An intro to the Qatar bidders

[Dion]

‘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.

Again, this is mental gymnastics. The ability to prove something to be legally true means absolutely nothing on an ethical level, which is fundamentally the one Nick Harris is operating on and the one you're trying to convince people on. Nobody doubts that legally Qatar will be able to push this through, City pushed their legal troubles away, we've seen first hand how a case can disappear without being untrue.

Trying to imply that we are not state owned because the state can give someone money to buy it is the height of mental gymnastics. The state is not his mother, the state acts in it's own interest. You don't get to spend £5bn of the states money without them being the controlling interest. When you get a loan you pay interest, when you get a "gift" you pay in control. Nothing about the state apparatus of Qatar makes it possible for an individual to do this without being under complete control of the state, we'll be state owned exactly like PSG are. A state actor funded by state money running the club for the benefit of the state. Your mother doesn't come into it.

 

[Rozay]

Again, this is mental gymnastics. The ability to prove something to be legally true means absolutely nothing on an ethical level, which is fundamentally the one you're trying to convince people on. Nobody doubts that legally Qatar will be able to push this through, City pushed their legal troubles away, we've seen first hand how a case can disappear without being untrue.

Trying to imply that we are not state owned because the state can give someone money to buy it is the height of mental gymnastics. The state is not his mother, the state acts in it's own interest. You don't get to spend £5bn of the states money without them being the controlling interest. Nothing about the state apparatus of Qatar makes it possible for an individual to do this without the state, we'll be state owned exactly like PSG are. A state actor funded by state money running the club for the benefit of the state. Your mother doesn't come into it.

Except it wasn’t.

 

[Dion]

Except it wasn’t.

Except it is, because you're criticising the position of Nick Harris, who explicitly was.

 

[Rozay]

Except it is, because you're criticising the position of Nick Harris, who explicitly was.

Except it wasn’t.

 

[Dion]

Except it wasn’t.

I'm sorry but obviously it was. He spent almost half of the twitter thread describing how disingenuous it was to pretend to have supported United as a child, at no point did he suggest the problem was a legal one. He even acknowledged that said state funding would be successful.

You cannot simply claim the sky is polka dot just because it being blue makes your argument unsound. The evidence is there for everyone else to read.

 

[Rozay]

Actually, reading the tweets back, I can see how they could be interpreted the other way too - that said, my response was with regards to Harris questioning his money.

 

[Dion]

@Dion How is this a ‘moral’ argument rather than a simple and direct challenge as to the legitimacy of the ownership of proposed Sheikh based upon an insinuation that he cannot afford it? Which is clearly what Harris’ argument is centred around. The Sheikh’s ability to legitimately afford the purchase himself. Upon which point I pointed out that him not having £5b spare doesn’t simply mean he cannot own the club. Not just him. It doesn’t mean that anyone cannot be the true owner because they don’t have £5b cash spare. Because - ownership isn’t as simple as that. Whatever else transpires from this takeover and any other ethical rabbit hole you may wish to forage down is different, I’ve made no attempt to get drawn into the ethics or Qatari ownership with you, there are plenty of conversations about that and I have seen you are quite active in them. Perhaps due to your strong feelings on them, you amalgamated my response to those tweets into this ethical debate - yet it had nothing yo do with it, and it isn’t a conversation I have any desire to engage in tonight.

It's a moral argument because he's explicitly not saying he cannot afford it. He literally says "I don’t doubt for a nanosecond he is capable of doing all he claims in terms of buying and funding Man Utd."

He makes the moral argument that he can afford it because he is a state actor. That he is a state actor is the problem Nick Harris is illustrating, not that he lacks access to funds.

You said "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. ", when this guy not being the legal owner of the club was never the problem Nick Harris was trying to raise. You wilfully ignore that the dynamic between a state actor and a state SWF is extraordinarily different from that of a mother and child. That relationship is the problematic factor Nick Harris is pointing out and it is an extremely potent one. State owned clubs are bad for everyone except those in control of said state.

Actually, reading the tweets back, I can see how they could be interpreted the other way too - that said, my response was with regards to Harris questioning his money.

Sure, we all misread things from time to time, but just to be clear. Harris isn't doubting the money is there, he's highlighting the extremely problematic source of that money and what it means for United and football.

 

[No Love]

He thinks he’s cute. He knows he’s sexy.

 

[Rozay]

It's a moral argument because he's explicitly not saying he cannot afford it. He literally says "I don’t doubt for a nanosecond he is capable of doing all he claims in terms of buying and funding Man Utd."

He makes the moral argument that he can afford it because he is a state actor. That he is a state actor is the problem Nick Harris is illustrating, not that he lacks access to funds.

You said "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. ", when this guy not being the legal owner of the club was never the problem Nick Harris was trying to raise. You wilfully ignore that the dynamic between a state actor and a state SWF is extraordinarily different from that of a mother and child. That relationship is the problematic factor Nick Harris is pointing out and it is an extremely potent one. State owned clubs are bad for everyone except those in control of said state.

While I agree that I read it differently first time, I don’t think what you have said changes my point tbh. Him being able to afford it because the state funds it again does not mean that he is not the owner. So yes, Harris pointing out that it is ‘unlikely’ he earned £333m a year as a bank manager does not prove anything.

And I sort of agree that ‘state owned clubs are bad’ - but even that is almost an irrelevant point at this stage. We already have state owned clubs, so clearly they are not banned. I think they are ‘bad’ because of the financial disparities - but unless you are going to kick the existing ones out, then you can’t say you two can have state owners, and nobody else can.

Obviously, the relationship between mother and son is not the same. I can’t exactly use the relationship between individual and state as my point of comparison - but the point about ownership still stands. Governments subsidise all kinds of things that they feel would benefit the country. Whatever the Qataris have planned is not even my point. It was simply a statement that Harris’ tweets do not mean that the Sheikh cannot be the owner of Manchester United. He may not be once it is all in motion, but not ‘because’ of what he has uncovered. I was pointing out to Harris that it is possible in theory for the state to fund a purchase because they feel that it aligns with their interests. I had no desire for any sort of deep dive, we’re all just hypothesising, and as far as gymnastics go, it wouldn’t take more than a simple roly poly to point out that being financed by the government doesn’t mean you cannot own something. It doesn’t mean that he will either, I was simply pointing out that it is not a requirement of ownership to have paid for something yourself.

 

[Dion]

While I agree that I read it differently first time, I don’t think what you have said changes my point tbh. Him being able to afford it because the state funds it again does not mean that he is not the owner. So yes, Harris pointing out that it is ‘unlikely’ he earned £333m a year as a bank manager does not prove anything.

Except his proposition was never that he was not the owner in a legal sense. It was that he was the owner because he was gifted that money by the state under the condition that he act on the states behalf. This makes him a state actor using state funds.

It being fundamentally impossible for him to buy United without the states help is by definition proof that he is state backed, meaning the club is state owned. This is a topic Harris has long had issue with and which is the problem he was highlighting.

 

[Rozay]

Except his proposition was never that he was not the owner in a legal sense. It was that he was the owner because he was gifted that money by the state under the condition that he act on the states behalf. This makes him a state actor using state funds.

It being fundamentally impossible for him to buy United without the states help is by definition proof that he is state backed, meaning the club is state owned. This is a topic Harris has long had issue with and which is the problem he was highlighting.

Clearly, I’ve stepped into your world with my comments and it’s something that both yourself and Nick Harris have long standing views on, and I respect that you do. But I can assure you, there were no gymnastics on my part because I am frankly not invested in the ethics of Qatar nearly enough to even feel the need to be conflicted by a hypothetical purchase. I couldn’t care less. That is not me trying to engineer a scenario where they are I dunno, ‘the good guys’ so that I can be comfortable with them owning United - they can be exactly what you say they are and I still wouldn’t care so I’m not the person to accuse of trying to twist narratives to suit fallacies.

I don’t even care if they win, I don’t care if SJR wins, and I did not hate the Glazers personally either. So I have no particular skin in the game, I’m a London Red, Manchester United exist in my television and the owner of the club has always been totally inconsequential in my engagement with it. I’m sure the working theory is that some are desperate for Qataris to come and buy us loads of players, however, I’m sure whoever bought us would spend money and very little would change there.

You made a connection in your post in that you have joined the dots between state funded and state controlled. All I’ve said is that even if this MIGHT be the case, this isn’t NECESSARILY the case. I can only say that factually speaking, they aren’t the same thing. You have quite a lot to go on in terms of a working theory, but then you just kind of skipped to the end and drew your own conclusion by saying ‘It being fundamentally impossible for him to buy United without the states help is by definition proof that he is state backed, meaning the club is state owned.’ Which is simply not true, because that is NOT what it means. It might mean that because it may be the nature of this specific agreement, but you cannot know that and it doesn’t have to mean that either. What I’ve done with that sentence is highlighted the difference in meaning between state owned and state backed. You just concluded it all yourself, and I’d say prematurely, even if likely or probable. But that isn’t ‘what it means’.

 

[Dion]

You made a connection in your post in that you have joined the dots between state funded and state controlled. All I’ve said is that even if this MIGHT be the case, this isn’t NECESSARILY the case. I can only say that factually speaking, they aren’t the same thing. You have quite a lot to go on in terms of a working theory, but then you just kind of skipped to the end and drew your own conclusion by saying ‘It being fundamentally impossible for him to buy United without the states help is by definition proof that he is state backed, meaning the club is state owned.’ Which is simply not true, because that is NOT what it means. It might mean that because it may be the nature of this specific agreement, but you cannot know that and it doesn’t have to mean that either. What I’ve done with that sentence is highlighted the difference in meaning between state owned and state backed. You just concluded it all yourself, and I’d say prematurely, even if likely or probable. But that isn’t ‘what it means’.

And this is the mental gymnastics. It's wishful thinking. It's whatever description of ignoring the reality of the world around you to accept a comfortable lie.

I'm quite done with this, if the best argument you have against Harris' is that just because he's been given £5b by the Qatari state doesn't mean the Qatari state doesn't expect control over that investment then frankly Harris has comfortably won.