An intro to the Qatar bidders

owlo

Full Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
3,252
I knew nothing about the Qatar bidders past the basics on the BBC etc, so did a bit of a dive. If anything is wrong, please correct me! I'll try not to go into politics of Tamim vs HBJ etc.

The bid is being fronted by Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad, son of the enigmatic HBJ or Hamad bin Jassin bin Jabr. Bin means 'son of,' so Jassim is bin Hamad etc. Their family name is Al Thani which is the ruling family of Qatar, and HBJ is the uncle of the former emir.

It's not confirmed yet, but its highly likely the man behind this bid is HBJ. He has said he doesn't like football much. He is a close ally and friend of the former emir (father of the current emir) and was the prime minister, head of QIA and foreign minister. Arguably the most powerful man in Qatar until the emir stepped down and handed power to his son Tamim. When Tamim came to power, he removed HBJ as prime minister and man in charge of the QIA etc. Since then, HBJ has been less in the limelight; he lives in London a lot, travels with the former emir, and lives a chill life. He's known as the guy who owns London as he has so much property there.

When PSG was purchased, HBJ was the man who approved the buy ultimately. The QNB social responsibility paper back in 2012 comments that "A sponsorship agreement with Paris-Saint Germain (PSG), one of France’s most illustrious football teams,is expected to help elevate the QNB Group brand in France and across Europe. The elevated visibility from this agreement is expected to attract new inter-est and opportunities from global investors, who share enthusiasm for world-class sport competition. " - QIA owns 50% of QNB (big commercial bank in Qatar) - The son, Jassim is chairman of QIB, the foremost Islamic bank in Qatar. This is a shade over 17% owned by QIA, and Jassim has around 7% personal ownership. (This is probably where the 2bn net worth figure is being bandied about from, though it makes around 1bn a year in profits so that's probably outdated.)

Since Tamim came to power, QSI (an arm of QIA, which is the government basically) have been relatively quiet; although they did buy 22%~ of Braga.

It is assumed that HBJ has little individual power left in Qatar (Tamim stripped him of it), and that the QSI/QIA is not involved. (HBJ and son have been banished from QIA) - However, one should not assume that this is private. It makes no sense for QIB, a Sharia bank, to buy Man Utd, and it Jassim does not have the power or finance himself to do so. For me me, all roads lead to Tamim the emir. However, because HBJ and him are publicly 'fallen out' and QIA is only a minority shareholder in QIB, there should be little to no regulatory issues.

If Tamim is not behind it, he has at the minimum explicitly approved it, such is his hold over the country. HBJ is not known to love football, so somebody who does is pulling strings. The son is not powerful enough alone to pull it off. As for who the 'private' investors are; QIB could in theory afford it alone, but you'd imagine some sort of consortium.
 
It's very clear that this is the proxy state bid that was anticipated. It also seems quite clear that it will have no problem meeting the official requirements to be allowed to proceed. And it's difficult to imagine they will be outbid by a party that isn't state backed.

So probably time to figure out a shorthand for Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad. JBH? Sheikh Jassim?
 
Anything but Ratcliffe at this point even a US consortium over his proposals.
 
I knew nothing about the Qatar bidders past the basics on the BBC etc, so did a bit of a dive. If anything is wrong, please correct me! I'll try not to go into politics of Tamim vs HBJ etc.

The bid is being fronted by Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad, son of the enigmatic HBJ or Hamad bin Jassin bin Jabr. Bin means 'son of,' so Jassim is bin Hamad etc. Their family name is Al Thani which is the ruling family of Qatar, and HBJ is the uncle of the former emir.

It's not confirmed yet, but its highly likely the man behind this bid is HBJ. He has said he doesn't like football much. He is a close ally and friend of the former emir (father of the current emir) and was the prime minister, head of QIA and foreign minister. Arguably the most powerful man in Qatar until the emir stepped down and handed power to his son Tamim. When Tamim came to power, he removed HBJ as prime minister and man in charge of the QIA etc. Since then, HBJ has been less in the limelight; he lives in London a lot, travels with the former emir, and lives a chill life. He's known as the guy who owns London as he has so much property there.

When PSG was purchased, HBJ was the man who approved the buy ultimately. The QNB social responsibility paper back in 2012 comments that "A sponsorship agreement with Paris-Saint Germain (PSG), one of France’s most illustrious football teams,is expected to help elevate the QNB Group brand in France and across Europe. The elevated visibility from this agreement is expected to attract new inter-est and opportunities from global investors, who share enthusiasm for world-class sport competition. " - QIA owns 50% of QNB (big commercial bank in Qatar) - The son, Jassim is chairman of QIB, the foremost Islamic bank in Qatar. This is a shade over 17% owned by QIA, and Jassim has around 7% personal ownership. (This is probably where the 2bn net worth figure is being bandied about from, though it makes around 1bn a year in profits so that's probably outdated.)

Since Tamim came to power, QSI (an arm of QIA, which is the government basically) have been relatively quiet; although they did buy 22%~ of Braga.

It is assumed that HBJ has little individual power left in Qatar (Tamim stripped him of it), and that the QSI/QIA is not involved. (HBJ and son have been banished from QIA) - However, one should not assume that this is private. It makes no sense for QIB, a Sharia bank, to buy Man Utd, and it Jassim does not have the power or finance himself to do so. For me me, all roads lead to Tamim the emir. However, because HBJ and him are publicly 'fallen out' and QIA is only a minority shareholder in QIB, there should be little to no regulatory issues.

If Tamim is not behind it, he has at the minimum explicitly approved it, such is his hold over the country. HBJ is not known to love football, so somebody who does is pulling strings. The son is not powerful enough alone to pull it off. As for who the 'private' investors are; QIB could in theory afford it alone, but you'd imagine some sort of consortium.

I don't like the way this is structured tbh. If it turns out the current Emir/QIA have merely bunged a load of money to Jassim to buy United, and informally be the actual controlling owners than that is really worrying. I don't see any other rationale for the Jassim/Hamad family to get involved otherwise. Fair enough he's got investments in London but those would be relatively liquid. It is laughably transparent but then it was also laughable that the PIF investment in Newcastle was given the all clear for having no state involvement.

I can see they've chosen a frontman who appears to be independently wealthy and supposedly a fan of United but it seems a bit dodgy right from the offing, maybe even dodgier than the Saudi investment in Newcasle tbh
 
I don't like the way this is structured tbh. If it turns out the current Emir/QIA have merely bunged a load of money to Jassim to buy United, and informally be the actual controlling owners than that is really worrying. I don't see any other rationale for the Jassim/Hamad family to get involved otherwise. Fair enough he's got investments in London but those would be relatively liquid. It is laughably transparent but then it was also laughable that the PIF investment in Newcastle was given the all clear for having no state involvement.

I can see they've chosen a frontman who appears to be independently wealthy and supposedly a fan of United but it seems a bit dodgy right from the offing, maybe even dodgier than the Saudi investment in Newcasle tbh

Having said that I should add that the lawyers/consultants that would have come up with this method of acquisition would have done their research, never mind their influence at UEFA that exists at the moment. They've probably already poured in millions to get the ownership structure bulletproof. Its just one of those things that looks brazen from the outside I reckon but has been setup with regards to the financials and legal side of things impeccably.
 
Firstly I would like to say thank you for such an informative post. Insha'Allah, once the dust is settled and the Qataris have won I can already envisage a TIFO esque video that will breakdown the hierarchy about who owns what etc. As of right now my head is spinning with the multiple abbreviated names but the signs are promising. This will take us back to the to the top and I am honestly buzzing. Have been since Keegans first tweet regarding this. This alongside the Mason Greenwood news has been very promising and that I hope that under the new ownership, they bring him back into the fold. But out of the two, if I could only pick one it would be to the Qataris
 
What about Nine two foundation? Is it a new foundation being set up for this specific purpose? We also dont know if there are other members for this foundation.

It will become clear when actual proof funds is revealed. This should be the demand of Manutd groups that process is transparent
 
I don't like the way this is structured tbh. If it turns out the current Emir/QIA have merely bunged a load of money to Jassim to buy United, and informally be the actual controlling owners than that is really worrying. I don't see any other rationale for the Jassim/Hamad family to get involved otherwise. Fair enough he's got investments in London but those would be relatively liquid. It is laughably transparent but then it was also laughable that the PIF investment in Newcastle was given the all clear for having no state involvement.

I can see they've chosen a frontman who appears to be independently wealthy and supposedly a fan of United but it seems a bit dodgy right from the offing, maybe even dodgier than the Saudi investment in Newcasle tbh

It is dodgy insofar as it's a clearly state-sanctioned bid presenting as something else.

But in real terms I don't think that will be any sort of problem given how lax the rules are, the precedent of other workarounds and the current influence of Qatar in UEFA. If they can't present a structure that that meets the very loose standards required here, they are inept.
 
Who's most likely to be the chairman with the Qatar owners?
They’ll probably get someone in who’s best in class. That’s what they do.
Expect the same across all positions. Hopefully they will see that ETH is already best in class.
 
It is dodgy insofar as it's a clearly state-sanctioned bid presenting as something else.

But in real terms I don't think that will be any sort of problem given how lax the rules are, the precedent of other workarounds and the current influence of Qatar in UEFA. If they can't present a structure that that meets the very loose standards required here, they are inept.

Oh absolutely. I'm quite sure the legal/financial team that assesses these things for UEFA/Premier League is not massively robust nor do I think they outsource these assessments to big accounting firms that would actually have the sufficient manpower/skills to do a better job. It is however something that will hang over us for the duration of their ownership. Similar to how the City FFP thing was obvious for ages.
 
I don't like the way this is structured tbh. If it turns out the current Emir/QIA have merely bunged a load of money to Jassim to buy United, and informally be the actual controlling owners than that is really worrying. I don't see any other rationale for the Jassim/Hamad family to get involved otherwise. Fair enough he's got investments in London but those would be relatively liquid. It is laughably transparent but then it was also laughable that the PIF investment in Newcastle was given the all clear for having no state involvement.

I can see they've chosen a frontman who appears to be independently wealthy and supposedly a fan of United but it seems a bit dodgy right from the offing, maybe even dodgier than the Saudi investment in Newcasle tbh

Yes, looks like plausible deniability. (especially as its being fronted by a guy who 'fell out' with the state, and his son who owns a bank that's only 17% state owned) I'd argue it looks more like a personal plaything of the Emir than a state thing though. (if there's a difference) - The usual suspects aren't involved.
 
I knew nothing about the Qatar bidders past the basics on the BBC etc, so did a bit of a dive. If anything is wrong, please correct me! I'll try not to go into politics of Tamim vs HBJ etc.

The bid is being fronted by Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad, son of the enigmatic HBJ or Hamad bin Jassin bin Jabr. Bin means 'son of,' so Jassim is bin Hamad etc. Their family name is Al Thani which is the ruling family of Qatar, and HBJ is the uncle of the former emir.

It's not confirmed yet, but its highly likely the man behind this bid is HBJ. He has said he doesn't like football much. He is a close ally and friend of the former emir (father of the current emir) and was the prime minister, head of QIA and foreign minister. Arguably the most powerful man in Qatar until the emir stepped down and handed power to his son Tamim. When Tamim came to power, he removed HBJ as prime minister and man in charge of the QIA etc. Since then, HBJ has been less in the limelight; he lives in London a lot, travels with the former emir, and lives a chill life. He's known as the guy who owns London as he has so much property there.

When PSG was purchased, HBJ was the man who approved the buy ultimately. The QNB social responsibility paper back in 2012 comments that "A sponsorship agreement with Paris-Saint Germain (PSG), one of France’s most illustrious football teams,is expected to help elevate the QNB Group brand in France and across Europe. The elevated visibility from this agreement is expected to attract new inter-est and opportunities from global investors, who share enthusiasm for world-class sport competition. " - QIA owns 50% of QNB (big commercial bank in Qatar) - The son, Jassim is chairman of QIB, the foremost Islamic bank in Qatar. This is a shade over 17% owned by QIA, and Jassim has around 7% personal ownership. (This is probably where the 2bn net worth figure is being bandied about from, though it makes around 1bn a year in profits so that's probably outdated.)

Since Tamim came to power, QSI (an arm of QIA, which is the government basically) have been relatively quiet; although they did buy 22%~ of Braga.

It is assumed that HBJ has little individual power left in Qatar (Tamim stripped him of it), and that the QSI/QIA is not involved. (HBJ and son have been banished from QIA) - However, one should not assume that this is private. It makes no sense for QIB, a Sharia bank, to buy Man Utd, and it Jassim does not have the power or finance himself to do so. For me me, all roads lead to Tamim the emir. However, because HBJ and him are publicly 'fallen out' and QIA is only a minority shareholder in QIB, there should be little to no regulatory issues.

If Tamim is not behind it, he has at the minimum explicitly approved it, such is his hold over the country. HBJ is not known to love football, so somebody who does is pulling strings. The son is not powerful enough alone to pull it off. As for who the 'private' investors are; QIB could in theory afford it alone, but you'd imagine some sort of consortium.

Two questions if I may ask

Why was the old Emir removed/left his job?
Why is the new Emir allowing an 'exiled' person to be the front man of such deal?
 
Two questions if I may ask

Why was the old Emir removed/left his job?
Why is the new Emir allowing an 'exiled' person to be the front man of such deal?

Nobody knows. It was very very strange at the time. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/27/mysteries-of-the-emir/ is the best article I could find on it from around the time. It was a very peaceful transfer of power to his son, unlike anything else seen in the ME.

He wasn't 'exiled' so much, as when the old Emir was in power, he was pretty much ubiquitous in all aspects of the state, leading interventionist foreign policy and increased citizen rights etc. (I don't wanna get into politics, but he was THE man) - When the new young Emir took power, he wanted to control the reigns of everything, and that meant his dads best mate had to go. According to some articles theres less blurring of business and personal finances under the new emir etc. He's still best mates with the dad (old emir), and it could be that its a personal favour to the Emir that his son does this so they stay in good graces? (given he doesn't like football). The why is just speculation though.
 
Nobody knows. It was very very strange at the time. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/27/mysteries-of-the-emir/ is the best article I could find on it from around the time. It was a very peaceful transfer of power to his son, unlike anything else seen in the ME.

He wasn't 'exiled' so much, as when the old Emir was in power, he was pretty much ubiquitous in all aspects of the state, leading interventionist foreign policy and increased citizen rights etc. (I don't wanna get into politics, but he was THE man) - When the new young Emir took power, he wanted to control the reigns of everything, and that meant his dads best mate had to go. According to some articles theres less blurring of business and personal finances under the new emir etc. He's still best mates with the dad (old emir), and it could be that its a personal favour to the Emir that his son does this so they stay in good graces? (given he doesn't like football). The why is just speculation though.

Come to think of it, it does make sense

a- QIA wants to distance themselves from this bid. Someone whose not close to the young emir would make sense given the circumstances
b- You always need a financial person at the top of the pyramid (Gill, Woodward etc). The guy seem to have quite a CV.
 
It's gross, a state stooge wrapping himself in the trappings of our history in a sordid attempt to woo supporters.
 
Would you be ok with a non state affiliated wealthy Qatari buying the club ?
I feel like this is a bit of a spurious question if I'm honest. I accept that we're going to be bought by a billionaire with questionable ethics and their nationality is irrelevant to me. The entire question is ultimately redundant however because a 'non state affiliated wealthy Qatari' who could afford United doesn't exist. The Qatari economy has been centrally controlled for as long as modern economics has existed and everyone with any major source of wealth has in one way or another had it given to them by the Qatari state.
 


I’m not sure this stuff is the potent point that journos are trying to make it out to be. The money is not the ownership. So what if ‘the state’ pays for it? If my mother gives me money to buy a house that does not mean that I am not the owner. And if there is legislation stating that my mother can only own one house, her giving me money to buy one for myself isn’t some sort of scam.

State ownership is state ownership. State funded is a different matter. Some may see it as a small detail, but it’s not an insignificant distinction. If a Sheikh’s dad wants to give him money to buy a football club then he’s a lucky Sheikh. But his Dad paying for it does not make his dad the owner by default.
 
I’m not sure this stuff is the potent point that journos are trying to make it out to be. The money is not the ownership. So what if ‘the state’ pays for it? If my mother gives me money to buy a house that does not mean that I am not the owner. And if there is legislation stating that my mother can only own one house, her giving me money to buy one for myself isn’t some sort of scam.

State ownership is state ownership. State funded is a different matter. Some may see it as a small detail, but it’s not an insignificant distinction. If a Sheikh’s dad wants to give him money to buy a football club then he’s a lucky Sheikh. But his Dad paying for it does not make his dad the owner by default.
The mental gymnastics here is that peoples objection to state ownership is that football clubs being run for the benefit of a state is a bad thing for football and democracy. Your mother might give you money to buy a house because she loves you and wants you to be happy and safe, the Emir of Qatar doesn't sign off on giving the son of a man he deposed as Prime Minister £5bn from the sovereign wealth fund because he wants him to be happy. He does it because he is acting on behalf of the Qatari state.
 
I don't think anyone doubts that he's a state puppet. He's our Amanda Stavely.
 
Last edited:
The mental gymnastics here is that peoples objection to state ownership is that football clubs being run for the benefit of a state is a bad thing for football and democracy. Your mother might give you money to buy a house because she loves you and wants you to be happy and safe, the Emir of Qatar doesn't sign off on giving the son of a man he deposed as Prime Minister £5bn from the sovereign wealth fund because he wants him to be happy. He does it because he is acting on behalf of the Qatari state.

Can people stop with this ‘mental gymnastics’ bullshit every time someone tries to make a point or ask a question please?

My thinking is that of course, the state would see the benefit of such ownership and encourage/support it. I believe both Qatar and Saudi both ling said they would offer support to private ownership. The contention is who ‘controls’ the club. Giving someone money to buy a football club because you feel that such a purchase is in your national interest still does not make you the owner.
 
Can people stop with this ‘mental gymnastics’ bullshit every time someone tries to make a point or ask a question please?
If the point is to somehow deny what is readily apparent and easily provable because it is a comfortable lie then no, we can't. If you don't want other people to describe your posts as mental gymnastics then the solution is to avoid logical fallacies which make it easier to reconcile what is with what your conscience wants it to be.
 
If the point is to somehow deny what is readily apparent and easily provable because it is a comfortable lie then no, we can't. If you don't want other people to describe your posts as mental gymnastics then the solution is to avoid logical fallacies which make it easier to reconcile what is with what your conscience wants it to be.

Oh clear off.
 
I'm sorry if you dislike it, but I have absolutely no intention of "clearing off" when this sort of stuff is being pedalled.

‘Being pedalled’. You’re so far in your own thinking that you are painting someone pointing out a simple and factual distinction between funding something and owning it as ‘fallacy’. What I said is factual. Is this supposed to be some sort of exposé to show that person A cannot be the owner of something because he didn’t have the money to buy it himself? Again, that is simply and factually not how ownership works.

Now there are a bunch of alternative and hypothetical scenarios of which you of course believe, and may well be true - but none of them affect the legalese of whether or not person A can own something, and in matters of this nature, it is a question of legalese. And again, there’s obviously a very obvious state benefit here - hence the state declaring that they will support private sector bids. Governments subsidising projects that they feel align with their interests does not by default make them owners. I don’t think Qatar have ever made secret of their support for the bid, so I’m not sure what the tweets were meant to uncover is all.

What you have simplified/dismissed as ‘mental gymnastics’ will likely be an open and shut motion by successful lawyers over the coming month or two which will almost certainly hold up for the reasons I have just given.
 
Firstly I would like to say thank you for such an informative post. Insha'Allah, once the dust is settled and the Qataris have won I can already envisage a TIFO esque video that will breakdown the hierarchy about who owns what etc. As of right now my head is spinning with the multiple abbreviated names but the signs are promising. This will take us back to the to the top and I am honestly buzzing. Have been since Keegans first tweet regarding this. This alongside the Mason Greenwood news has been very promising and that I hope that under the new ownership, they bring him back into the fold. But out of the two, if I could only pick one it would be to the Qataris

I just died a little inside, reading this.
 
I’m not sure this stuff is the potent point that journos are trying to make it out to be. The money is not the ownership. So what if ‘the state’ pays for it? If my mother gives me money to buy a house that does not mean that I am not the owner. And if there is legislation stating that my mother can only own one house, her giving me money to buy one for myself isn’t some sort of scam.

State ownership is state ownership. State funded is a different matter. Some may see it as a small detail, but it’s not an insignificant distinction. If a Sheikh’s dad wants to give him money to buy a football club then he’s a lucky Sheikh. But his Dad paying for it does not make his dad the owner by default.

Correct, that wouldn't be some sort of scam. Which is why you would have zero issue telling everyone that your mother gave you the money for the house. And if the bank wanted proof of funds, you'd happily be able to show them all the details of your mother giving you that money, with complete transparency.

Will we get the same degree of financial transparency in this case, with our prospective owner happily admitting that his bid is being financed by the state? The early claims that this comes from "private wealth" suggest not. And for good reason, as they are trying to circumvent regulations around football club ownership that don't apply to your imagined house purchase.

Because if you ever did find yourself in a position where in attempting to buy a house you had to lie about where the money financing the deal was coming from, that would typically be an indication that you are committing fraud.