Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are we still discussing the UEFA rules or the pretty obvious fact where the money comes from? Both are pretty easy to answer. The way Qatar have set up the bid UEFA can do absolutely nothing. From a legal perspective the bidder is independent from the PSG owners. There won't be any issues here.
From a funding point, it's obviously going to come from state funds.
 
Mockney said:
Unless I’ve missed it (and I may have) no one has so far explained why this guy whose personal wealth is £4b less than Jim Ratcliffe’s (and is the son of a Prime Minister) is going to buy the club outright, clear the debt, rebuild the facilities and invest in the squad, all without help from the state?

It just seems incredibly weird that people are pouring over Ineos’s financials and how they’d structure the deal, whilst saying this guy will just magically be able to fund everything, and more, without state funds. And if you question that, you’ve got an agenda?

And personally I’d like it explained, cos I’d be a lot more on board with a private owner than a state one.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a private owner. The funds are going to come from the state.
 
Withnail said:
Come on mate. Where's he getting the upwards of 5 billion to buy the club and the all the extra money that's going to be invested in infrastructure?

How much is he worth personally that he can afford it?
Click to expand...

Apparently $42bn where that is sourced from I don't know hence my stance
 
Dion said:
And you've also ignored the rest of the post. I've explained it to you multiple times. You are now simply putting your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

Except you have not provided any evidence, which was the point...
 
prateik said:
All state ownership is bad.. It has nothing to do with Qatar.
I dont think the fans should be happy with the club being owned by any state/country.

I know the Qatari bidder is "independent" and not officially state backed.. and that might work legally.. but does anyone really believe that?

I cant believe people are happy with it just because a few $$ are being thrown our way.

The league needs to sort out its "fit and proper" test and start implementing it properly..
I'll be fine with any (truly) private buyer/consortium that can pass the fit and proper test. I dont care where they are from.

All this is meaningless.. its not in my hands. It'll almost certainly be Qatar.. I am not going to change my tune and pretend to be happy about it.. it sucks.
Click to expand...
Clubs should be forced to go to the 51% fan owned system like they have in Germany.

That'll never happen though as the PL is too greedy. The moment Abramovich / Abu Dhabi was allowed to happen, it's open season IMO.
 
romufc said:
yep, like the point of a profit driven company in INEOS spending £6bn and taking out loans servicing it with nothing in exchange. I am glad you see the point.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about Ineos. But that doesn't mean i don't see the flaws in the alternative too
 
Adam-Utd said:
You can fight all you like, but the premier league innocence died a long time ago.

We will still be the same club whether owned by the Glazers, Qataris or Elon Musk.
Click to expand...

Stretty News posted a transphobic opinion piece in defence of the Qatari takeover a couple of days ago, you only have to look around here to see what the promise of money has done to the fan base. The idea that the club won't be changed by a different owner ignores all of that.
 
romufc said:
I mean if the poster was on the board of credit Suisse and the board of QIB then yes, I would consider them as a serious buyer. Unless you think Credit Suisse is also Qatari state funded.
Click to expand...

Credit Suisse has taken large investment from the middle east by the way
 
Some background on the Qatari economy, from this paywalled article - "The Evolution of Administrative Systems in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar: The Challenge of Implementing Market Based Reforms" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dome.12093?saml_referrer

It's pretty long, but I suppose these are the most relevant quotes in terms of this discussion:

"Qatar...is like “a corporation with the Sheikh as CEO” who initiates liberalization initiatives that aim to further centralize, rather than limit, his powers...​
​
...Since ruling family members support each other through public funds and public policies that are usually geared toward their best interests and those of local merchants, the distinction between public and private funds is also problematic...[Despite] the existence of government institutions that “formally” appear to separate the rulers’ funds from those of the state, in practice, the lack of transparent budgets and financial reports, render these distinctions artificial."​

"The development of Qatar from a small tribal sheikhdom to a modern state shares some similarities and differences with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The al-Thani family is considered the founder of Qatar. Sheikh Mohammed bin Thani expelled the Bahraini representative in 1866 and ruled over 18 tribes he united through marriages with their tribal heads, as well as strong neo-patrimonial and patronage systems that bought him their loyalty (al-Kuwari, 1978; Fromherz, 2012).The absence of an established hereditary arrangement made the members of Qatar’s ruling family the most imminent source of potential threat to its political legitimacy. Qatar’s first constitution of 1970, restricted the ruling of Qatar to the al-Thani family, but did not specify hereditary requirements. As a result, Qatar’s brief history has witnessed intense rivalry over political power among different members of the al-Thani family, evidenced by frequent coups between 1972 and 1996 (Kamrava,2013). This competition over power has considerably shaped the ties between the public and private sectors in Qatar.

The advent of abundant petroleum revenues in 1949 allowed Abdullah bin Qassim al-Thani to play a “patriarchal” role in Qatari society (al-Kuwari, 1978). In the absence of formal institutions, he “personally granted oil concessions, personally received the oil income, and personally decided the distribution of wealth” (Rathmell& Schulze, 2000:56). To legitimize and reinforce his political supremacy and prevent potential coups by his family members, he distributed cash handouts to all al-Thani members and also to other tribal leaders (al-Kuwari, 1978). Qatar’s independence from being a British protectorate in 1971 inaugurated the beginning of a centralized administrative development process.

The rapid inflow of petroleum revenues happened in parallel with an unprecedented influx of expatriates to Qatar, and an urgent need for public sector services (Bahry,2013). These changes saw the creation of a “personalized” bureaucratic machine that awarded vital government positions to the trusted members of the al-Thani, as well as other prominent families such as al-Attiyas (Fromherz, 2012; Khodr & Reiche, 2010).The intention behind this practice was to maintain regime stability through patron–client relationships that pay for the political loyalty of tribal leaders through influential and high paying public sector jobs. Qatar, therefore, is like “a corporation with the Sheikh as CEO” (Fromherz, 2012:127) who initiates liberalization initiatives that aim to further centralize, rather than limit, his powers (Kamrava, 2007)...

...In the absence of an independent merchant class in Qatar, the private sector is also predominantly run by the al-Thani and its closest merchant families. In contrast to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the ruling family members in Qatar were “merchants first and rulers second” (Crystal, 1995). The advent of petroleum revenues and establishment of formal economic institutions witnessed the distribution of economic benefits to key members of the ruling family. Possessing the appropriate connections was particularly rewarding during oil booms, which were times that saw extensive government expenditures in infrastructure building. Because of its small geographical size, land is extremely expensive in Qatar, and having access to the al-Thani family, who own substantial tracts of land in business districts, is a condition to acquire land(Moore, 2002)...

...Since ruling family members support each other through public funds and public policies that are usually geared toward their best interests and those of local merchants, the distinction between public and private funds is also problematic (Mansour, 2007).Al-Kuwari (2012) argues that despite the existence of government institutions that “formally” appear to separate the rulers’ funds from those of the state, in practice, the lack of transparent budgets and financial reports, render these distinctions artificial. Even the appointment of the director of the Qatari Chamber of Commerce is deter-mined by the ruler who invariably appoints an al-Thani family member. Since the business community is not able to elect its own leader to voice concerns to policy makers, the Chamber of Commerce, in effect, acts more “as [a] government agency than an independent social association” (Moore, 2002:49)."
 
stevoc said:
No I don't think the PL have ratified those rules yet. But regardless even if it was legal it wouldn't make sense to make a subsidiary company liable for billions worth of debt that it could never hope to service.

It arguably doesn't even make sense to make it liable for any of that debt if your goal is to grow the company as an asset and have it increase in value.
Click to expand...
Looks like I was wrong. I thought the prem or uefa had made rules to stop leveraged take overs putting the debt on the club.
 
romufc said:
Thats fine, UK has taken large investements from middle east.

Does that mean Credit Suisse is state owned?
Click to expand...

Of course its not, but that wasn't the question I answered
 
Dion said:
Stretty News posted a transphobic opinion piece in defence of the Qatari takeover a couple of days ago, you only have to look around here to see what the promise of money has done to the fan base. The idea that the club won't be changed by a different owner ignores all of that.
Click to expand...

I doubt the guys from Stretty suddenly turned transphobic because of a Qatari bid. Most football fans are pretty fecking ignorant. For United this isn't any different. The things you hear on the stands regularly no matter the football club have always been quite shambolic.
 
romufc said:
Right, so in your opinion Credit Suisse is Qatari state owned?
Click to expand...
Well no by the fact I said they were the 2nd largest shareholder (only with like 6%), logically that wouldn't be state owned. You asked if they were state funded and then realised you'd made a mistake given that in part they are and changed the question. If the Qatari investment was for only 6% of United I wouldn't consider us state owned, the point is that won't be the case.
 
Dion said:
The amount of money required to buy United and Qatar's GDP IS evidence. The structure of the Qatari economy and where the wealth comes from IS evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

Like I said, if you call it clearly false then you must have evidence that despite the above being true, the assertion isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, Al Thani might get backing from the Qatari state. That does not make it state owned.

Same way Ineos is getting loans. Does that mean it wont be owned by INEOS?
 
Cassidy said:
Apparently $42bn where that is sourced from I don't know hence my stance
Click to expand...

You don't know where it is sourced from?

Where did you hear it? From what I've seen his personal wealth isn't enough to make a bid so somebody must be bankrolling him. According to Forbes he's only worth $1.3bn

Also if you what you claim is true having a net worth of 42bn in an absolute monarchy like Qatar raises more questions then it answers.
 
romufc said:
When someone spends 5bn on ownership, there will be flaws regardless of who it is.
Click to expand...
Sure. But can we agree that someone who is a) heavily linked to the state, b) whose wealth comes from state sources and c) who would still not have sufficient funds without a state-sponsored bid, would then represent a form of state ownership?

That doesn't mean Ineos is better, but the facts above speak for themselves.
 
Dion said:
The amount of money required to buy United and Qatar's GDP IS evidence. The structure of the Qatari economy and where the wealth comes from IS evidence. You just refuse to look at it.

Like I said, if you call it clearly false then you must have evidence that despite the above being true, the assertion isn't.
Click to expand...

Again this is false, you won't be able to provide it because the evidence that no billionaire can exist in Qatar outside of the state is factually incorrect and I know you cannot provide the evidence for it. Especially since I see contrary evidence most days in my line of work
End of conversation
 
RORY65 said:
Well no by the fact I said they were the 2nd largest shareholder (only with like 6%), logically that wouldn't be state owned. You asked if they were state funded and then realised you'd made a mistake given that in part they are and changed the question. If the Qatari investment was for only 6% of United I wouldn't consider us state owned, the point is that won't be the case.
Click to expand...

So what difference would if the Qatar investment some funding ?

Is is because you dont agree with their human rights and LGBTQ+ ?
 
Levi1 said:
Sure. But can we agree that someone who is a) heavily linked to the state, b) whose wealth comes from state sources and c) who would still not have sufficient funds without a state-sponsored bid, would then represent a form of state ownership?
Click to expand...

Compare to someone who will need to take loans to buy the club? Will that mean that the ownership will be the firm that provides the loans?
 
Godfather said:
I doubt the guys from Stretty suddenly turned transphobic because of a Qatari bid. Most football fans are pretty fecking ignorant. For United this isn't any different. The things you hear on the stands regularly no matter the football club have always been quite shambolic.
Click to expand...
Me neither, but they've never felt empowered to promote that opinion in public before. And that's the issue.
 
Levi1 said:
Sure. But can we agree that someone who is a) heavily linked to the state, b) whose wealth comes from state sources and c) who would still not have sufficient funds without a state-sponsored bid, would then represent a form of state ownership?
Click to expand...

Legally no. It's money he'll get as a private person and I'm sure the Qataris will make sure there won't be any documentation of instructions or directives coming from the state as to how he should use it.
 
Cassidy said:
Links to sources with facts and figures not his/her own assumptions.
Click to expand...
Well it seems like you're holding out for a statement from the Qatari bidder himself, stating that he's getting his funds from the state. That obviously isn't gonna happen (and we shouldn't need it to happen for us to see what's going on) so in the mean time you're just being naive at best.
 
Cassidy said:
Again this is false, you won't be able to provide it because the evidence that no billionaire can exist in Qatar outside of the state is factually incorrect and I know you cannot provide the evidence for it. Especially since I see contrary evidence most days in my line of work
End of conversation
Click to expand...
If it was you would have provided evidence for it because it would have ended the discussion unequivocally.

You can type "end of conversation" if you like, but that simply confirms you know you have talked yourself into a corner.
 
Withnail said:
You don't know where it is sourced from?

Where did you hear it? From what I've seen his personal wealth isn't enough to make a bid so somebody must be bankrolling him. According to Forbes he's only worth $1.3bn

Also if you what you claim is true having a net worth of 42bn in an absolute monarchy like Qatar raises more questions then it answers.
Click to expand...

I do not.
It is something I read regarding a private fund his company controls. So its not his personal net worth. Again this could be state backed/controlled it may not be, I'm not stating either at the moment.
 
Dion said:
Me neither, but they've never felt empowered to promote that opinion in public before. And that's the issue.
Click to expand...

Nah I don't buy it. You don't suddenly feel empowered to post something sexist, racist or transphobic just because of a bid from someone to buy a football club.
 
BD said:
Well it seems like you're holding out for a statement from the Qatari bidder himself, stating that he's getting his funds from the state. That obviously isn't gonna happen (and we shouldn't need it to happen for us to see what's going on) so in the mean time you're just being naive at best.
Click to expand...

I would say you shouldn't join a conversation half way through, without reading all the posts
OP said, no one can be a billionaire in Qatar outside of the state, then proceeded to provide zero evidence to backup said statement when I said its false.
Why would I be holding out for a statement from the bidder for that?
 
romufc said:
So what difference would if the Qatar investment some funding ?

Is is because you dont agree with their human rights and LGBTQ+ ?
Click to expand...
There would still be significant issues with that, you've pointed 2 of them out, but the club wouldn't be state owned.
 
Withnail said:
Come on mate. Where's he getting the upwards of 5 billion to buy the club and the all the extra money that's going to be invested in infrastructure?

How much is he worth personally that he can afford it?
Click to expand...

I tried to understand a little bit who we are talking about and to make it short, it's actually possible that the money isn't from QIA or Qatar itself. But it's not clean money, it's the Panama-Luxemboug-Bahamas kind of funds.
 
romufc said:
Yes, Al Thani might get backing from the Qatari state. That does not make it state owned.

Same way Ineos is getting loans. Does that mean it wont be owned by INEOS?
Click to expand...
See this is the hole you talk yourself into.

Either we're not state owned and this guy is borrowing £5bn against a tiny net worth which puts us in extreme financial jeopardy. Or the money isn't really a loan and we'll never have to pay it back and we are state owned.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Dion said:
The Glazer's have done untold damage to the football club, nobody has said otherwise. But hardship and poor ownership hasn't made me feel less attached to the club and it never will.

The Glazers were literally a parasite, but they never managed to change what the club was about despite how much the tried because the fanbase was well and truly against them. Having owners run us as a state plaything fundamentally changes everything about the club and you can already see it. You already have prominent supporters newsletters publishing transphobic bigotry in defence of the takeover. What is admirable about that?
Click to expand...

Every manager who has managed us has effectively said we aren't run as a football club, but rather a commercial operation. LVG. Mourinho. Even Wreck-it Ralf.

I don't know what rock you've been living under to think that our club has had any semblance of a soul or even resembled a legitimate sporting institution in the last decade. We are simply an investment and ATM machine to the Glazer family and they have treated us as such.

There has been absolutely no communication between them and the fans, up until the infamous super league riot, in which their hand was forced. That's over a decade of ignoring every single fan protest and aggrievement.

I honestly don't understand why you would think a change in ownership would be a bad thing, no matter if it is Qatar or Jim. Nothing could be worse than the parasite glazer family.

Either one of our bidders would probably easily take us back resembling a football club.
 
Mockney said:
Right. So exactly like City, and Newcastle, and all the other state owned clubs then?

Great, thanks. I feel completely reassured
Click to expand...

Well that wasn't my intention Mockney. It's just pretty obvious. They have set this up to comply with UEFA rules (which they will now). The money will most likely still come from the state.
 
DevilRed said:
Every manager who has managed us has effectively said we aren't run as a football club, but rather a commercial operation. LVG. Mourinho. Even Wreck-it Ralf.

I don't know what rock you've been living under to think that our club has had any semblance of a soul or even resembled a legitimate sporting institution in the last decade. We are simply an investment and ATM machine to the Glazer family and they have treated us as such.

There has been absolutely no communication between them and the fans, up until the infamous super league riot, in which their hand was forced. That's over a decade of ignoring every single fan protest and aggrievement.

I honestly don't understand why you would think a change in ownership would be a bad thing, no matter if it is Qatar or Jim. Nothing could be worse than the parasite glazer family.

Either one of our bidders would probably easily take us back resembling a football club.
Click to expand...

Another parasite owner could certainly be worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.