This is literally the level of argument that some people have had to adopt.
ACTUAL POLL thread - how do you feel about potential Qatari ownership?
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
This is literally the level of argument that some people have had to adopt.
So human rights is only issue if a country that violates human rights buys United, any other time it does not concern you?
So if Qatar buy Manutd, would you still support them and watch football?
That sounds very creepy.
By your logic, we have no proof you are a United fan and not a troll. No evidence whatsoever and therefore, sadly, you will be treated as such. Provide us with proof - it’s really very simple - otherwise you’re clearly someone who either wants to be contrarian because it’s ‘cool’ or an oppo fan.
Do you have any concerns relating to human rights with the potential of Qatar buying Manchester United?
This is a bizarre argument but just on your list 1 isn’t guaranteed, particularly looking at what’s going on in the world right now, I’d probably take option 2.
I have concerns over Human rights all over the world, its not solely Qatar however, I cannot do anything about it as I do not possess any authority or power to do anything about it.
Who is we?
There are tens of thousands of people on this forum and you, which is not a we, don't ask for proof from everyone, one you take a dislike to and you kick off. There seems a familiar logic here.
There's a poll about this in this very thread.
You're conflating issues, stay focused.
So are you saying you are concerned about Qatar's human rights record and how it will affect the club to potentially be associated with them?
By the way, this isn’t a hypothetical scenario.
There are alot of things of concern in Qatar but that is a separate issue. I am not concerned how their ownership will affect the club though. It is a British club that requires to follow UK regulations.
Glad to see the result of this poll showing the majority here are not as extreme as the megathread suggests with c60% in the logical middle ground
Going by other thread you would assume everyone was either a mental antiArab crusader (ridiculous rhetoric calling people murderers etc) or massive transfer muppet who is only interested in how much we can spend on players
I would assume that many of those who would 'seriously consider' their support for the club will actually continue supporting so then an even smaller minority with the most extreme mindset
I have reservations about whether it is a state bid (despite some claiming it must be, it is not clear either way) and also financial doping but ultimately the most important things to me are that any owner:
- clears the debts
- invests sustainably in the squad
- invests in the infrastructure
- puts competant people on the board
- does not interfere with the managers job
Some of this we cannot know in advance, but the Sheikh Jassim bid seems to tick the right boxes. Certainly should be an improvement on the current owners but then SJR should be too.
Going by other thread you would assume everyone was either a mental antiArab crusader (ridiculous rhetoric calling people murderers etc) or massive transfer muppet who is only interested in how much we can spend on players
I would assume that many of those who would 'seriously consider' their support for the club will actually continue supporting so then an even smaller minority with the most extreme mindset
I have reservations about whether it is a state bid (despite some claiming it must be, it is not clear either way) and also financial doping but ultimately the most important things to me are that any owner:
- clears the debts
- invests sustainably in the squad
- invests in the infrastructure
- puts competant people on the board
- does not interfere with the managers job
Some of this we cannot know in advance, but the Sheikh Jassim bid seems to tick the right boxes. Certainly should be an improvement on the current owners but then SJR should be too.
Last edited:
How so?
Because the laws in Qatar in respects to women, human rights, LGBTQ will not apply to United if they take over..
Fore example = If Qatar take over and rebuild a stadium, they wont have labour from Qatar or where they get them from, it will be UK laws.
Another example = In the statement, they have stated they want to invest in the Womens game.
We have seen what PSG do for LGBTQ - they are not supressed.
That is why I do not see there being an issue.
Selective Amnesia?
You have to be spectacularly naive to think that Sheikh Jassim Bin Hamad Al Thani is just an independent United fan who found 6 billion to buy himself a shiny toy.
Why?
Not sure at the moment, it’s a very big ask to give up a habit of a lifetime and one of the main things that brings me joy in life, but it’s definitely something I’m having to consider.
That’s before even thinking about the sporting merit of it. I don’t really care for watching a team have billions ploughed into it artificially and winning everything.
That said, I definitely don’t feel like I would have to do so because I’ve spoken out against Qatari state ownership.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/time-check-behind-sofa-typical-10621971
I think it's the same but on a slightly larger scale.
You want to discuss Selective Amnesia, this thread is about Manchester United bidders. Like i said, stay focused.
And Qatar aren't bidding, stay focused.
You have no proof of that. Show me the proof and I’ll believe you.
Well fair enough mate, I posted similar myself recently. I'm not in favour of the Qatar bid but more because I don't like the idea of state ownership.
An interesting retort, if, and only if, the same rationale was applied to the two prominent bidders this thread refers to. Which it isn't
Maybe his Dad's buying it for him for his Birthday. I'm sure he'll be buying his 14 other children gifts worth £6 billion as well.
Diverting again, I can only ask you show me proof of what you’re saying. It shouldn’t be hard?
Actually all the official info says this is a private bid, obviously it's well possible that this is not the case
But the onus is surely on those who claim the official line is not true to provide the proof or logic to why this is a state bid
Questioning your rationale isn't diversion, it's pointing to your logical duality.
yep
I understand and appreciate that. I see the point of no club should be owned by a state, I can see the logic behind that.
However; I just think we are passed that now with City, PSG and Newcastle. I can see more being owned by state owned clubs in the future too with the likes of Dubai, Kuwait, Oman.
Good to know that more than 85% will continue support the club we love.
An educated guess that the majority of remaining 15% who will seriously consider continue support the club will end up still supporting the club because it's not easy to simply change to support other club.
Hope whoever win the bid will bring us back to where we belong at the pinnacle of world football and Man Utd supporters stay united.
An educated guess that the majority of remaining 15% who will seriously consider continue support the club will end up still supporting the club because it's not easy to simply change to support other club.
Hope whoever win the bid will bring us back to where we belong at the pinnacle of world football and Man Utd supporters stay united.
Man City and Newcastle are officially privately owned as well. Well that's what ADUG and the PIF claim and I'm sure neither of those groups would lie.
I'm absolutely on the same point and those 5 marks are the focal areas we need to improve and look in the new owners.
From all the bidders the Qataris seems the best bet currently. It's not like INEOS is the perfect example of a company that doesn't have any negative impact on humanity as a whole.
Given United stature, I'm positive there isn't a single individual or company that doesn't have record in abusing human rights in some form or shape, that can also buy the club.
There will always be unhappy people I guess.
No they arent - both were officially bought by the sovereign wealth funds of Abu Dhabi (and Sheikh Mansour is even the Deputy PM of Abu Dhabi so its the clearest case of the lot) and Saudi Arabia, as were PSG (Qatar). This is undisputable fact - although there are now some minority investors involved in both cases.
Newcastle had to make some vague commitment that the state wouldnt have control over the club but the ownership of these clubs is clearly in state hands.
Meanwhile, the Nine Two Foundation says they are a private bid headed by the Al Thani family
There are no rules against state ownership in the PL so the question is, why would Qatar hide it now ?
The only reason I can see would be to avoid UEFA level conflict with PSG.
But INEOS dont seem worried about Nice conflict and Red Bull already set the precedent to show that UEFA can do feck all to stop anyone owning 2 clubs anyway.
A genuine question….this is not me being facetious or a cnut like I can be on here at times (or always).
There’s a feeling amongst many here that it is a Qatar state backed bid. I’m not getting into the argument of whether it is or not.
However, IF it is a state bid and Qatar are making a very concerted effort to disassociate themselves from the bid or any participation in the acquisition and have allowed it to be portrayed that it is a completely independent private investor.
If that’s the case, how would Qatar as a state be able to exercise any sportswashing if that’s their intention in acquiring Utd? It doesn’t make sense to disassociate yourself with the takeover and then try to carry out sportswashing on the back of it. You would surely want to be known to be behind the takeover.
There’s a feeling amongst many here that it is a Qatar state backed bid. I’m not getting into the argument of whether it is or not.
However, IF it is a state bid and Qatar are making a very concerted effort to disassociate themselves from the bid or any participation in the acquisition and have allowed it to be portrayed that it is a completely independent private investor.
If that’s the case, how would Qatar as a state be able to exercise any sportswashing if that’s their intention in acquiring Utd? It doesn’t make sense to disassociate yourself with the takeover and then try to carry out sportswashing on the back of it. You would surely want to be known to be behind the takeover.
If it’s not state backed then why is the bid so attractive? Does that not mean he has considerably less spending power that INEOS? I’m genuinely curious and I have tried to ask this before
This is the first paragraph of the wiki page on ADUG.
So while we know who really owns City, the company they are part of officially claims to be private and separate from the Abu Dhabi government.
Newcastle similar thing.
They claim it is owned by a consortium of which the PIF are just the majority shareholder between that and as you point out the vague claim that they are not controlled by the Saudi Government. Both Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia to different degrees would like people to think that both clubs aren't state owned. So why are they hiding it?