Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
cyberman said:
It’s not our debt, it’s the Galzers debt thrown on our club
All I was doing was answering why it’s different than Newcastle and Citys debt, isn’t that the difference or am involved in some pedantic fever dream here?
Click to expand...

My phone keeps changing them to this and I'm going to stop correcting it from now on.

Feck the Galzers!
 
King7Eric said:
I don't have a dog in this either way, as I'm neither pro SJR or Jassim, but I don't get this argument that's constantly made here.

When someone points out UK or US benefitted greatly from oppressive practices as well, people just say the UK or US govt isn't bidding. Well that's because the capitalist practices in those countries built on back of the oppression allowed for wealth to filter through to private organizations. In case of ME they are not yet at that stage. So basically you are saying it's okay for an organization to benefit from atrocities as long as there is a hundred or so year gap between them?

Similarly, if there is a genuinely nice person in a Qatari or ME family who genuinely wants the welfare of the club, he shouldn't buy it because not enough time has passed since his family committed those atrocities?
Click to expand...

Either the bid results in ownership by a state or a private individual. These are the two scenarios. I would have issues with United being owned by a state that I wouldn't have if it was privately owned. Even more so if that state is responsible for grievous human rights abuses that continue while this state is acting as the owner of Manchester United. I can't spell it out any clearer than this. Surely you can understand what I'm saying here?
 
Blood Mage said:
We have actual history and weight to our shirt? This is the club of George Best, Bobby Charlton, Roy Keane and the club where Cristiano Ronaldo became the world's best player. We won 20 league titles and 3 european cups while spending our own money. It's disingenuous to suggest that we're in any way comparable to City, PSG and Newcastle.
Click to expand...
Does having 20 league titles give us the right to get to the top again using a brutal state regime knowing fully that we're not in desperate need and can be competitive even next season?
 
Dan_F said:
And? I think speak for the vast majority that don’t want Qatar when I say that I don’t like the UK government’s relationship with those countries either.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I understand the basic justification that having trade relationships prevents conflicts, but when that trade is oil for guns essentially, it's not great.

If we started dealing exclusively in oil for JD and Sports Direct stores it wouldn't be so bad, but then the gulf states would probably start a conflict with us. Instead of sending them weapons, we send them the gear to look like weapons.
 
Dan_F said:
And? I think speak for the vast majority that don’t want Qatar when I say that I don’t like the UK government’s relationship with those countries either.
Click to expand...

Would that be the vast majority that votes for parties in the general election in the UK? Because if the 'vast majority' cared so much, they'd vote for the Greens. Obviously, they don't.

And this whole thing about mental gymnastics is literally people who are ignorant (willfully or not) of history and how their democratic countries got to where they are today.

It's a similar argument to global warming. People point the finger at China, meanwhile they produce all the goods bought in Western countries who then come out looking squeaky clean out of all this (Germany are huge leaders in hypocrisy in this area).

The Western countries basically went through their industrialisation phase and now want to raise the bridge behind them.
 
King7Eric said:
I don't have a dog in this either way, as I'm neither pro SJR or Jassim, but I don't get this argument that's constantly made here.

When someone points out UK or US benefitted greatly from oppressive practices as well, people just say the UK or US govt isn't bidding. Well that's because the capitalist practices in those countries built on back of the oppression allowed for wealth to filter through to private organizations. In case of ME they are not yet at that stage. So basically you are saying it's okay for an organization to benefit from atrocities as long as there is a hundred or so year gap between them?

Similarly, if there is a genuinely nice person in a Qatari or ME family who genuinely wants the welfare of the club, he shouldn't buy it because not enough time has passed since his family committed those atrocities?
Click to expand...
Surely, we're not this naive? It's like believing everything said about Saudis not being in charge at Newcastle.
 
Why can’t some of you accept that some want Jassim and some don’t? There is no “right or wrong” with all of this.

I just want the Glazers to sell and the debt and Utd to have their own money again.
 
Mr. Robot said:
Why can’t some of you accept that some want Qatar and some don’t? There is no “right or wrong” with all of this.

I just want the Glazers to sell and the debt and Utd to have their own money again.
Click to expand...
I just changed a word in your post and here's the problem in front of you. It's not about just accepting while one of the two is clearly against what the ideology of the club and fans.
 
King7Eric said:
I don't have a dog in this either way, as I'm neither pro SJR or Jassim, but I don't get this argument that's constantly made here.

When someone points out UK or US benefitted greatly from oppressive practices as well, people just say the UK or US govt isn't bidding. Well that's because the capitalist practices in those countries built on back of the oppression allowed for wealth to filter through to private organizations. In case of ME they are not yet at that stage. So basically you are saying it's okay for an organization to benefit from atrocities as long as there is a hundred or so year gap between them?

Similarly, if there is a genuinely nice person in a Qatari or ME family who genuinely wants the welfare of the club, he shouldn't buy it because not enough time has passed since his family committed those atrocities?
Click to expand...
That's an extremely superficial take.
 
Mr. Robot said:
Why can’t some of you accept that some want Jassim and some don’t? There is no “right or wrong” with all of this.

I just want the Glazers to sell and the debt and Utd to have their own money again.
Click to expand...

Accepting people want something is not the same as accepting that something.

People want iPhones but I'll be damned if I accept iPhones as acceptable communication devices.
 
Where does the moral outrage end though? No Qatar due to their records on HR and that's fair enough but then no to Adidas and Nike as kit manufacturers due to their use of slave labour?

Where there is money of this magnitude involved then the unsavoury characters all come out of the woodwork.
 
Haven't been keeping an extremely close eye on what's happening but the Ratcliffe bid is the highest one yet but the Glazers will still remain in the club is what I read today, where INEOS owns 50% of the club and has also additionally promised to pony up the 800mn pounds - the figure I read - that will be required to overhaul the infrastructure and stadium. Jassim's bid is at 5bn and involves outright ownership of the club with the Glazers out of the picture while also similarly promising to overhaul the club infrastructure. Would that be an accurate summary at this point?
 
Marcelinho87 said:
Where does the moral outrage end though? No Qatar due to their records on HR and that's fair enough but then no to Adidas and Nike as kit manufacturers due to their use of slave labour?

Where there is money of this magnitude involved then the unsavoury characters all come out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...
Slavery is fine as long as it's a private entperise, apparently.
 
7even said:
When I bought my first house over 30 years ago I needed a loan from my local bank. To help me the bank technically needed a loan from my country’s federal reserve. So who’s the real owner of my house? Me, the bank or the people in charge of the federal reserve?

The NTF will be the legal buyer of MU. SJ will be in charge but the majority of the funds will probably come from the Qatars equivalent of the federal reserve, or maybe some foreign investment bank.

So many of you throw the word “state owned” around in a negative sense without knowledge of the power structure of the NTF or if the Qatari government is involved.

I don’t know that either but that’s why I prefer to see SJ as a private investor using all tools available to him to succeed. What else?

I don’t think for one second that the Emir of Qatar has any saying in how SJ is running MU as long as it don’t give the nation of Qatar badwill or affect their economy. Why would he?

So in that sense both SJR and SJ are equal because they both have to run United as good as they can otherwise it will affect their personal wealth and personal reputation. Their legacy. Maybe, and I just say maybe that both has a desire to take United back to their former glory.

As a by product we can argue that they will both benefit of sport/greenwashing. Is that their main goal or is it to show the world that United under their leadership can be successful and that satisfaction is their main driving force?

Qatar has a long way to go to become a modern society with equal rights for all people. A young man born in Qatar but educated in GB probably know that more then anyone. We have no idea what his thoughts are about the way his country is run. Maybe he has ideas how to develop equality and human rights, maybe not. Maybe showing the world by investing funds and passion in United’s women’s team is his way of showing progress.

I don’t know but I prefer to be optimistic and believe the best instead of the opposite. Because then nothing changes. Being naive and hopeful is in my world a much more pleasant then to cancel everything I don’t like. Cancel culture is a bad way of expecting progress and a behavior I don’t like.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you've been sportswashed!

The point isn't if the Emir is making the decisions on who to buy, the point is that the club would be a tool of their foreign policy.
 
Have the Glazers even confirmed what their intentions are in terms of are they seeking a full sale or would rather opt for the minority investment?

Everyone just seems to be getting left in the dark and resorting to whataboutism
 
Scottynaldinho said:
Surely, we're not this naive? It's like believing everything said about Saudis not being in charge at Newcastle.
Click to expand...
You've totally missed the point. I don't care whether it's the state or an agent of theirs making the bid. My point is if the objection is solely against benefactors of oppression owning our club, then where do we draw the line? Don't tell me that the billionaires in the west haven't benefitted from the centuries of oppression that hoarded wealth to these parts. Sure they didn't personally have a hand in it but are we okay with them just because enough time has passed?

Or is the issue solely against being state owned? @Pogue Mahone this touches your point as well. Your issue is that you would not want Utd to be benefactors of a brutal regime while the regime owns us. But my point is if a benefactor of a previous brutal regime will own us, you would find it acceptable just because a long enough time has passed since their atrocities?

And I'm not trying to be surreptitious here. Like I said I don't think either ownership model is the right one, but I'm trying to understand what is the line that separates the acceptable from the unacceptable here.
 
King7Eric said:
You've totally missed the point. I don't care whether it's the state or an agent of theirs making the bid. My point is if the objection is solely against benefactors of oppression owning our club, then where do we draw the line? Don't tell me that the billionaires in the west haven't benefitted from the centuries of oppression that hoarded wealth to these parts. Sure they didn't personally have a hand in it but are we okay with them just because enough time has passed?

Or is the issue solely against being state owned? @Pogue Mahone this touches your point as well. Your issue is that you would not want Utd to be benefactors of a brutal regime while the regime owns us. But my point is if a benefactor of a previous brutal regime will own us, you would find it acceptable just because a long enough time has passed since their atrocities?

And I'm not trying to be surreptitious here. Like I said I don't think either ownership model is the right one, but I'm trying to understand what is the line that separates the acceptable from the unacceptable here.
Click to expand...

There is obviously a world of difference, morally, between an owner who has accumulated their wealth due to indirect benefit from historical human rights abuses by the country they live in and being owned by a country that actively and currently practices human rights abuses while also acting as owner of the club.

I know you’re just trying some sort of thought experiment but it really doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
 
groovyalbert said:
Whether it's SJR or Qatar, we just need this to hurry up really. It's clear that our rivals are advancing with plans for next season, and we're likely going to be playing catch up in the window.
Click to expand...

Yeah we can all agree this needs to get a move on
 
King7Eric said:
You've totally missed the point. I don't care whether it's the state or an agent of theirs making the bid. My point is if the objection is solely against benefactors of oppression owning our club, then where do we draw the line? Don't tell me that the billionaires in the west haven't benefitted from the centuries of oppression that hoarded wealth to these parts. Sure they didn't personally have a hand in it but are we okay with them just because enough time has passed?
Click to expand...
Very simple, anyone who is directly tied to the state, like state officials, members of the ruling family, or anyone who uses money from a state investment fund. Surely this isn't that difficult.
 
King7Eric said:
You've totally missed the point. I don't care whether it's the state or an agent of theirs making the bid. My point is if the objection is solely against benefactors of oppression owning our club, then where do we draw the line? Don't tell me that the billionaires in the west haven't benefitted from the centuries of oppression that hoarded wealth to these parts. Sure they didn't personally have a hand in it but are we okay with them just because enough time has passed?

Or is the issue solely against being state owned? @Pogue Mahone this touches your point as well. Your issue is that you would not want Utd to be benefactors of a brutal regime while the regime owns us. But my point is if a benefactor of a previous brutal regime will own us, you would find it acceptable just because a long enough time has passed since their atrocities?

And I'm not trying to be surreptitious here. Like I said I don't think either ownership model is the right one, but I'm trying to understand what is the line that separates the acceptable from the unacceptable here.
Click to expand...
I don't think you'll get an honest response to this, because that would involve people examining why they're willing to afford more legitimacy to an (extractive) private owner and conveniently not deal with immediate and second-order impacts of these organizations on our ecological and political system than they do to a model orientated around 'custodialism' for the sake of prestige or different levels of soft power, quite aside from the practical or pragmatic implications in terms of the club's sustainability as an institution. There are people who'd literally rather see the club fail than betray their sense of themselves as virtuous (where this virtue itself is based upon a set of exclusions).

Again, I don't see either of those as great compared to real fan ownership or the model of electing a club president but that isn't on the table. There are lots of people who consider themselves concerned or even 'progressive', let alone in some cases left-leaning, who still take 'for profit' ownership of institutions as a default and see its impacts as somehow more 'normal' . Added to that, in this case are potential issues around orientalism.

It's funny that people will sling terms like 'simplification and 'disingenuous' around when these are legitimate questions -around what constitutes the 'community' or public goods or public institution; what are the different kinds of violence in the world - which are covered at all levels, from school to high academic research in virtue ethics and public policy and political ideology. There's nothing 'silly' or bad faith about questioning people's premises and what they really mean when they start talking about what's 'right'
 
The moral high ground. Where the issues of a small country in the Middle East, far outweigh the environmental issues which can and will affect everybody in this thread and will affect their kids and grandchildren. Globally.

Make it make sense.

The Brexit Billionaire has to be laughing at this.
 
MiamiSpartan said:
Congratulations, you've been sportswashed!

The point isn't if the Emir is making the decisions on who to buy, the point is that the club would be a tool of their foreign policy.
Click to expand...


Thanks it feels good. As a white heterosexual elder man I can now add “sports washed” to my personal CV. Rich dumb and ignorant.

On a serious note why do you think the club would be a “tool of their foreign policy” in a negative way? Maybe the Emir also understand that his country needs to progress to follow the modern world. Maybe not. None of us know that and you take, rightly or wrongly, the negative angle and I maybe have a more positive view of the future.

Without trying to being patronizing maybe we have different experiences and therefore different perspectives what to expect?
 
Partridge said:
I believe we are currently at the "bidding for the changing room" stages. Once the bidding has been done, we move onto the manager's office. About another 10 rounds of bidding to go.
Click to expand...

cool - so it will be done by October I reckon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.