I think we just disagree on that mate, from what I've heard over the years most people didn't have a clue what they were voting for. But fair enough it's a topic I'd be willing to discuss somewhere else but I don't want to bog this thread down.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I think we just disagree on that mate, from what I've heard over the years most people didn't have a clue what they were voting for. But fair enough it's a topic I'd be willing to discuss somewhere else but I don't want to bog this thread down.
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.
Logic suggests he would clear the debt because it’s a noose around the club’s neck and logic would suggest he/they wants to take the club private to avoid having to publish financials.
There’s a bunch of unknowns, deciding not to clear the debt would be a red flag but it’s just negative conjecture to suggest they won’t when they have said that’s what they want to do.
No it’s the magazine
Or he's stating the obvious
I haven't suggested they won't and my point is it's odd not to scrutinise such massive financial pledges when the person who's pledging claims they are not backed up by state wealth and has finite financial resources. What if he's a private individual and only has the cash to buy 69% of the club and doesn't have the funds to clear the debt, buy 100% or adequately invest?
Highly unlikely you would think but there are no reliable estimates as to what this guy's net worth actually is, where his money is tied up and what his reputation is like for maintaining pledges.
What's the full context for him saying those things though? How can it be immoral and borderline illegal? In their demands? In the way the bidders have been treated? In what's on offer?
Do know what Qatar got its money from?
There's a miniscule amount of people that hope INEOS see off Qatar that try to defend their environmental record, these people can safely be written off as daft. Most of it is just misguided whataboutism from the Qanons. The only sensible discussion from a Qatar supporter over the last few pages has come from @Giggsyking, who someone can disagree with but see an honest opinion that's worth considering and debating. The rest is just lunacy and it's so disappointing.
I don’t think anyone is really arguing it’s not a state bid are they?
Even the supposedly pro-Qatar camp are honest enough to admit that this is by all intents and purposes a state backed bid, just designed to satisfy the regulations. Let’s be honest the UK government isn’t going to block it while they are working closely with Qatar on trade.
I don’t know mate, like I said I haven’t read it myself.
Potentially big day on the third Wednesday in June
So he is suggesting that US stock exchange rules are immoral and borderline illegal?
Oh, fair enough.
I think the ones not all there are the ones calling him petty insults. I’ve not gone through his entire Twitter, but his replies to insults seem reasonable.
Well really we know the flag represents Jassim’s bid not the country.Imagine whoring yourself out for free to a country that isn't yours in the name of football
Braindead.
Can’t deny this is true. I know people will attack his character and not his argument. That alone says a lot.
Jassim himself is arguing it. Why would he if it isn't true and nobody believes him?
But in general it is assumed by most that he is most likely a puppet for the state of Qatar but some have expressed doubt and say there is a conceivable chance he is legitimately a private citizen making a bid with no direction from the state. There is at least some doubt surrounding the bid because details are murky.
That snippet in itself is interesting. I was assuming that the article would be of those are the things he’s suggesting.
What an absolute load of shite. He's inventing an argument about something that hasn't happened with zero evidence. These baseless accusations of racism need to stop.
I've said this before, but when I look at Jassim, his eyes are way too close together..he has an untrustworthy face. Ratcliffe looks like some sort of terrahawk, so I can't really get a read on his unironed face..
Don't get me wrong, Qatar are just as bad. However you will not many people willing to throw around this amount of money who on the correct side of most peoples moral sensibilties.
How ever what i would say is that Jim and his model, is just Glazers 2.0. The debt is still there, he's bankrolled by banks and creditors and will probably leverage more debt onto us and i will very much doubt we'll see the investment needed in the stadium, training ground or anything around the ground. Where as with Qatar, the debt will be wiped out and we'll see quick and big investment into the faciltieis and even Manchester itself.
I’ve heard rumours that they are interested in purchasing some or all of Manchester Airport. I believe they have some stake in Heathrow already
Untrue. If it's not a state bid it will be owed to his investors.
Quite plausible that eventually it becomes state owned after they sell off PSG entirely.
Don’t think it’s racism. But it’s true at each stage. If 1) the bid proposals were reversed everyone would be laughing at Jassim’s bid and applauding Jim for no debt, investing in women’s team (strangely ignored) investing in stadium & training ground and local area.
2) If Jassim was the one offering to keep the glazers I guarantee you almost everyone who doesn’t find it a problem because it’s Jim would use it against Jassim
It's clear Qatar have more money than INEOS and I will still be suprised if they don't end up as eventual buyers. Most if not all of this thread is recycled nonsense generated by Raine to up the price.
The really interesting question is who would run the club better. The Qataris have a track record at PSG of turning football into a vulgar PR exercise, buying wrong players and hiring wrong managers for the wrong reasons. INEOS aren't much better but with less to go on at a big club. INEOS seem slightly less likely to destabilise EtH for bad reasons but will put in less money. I'm really not sure who I prefer even ignoring the medieval anti-semitic police state thing (which tbh most people will after five minutes.)
The really interesting question is who would run the club better. The Qataris have a track record at PSG of turning football into a vulgar PR exercise, buying wrong players and hiring wrong managers for the wrong reasons. INEOS aren't much better but with less to go on at a big club. INEOS seem slightly less likely to destabilise EtH for bad reasons but will put in less money. I'm really not sure who I prefer even ignoring the medieval anti-semitic police state thing (which tbh most people will after five minutes.)
Indeed.
Totally agree
How are you making this post with such certainty? Absolutely ridiculous, not that it makes a difference to the whole outcome but still.
Is the Chelsea consortium expecting to make a quick buck?
The amount of made-up logic in the face of actual statements made by the Qatar bid is ridiculous. Whereas we have people pushing Ratcliffe when he's said he'll keep the debt and apparently can only win by keeping the Glazers.
If he has a consortium of private investors in Qatar, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect them to just be giving their money to United for nothing.
I heard a lot of the things getting put out there are from INEOS and not Raine. No way of verifying this though. Just a rumour.
The problem with Jassim isn't his passport, it's the passports of all the people his government have taken from migrant workers, a government he'd be 'owning' the club on behalf of and who would be the source of they money.
It's not about passports. You're being disingenuous or you just don't pay any attention to those who are against the Qatar bid are saying.
The point is that you can make money in multiple ways.
They might see United as a gateway to Manchester and plan to make the big bucks based on asset appreciation, same as Chelsea.
This would mean massive money for United, so who cares if he's got private investors. I personally think it's Qatar-sponsored but not fully backed.
So are fans giddy about Jassim's personal wealth or Qatar's? Let's not lie to ourselves here.
Regardless it would be equally as braindead. Imagine fans holding up an American flag to support Bohley or a Union Jack for Ratcliffe
Quite the funny the amount of hoops people go through to not admit they want a petrostate as a sugar daddy. Ratcliffe is just a convenient scapegoat at this point.
The west has caused so much havoc in so many parts of the world so we do not have the right to tell others who be righteous.
I don't think it has anything to do with racism or passports either. I am just so fed up with this moral highground towards these countries.
I must be bored...
1. Goldbridge is a toxic cnut who is an embarrassment to the club.
2. A few people probably see JR as some kind of hero/saviour. A few probably feel that way about SJ. Most are in between. Making stupid arguments against the extremes is what idiots like him do.
3. Goldbridge is a cnut.
4. While a few people might judge the quality of the candidates on their race, they can safely be ignored because they're racist.
5. Being from Qatar, in this instance, is a relevant factor. Especially considering that there's big doubts about who the money belongs to. And given the last 15 years of football's acquiescence to state oil money and rampant rule breaking.
6. Goldbridge videos lower the national I.Q. and should be banned from the universe.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get my drift by now. Even on the odd accasion he's right(I'm guessing there have been a few), there's still little point watching his videos, and sharing them for others to suffer is almost barbaric.
I have no preference between the two, by the way. They both look like terrible potential owners.
Oh the agony. The desperate agony!
We're agin' here! We're agin' here!
We're agin' here! We're agin' here!
- Status