“The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think.” — Captain PicardDon’t know if this isOr
.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Well that’s just great. Absolute waste of time this third round, and now our summer is under threat. The parasites need to cede control to INEOS asap!
If he was doing business with putin right now would you still want him in? Sure there are degrees of morally unacceptable, but given that we're currently owned by shitty but not particularly morally compromised owners, why don't you want the Glazers to stay instead of getting Jim in.
This is some arsenal fan type rationalisation "yeah I know we plastered emirates all of our stadium in the middle of London and visit rwanda on our shirts that millions of people see every week but that isn't really sportswashing"
Whoever thought this might be completed before the Summer needed their heads checked in any case.
A lot of that will be the “paperwork” though won’t it?
Hypothetically, you’d think the club could still sign players, as it’s unlikely to affect the Glazers or the price they get once they’ve agreed a deal
Delaney knows nothing and summer is like three weeks away?
Weren't you telling everyone like 2 weeks ago that the Glazers were staying and the only thing they'd accept was selling a minority stake to an American firm?
I think we can steer clear of your predictions
I have been protesting against the Glazers for a long time as they have directly put my club under threat and ultimately their policies stopped me and my dad getting my season tickets after they changed the way season tickets work.
Ultimately, morally - I don’t care about Jim or the Glazers. Much of a muchness to me and I’ll love United no matter. Tbf - I don’t really care if Jim or the Glazers are in charge next year.
In terms of this summer's transfer window the impact either new owner could have at this point is extremely limited. We just need things to be in a place where the Glazers and chosen new owner are happy to give a green light to the club's current transfer plans, even if the deal itself isn't complete.
That's fair enough, but I'm sure some parents in say Qatar or Saudi might legitimately feel differently, given the danger their son or daughter would face later in life.
Do you think the money from Qatar is a gift? It will be funded by investors, if it is not funded by the state which is a whole different can of worms.
If Sheikh Jassim is a private investor then he will be using money from other private investors, as he doesn't have the money himself. Qatar are not doing this for philanthropy, there will be investor lead motives, maybe the land around Old Trafford, maybe the opportunities in Manchester or the UK, maybe sportwashing. Who knows.
This whole conversation around Ineos, debt etc completely ignores there are equally as many question marks (if not more, since Qatari net worths appear to be a mystery, as does the source of the money).
People really need to take the blinkers off and realise that the umlimited pots of gold offered by Sheikh Jassim will also come with conditions. It is not a case of free money vs guaranteed debt.
This is a spot on point. Take the Russian gas situation. Boycotting it has caused the price of gas to increase massively putting millions of families into fuel poverty.
It was the right thing to do but it has caused misery to tens of millions across Europe.
Has Ratcliff mentioned anything about what he is going to do about our stadium?
He finally said it
Excellent post. I expect most will ignore it. Sadly:
“In critical moments, men sometimes see exactly what they wish to see.” — Spock
I think this is a misconception based on reading Ratcliffe's net worth on paper and assuming that's how much money we'd have. We wouldn't. Not even close.
For example the Glazers have an on paper wealth of about $4bn but because an on paper estimate isn't the same as having that money, they still need to sell as they can't afford to keep us any longer.
The vast majority of his wealth is tied up in the speculated value of Ineos. In the same way someone's nan who can't afford her heating bill has a "wealth" of £325,000 because that's how much the house she bought in 1963 is worth today, on paper. That company is far more valuable and profitable to him than Manchester United will ever be. So he isn't going to divert money from that Ineos to us. Chemical companies need constant investment. He isn't going to risk the survival of that company by siphoning its revenue to a football club.
In reality most or maybe even all of the money he would pay will come from borrowing and financing. Ineos itself has billions of dollars worth of debt with the current agreement being that non interest payments are due in 2026, where he'll likely refinance again.
I've no issue with that, to be honest I never really had an issue with the Glazers doing it. But we really need to put to bed this idea with Ratcliffe we're not going to continue the current status quo of having to be self sufficient whilst club money goes into paying for the privilege of being owned by someone
It’s like the shitty bid just gets worse and worse. First it was a complete offer….then we find out the Glazers are staying on…..now it won’t be done for the summer?
Shambles as usual
Naw, dude, the problem is those against Qatari ownership can't shut the f up about how those in favor are awful.
Some of this thread reads like the 2016 US elections bashing any Trump supporter as being morally decrepit. I mean, your immediate following statement is very much the same virtue signaling nonsense. Surprised you haven't just outright called those who prefer the Qatar bid as deplorables.
Last edited:
I get that, of course they would have concerns for their kids safety - but that should reflect on the rules and laws of that country and social attitudes of the population, it shouldn’t determine whether somebody can be gay or not. A modern tolerant society shouldn’t judge somebody by their sexuality - and the message sent by supporting the Qatari regime (for example) is the opposite of that. It says that the persecution of these people who are just living their life and loving another human is acceptable which it definitely is not.
That's odd, that your morals don't even indicate a preference between a guy who thinks profits are more important than gay rights, and owners that are just shitty football owners. Are your season tickets more important than gay people being killed? I only ask because you've been so sanctimonious towards everyone else, it's strange that you're OK with Jim, a guy who does billions of dollars of business with these regimes, yet spend time digging through the post histories of anyone who wants Qatar to buy their club
Strange post.
I said that I believe Joel and Avram Glazer don't want to leave and will stay, and some form of minority investment structure will be agreed. Thus far I've been FAR more accurate than probably anyone else on this thread who was willing to stick their head above the parapet.
Yep, definitely INEOS at fault here. Pin it on Jim.
It's totally foolish. I have never made a moral argument against Qatar, but it's silly to compare the perpetrator of crimes to a person who does business with that perpetrator.
I mean - if you can’t see the difference you simply can’t see the difference. I guess that’s where we are different.
Very well said. Excellent post.
I mean….
Scenario
Obviously, all the Glazer children need to agree on the sale, full or partial.
Therefore, they must have agreed that the SJR bid was the best for them financially.
However if SJ gives each of them another 10 million+ then he may become the preferred bidder.
Avram and Joel would be pushed up into accepting that higher bid?
I think this still has some distance to run, unless SJ withdraws.
Obviously, all the Glazer children need to agree on the sale, full or partial.
Therefore, they must have agreed that the SJR bid was the best for them financially.
However if SJ gives each of them another 10 million+ then he may become the preferred bidder.
Avram and Joel would be pushed up into accepting that higher bid?
I think this still has some distance to run, unless SJ withdraws.
Delaney is just an anti-United troll that knows exactly how to piss of United fans.
He’ll have this article shoved in his face in a few weeks time and won’t respond to anyone calling out his bullshit “journalism”
Just when you think the thread can't get dafter......
Insulting another member
Well there is a difference, but someone like you who's said they'd stop supporting us if Qatar took over, and spend time digging through the post histories of anyone supportive of Qatar, and sanctimonious lecturing people on what wanting Qatar as owners means, should find a man who does billions of dollars of business with a worse regime totally unfit to own our club either. Someone who was less of a smug prick to everyone in this thread wouldn't need to adhere to such rigid standards
It really is the thread that keeps giving
If Qatar don't come in with a higher bid, it might not take that long ‐ sounds like that is what would complicate it.
Haha I think I know what you're thinking. I've found it interesting that a larger portion of the country that previously voted for Obama, twice, would then switch to Trump if they were as evil as being portrayed. Or maybe there just needed to be a less aggressive discussion to be able to come together.
In any case, you have a point if you look at national elections being really impactful on all those issues. So maybe the stance was important and meaningful.
Doing do so here, with United's ownership? Not even close to.
If you want to tar those who support Qatar ownership with the same brush as those who supported Donald Trump, I don't think any of the anti-Qatar posters will object.
Spot on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Some are so jealous of City and want to be them so much, that they have deluded themselves into believing Qatar has a bank vault of cash they willing to spend on United out of the goodness of their hearts. They are living in Fantasyland.
Yeah of course, I agree with all of that, but it unfortunately reflects the world we live in. I'm living in a developed country but it doesn't recognise gay marriage, so gay people's partners aren't given visas, access to social housing as a couple is unavailable etc...
Anyway I won't derail the thread, just saying you can think that way coming from a good place rather than a bad one.
He's debating with you quite reasonably, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to do the same.
- Status