they are whether they will meddle too much in the football side (although there is arguably just as much if not more danger of this with any other owner).
My other concern is that you will also never hear the fecking end of it in the press if they takeover, and any success we have going forward will be tainted in a lot of people's eyes (including our own fans)
You can already see now journalists who have been conspicuously silent about United since we got good again (eg. Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew) have suddenly started to pipe up saying how Qatar would destroy our soul as a club, etc.
Yup, that can of worms has been opened long ago and it is what it is. Choices are not exactly great, on the contrary.
Its just because the media portrays oil states as a the root of all evil. Partly because its a simple narrative for people to understand and they are a simple enemy. Oil = bad. Outdated/non-western views = bad. Easy sell.
No one wants to get into the weeds about how any company worth billions will have the morals of a crocodile. How football has been morally bankrupt for decades.
Very few people complaining about City and their sugar daddy or the United bidders will have anything but a laughable leg to stand on when it comes to their own choices. I'm as bad as most when it comes to not bothering to make any stand against these companies if would cause me any pain or lack of comfort.
Could probably argue the same regarding those opposing. This is a real generational clash it seems. Old v New fans seem pretty divided.
Fair play. Can’t really criticise that. It shouldn’t be hard for people to be this honest.
Simple narratives that don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.
Because it's obvious oil states buy football clubs for political reasons. What reasons you say? Oh, they're obvious, now run along now.
Or being ok with being bankrolled by banks complicit in money laundering and ethical issues across the globe, because "at least they're not a state"
The contradictions are too many to point out honestly. I do admire those who have a principled consistent stance on this topic since day 1, or are amoral.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/soc...r-spend-even-if-qatari-bid-successful-sources
What I have been saying all along. Only way they get to fulfill their promises is by cooking the books. Like at PSG.
Do not want.
What I have been saying all along. Only way they get to fulfill their promises is by cooking the books. Like at PSG.
Do not want.
Seriously, why would they need to cook the books when they wouldn't be starting from scratch like they were with P$G?
There's zero need to artificially inflate anything financially when United is already top 3 biggest club in the world from the offset with all the access to steady revenue streams and massive commercial base that comes with it??
It absolutely is not going to be nearly the same as building from the ground up at City and PSG, it'll be more as if Bayern or Madrid were bought. There's no need to fake anything at all when it comes to finances given their already huge and long built foundations and commercial advantages. It's an entirely different context and set of circumstances to previous takeovers we've seen.
It's genuinely unprecedented so going off those examples is off the mark.
There's zero need to artificially inflate anything financially when United is already top 3 biggest club in the world from the offset with all the access to steady revenue streams and massive commercial base that comes with it??
It absolutely is not going to be nearly the same as building from the ground up at City and PSG, it'll be more as if Bayern or Madrid were bought. There's no need to fake anything at all when it comes to finances given their already huge and long built foundations and commercial advantages. It's an entirely different context and set of circumstances to previous takeovers we've seen.
It's genuinely unprecedented so going off those examples is off the mark.
What have they promised?
We still need to stay within FFP limits for spending. We have spent a lot over the years. That means we can forget Mbappé unless we cook the books. That‘s just the reality.
I believe it is a blessing in disguise, we are better off making shrewd signings and a star signing once in a while at the right time.
What are you talking about? They article mentions not going crazy in the transfer market, why isn't that a positive?
Also their promises are to return us back to our best, invest in the local area and facilities.
The only thing FFP would limit would be transfer spend which I believed most fans were on board with no silly transfers like Mbappe and instead more reasoned players that Ten Hag actually wants.
Bellingham‘s and Mbappé‘s for starts.
Can you please let me know where did they say anything about those 2 players.
They have made 1 public statement and I can’t find anything there.
As should be suspected. Most people under 25 probably won't give a stuff about any of the negative stuff.
Its a strange one. I am not sure why people don't get that. You have different strategies for different scenarios. They keep banging on the same narrative when anyone with any business braincells will know that you apply different approaches for different circumstances.
Paying off the debt and investing in youth. They can cook the books on that?
The Qataris promised Bellingham and Mbappe? Who else? Maradona and Pele too?
You must have gotten a different statement of intent than the rest of us.
Right. And all boomers are inherently racist, yes?
Not having a go at you personally - but these kinds of generalizations are bollocks.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. My parents are boomers also and not racist. My father is very much against state / royal family ownership also.
I don't think it's much of a reach to say that loads of teenagers on social media who are United fan don't give a stuff about human rights. A lot won't even understand the issues.
and a lot of boomers are racist. So there is your comparison
Fair enough - if you're talking about teenagers.
But what you initially said was "most people under 25", which is a different category altogether.
A lot of people in every age group are racists to be fair.
You‘re right, but I just wanted to point out the generalization of his and then directly dclaiming another generalization to be bollocks
I can't be in the minority in not actually wanting the club to be pulling a Chelsea/PSG and spending silly money. I honestly get more joy from United under EtH than I did most of the time under Fergie because it was a procession. We were the biggest team in the country and we should have been winning the league. It frustrated the crap out of me that we never really had any sort of European dominance despite our domestic success.
I don't want to win trophies because we outspent everyone by hundreds of millions. I don't want a squad full of mercenaries we paid a hundred million for a piece. The best competitions are those with competition.Thats why the PL is so good. The smaller sides are good. There is good competition at the top usually, certainly for top 4.
I want the new owners to invest in the stadium, the facilities and the fan experience as well as the squad. I want a focus on youth from our academy and I want a team I feel passion for. Not one that was just expensively assembled when money isn't a concern.
I don't want to win trophies because we outspent everyone by hundreds of millions. I don't want a squad full of mercenaries we paid a hundred million for a piece. The best competitions are those with competition.Thats why the PL is so good. The smaller sides are good. There is good competition at the top usually, certainly for top 4.
I want the new owners to invest in the stadium, the facilities and the fan experience as well as the squad. I want a focus on youth from our academy and I want a team I feel passion for. Not one that was just expensively assembled when money isn't a concern.
I'm with you mate, the only change I want to see from new owners is to clear the debt, stop leeching off the club and to sort out our infrastructure inc. making sure our internal hierarchy is set up to deliver on pitch (which to be fair we've made decent progress with recently)
We've spent nearly as much as City since Fergie left under the Glazers and have barely anything to show for it.
I'd rather the footballing authorities imposed some proper rules and punishments around transfer funds, that would resolve the whole problem.
What's that got to do with anything though? Are you really saying that some 'boomers' don't want Arab owners because of their race? What a load of rubbish that is. If Qatar were squeaky clean (or as clean as most) this wouldn't even be a talking point. Everyone would want them.
I honestly can't disagree with any of that too much. I do feel that United, as one of the jewels of European football is a step further into the chasm and it makes me really sad. It remains to be seen what will happen to City but there is little doubt now that what they've done is a stain on the history of British football and they are as much responsible for what has happened to us as the Glazers.
As a top European club, we have a responsiblity to the likes of Ajax, Milan, Bayern, Barcelona etc.. to ensure they can compete on a level playing field, same for the other clubs in England. We've seen from the World Cup how bribery and infiltration is used to circumvent regulation so we know we can't rely on that. We should be really careful about what we're about to throw away in exchange for some shiny new toys (our integrity).
I agree and this is with shoddy Glazer ownership - all we need is the debt off the club so we don't pay the interest for them & then an owner should be tactful enough not to take dividends if it's been a especially bad year. The investment into infrastructure would be easy with any owner who will put some money in (and we wouldn't be playing for the Glazer's debt) I simply don't understand why state ownership is even on the table for anyone.
Because there simply isn't many people that can afford to buy the club + pay for a new stadium and training ground without taking on huge debt.
Because we don't get a choice. Its like asking someone if they want beans or spaghetti for dinner. Theres no point talking about turkey twizzlers.
Plenty of people do want us to splash the cash as well. The truth is that most people that can afford United aren't looking to necessarily do what we want.
Yes but this poll has two choices? I get it is (literally) on the table right now, I should have said I don't get why anyone would want it.
But if the debt isn't on the club what's the issue? Qatar will lend itself the money so I guess it's a bit different but our issue with the Glazers is they don't put a penny into the club which isn't how many other clubs are run. Look, maybe this is the future of football and we have to choose between parasites and states but I don't think Ineos is either, they might be crap but they're an immediate upgrade on the Glazers purely because they are removing the debt from the club (as I understand it).
I think reports have said they are not sure what happens with the current debt. INEOS have said they will add no new debt.
Two choices is bit disappointing. If Sir Jim couldn't send any offer, there would be no bidding war and our glorious alternative is next 20 years with Glazers. Happy days.
Choose now, protest later.
Choose now, protest later.
Guardian reported he said he would not put debt on club, no idea if true but if so I'd be happy with that. If you think the total amount the Glazers have taken out would pay for Spurs new stadium and the Etihad campus outright, I do think it's fair to say United could not only be self sufficient but spend a lot more organically without the need for a country to own us.
City is owned by the Emirates, Newcastle by the Saudis and we could be taken over by the Qataris. How anyone can think that this is a good idea is perplexing to me.
These countries are frequently at odds with each other (Qatar blockade for starts).
Club decisions will be heavily influenced by political decisions.
Keep them far, far away from our club.
These countries are frequently at odds with each other (Qatar blockade for starts).
Club decisions will be heavily influenced by political decisions.
Keep them far, far away from our club.