Ken Barlow
Full Member
Surprised Monaco Jim would be against the idea tbh.
What about cheating like the 100+ charges City are facing for cooking the books? In other words, if it isn't allowed, are you still ok with cheating?
Legally Qatar isn't going to be able to spend 500m+ per year like many (not necessarily you) are fantasizing about. The amount that Qatar and Ineos would be able to spend would be essentially the same.
We would probably become Monaco United if it saved him a few quid.Surprised Monaco Jim would be against the idea tbh.
I keep saying this too but for whatever reason most people don't want to engage with it.
Most of the top clubs these days spend right up to the FFP limit (including the Glazers!) on squad building because they know they have to in order to stay relevant because the competition is so fierce. It's basically a given.
Ratcliffe knows this and he essentially alluded to it in a recent long form interview.
He isn't going to buy a controlling share in the club only to kill it's competitiveness by limiting spend to well under the FFP allowance in order to pay off debt or help pay for the new infrastructure upgrades etc. It's totally illogical.
I can't really see any way in which the Qataris significantly outspend him unless they do so illegally.
I think in a practical sense, it comes down to who you trust to run the club in terms of decision making, not who will spend the most money.
Yeah you are probably right. Could be interesting from an academic point of view to study the rules regarding this particular subject. Also the company is registered in the Cayman Islands and listed on the NYSE. Would be interesting to know which set of rules would be applicable in the present circumstance.I think that in the company's articles of association there's a drag along clause that forces owners below a certain threshhold (presumably all other owners in this case) to sell if the majority shareholder sells, so that minority owners doesn't mess up mergers or sales like this.
Imagine you have a startup business today and you need someone to help you with something small but crucial, say something that'd be worth £3k. You don't have the money at the moment, or you have a cash flow issue (very common in the beginning), so you offer this person 0.5% of your business instead of money. 5 years later your business have boomed and an investor wants to buy your entire business for a huge amount of money, say £10 million. Now you don't want that person that helped with something that was worth £3k 5 years ago to stall the enitre sale because he or she believes your business will be worth even more later, or some other stupid reason. I am not sure how it works for companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange as I don't trade there, but in a non listed company you'd never take a small owner onboard without a drag along clause in the contracr or articles of association because of precisely this.
If you exclude personal/fanboy reasons for owning Manchester United and look at it from a pure business perspective, you're likely to get a really good deal here as minority owner. Usually the same deal as the majority shareholder. As the business of Manchester United is well established, the business is not likely to develop in a way that the majority shareholder could not forsee and thus this is reflected in their asking price, which you get a part of. Please see the link below.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dragalongrights.asp
I don't think Qatar whould say that they bid for 100% if this was not possible. They will presumably take it of the NYSE.
Valuations are usually per share and not for 100% or 69%. Then it needs to be multiplied with 69% of the total number of shares to get the Glazers family's share of the bid.
The problem is that this dilly dallying by the Glazers is going to cost us some good players being bought by other top PL teams.
We will lose out.
Look at yourselves.
Arguing about the population of middling French cities.
Stop the madness.
This is actually a very well made point however it’s not how much you spend, it’s the way you spend it and under the Glazers and in particular Ed Woodward, we’ve been the laughing boys of European Football, we’ve only sold Daniel James for a profit , Angel Di Maria and Romelu Lukaku for anywhere near what we paid for them or a and most of the players we’ve bought have been huge failures, only last summer can we say we had 2 huge successes, 1 moderate success and 2 players where the jury’s still out.What about cheating like the 100+ charges City are facing for cooking the books? In other words, if it isn't allowed, are you still ok with cheating?
Legally Qatar isn't going to be able to spend 500m+ per year like many (not necessarily you) are fantasizing about. The amount that Qatar and Ineos would be able to spend would be essentially the same.
It astounds me how many are seemingly willing to twerk for Jim all in the name of morality. The irony.
The absolute massive difference being that the Glazers first siphon off from that pot dividends to themselves and debt repayments. Then they have a figure they can allocate towards transfers.
so it’s not right to say they spend anything close to the FFP limit.
Whereas clubs like City have no such worries.
Id applaud FIFA/UEFA if they decided that all state owned club must be sold in exchange of a level playing field. But it ain't going to happen. Thus if 'cheating' is allowed then its not cheating at all. Thus I'd rather see my club benefiting of everything that football provide then being run 'responsibly' by people who relegated a Swiss club and who thought that signing the likes of Barkley, Ramsay, Schmeichel + involving cyclist man in football is a good idea.
Off topic but racism refers to more than race.
Can you ruin something once it has already been ruined though?
The horse has bolted as they say.
What I find harder to digest is posters who have spent years claiming City’s success is meaningless. Those are the ones who will struggle to stay consistent most if Qatar buys us.
They skipped dividends one year. This year. The year they are actually selling.It's not a massive difference at all. They haven't taken dividends out in a while and debt repayments amount to the price of an average fullback, ie. they are very small in the grand scheme of things.
Was that supposed to sound exactly like something Alan Partridge would say?
Or as per status quo United v Arsenal in LAFans will always change the narrative to fit their current agenda I suppose.
Personally I think this whole thing is bigger than just the Utd takeover. The league is in danger of totally getting away from itself now. Where does all this end?
UAE v Qatar v Saudi. It will be Kuwait and maybe Iran next up.
Mods, come on. At least tag him as a Glazer sympathiser, so people know what they're dealing with.It's not a massive difference at all. They haven't taken dividends out in a while and debt repayments amount to the price of an average fullback, ie. they are very small in the grand scheme of things.
That was the only way City could compete at the highest level and TBF apart from few exceptions (ex Manchester United, or Juventus post 2000s) its how football had been run since time immemorial. The Serie A glory days were down to owners pumping money into their clubs and we all know that Blackburn and Chelsea would have never competed otherwise. United itself was saved by John Henry Davies and four other investors who saved the club from bankruptcy.
I am pro Qatar because of three things. First of all, the offer is simply better. It entails no debt, a new stadium and a complete takeover which means that the Glazers will be out. By removing debt and by improving the infrastructure we would be able to spend more on other things. Also a rich owner would be more then willing to let 'assets' like Maguire leave on cheap/free which in turn would give us more room on offering salaries to better players instead.
Secondly INEOS had proven itself to be incompetent football owners. I am aware that Jassim has no football experience and PSG could be run better. However I'd rather rely on a passionate unknown rather then a proven incompetent man who thinks that its good idea to involve a cyclist man with a chequered reputation into football
Finally I very much doubt that the EPL would dare punishing the likes of Abu Dhabi, Saudi and Qatar. These states invest too much in the UK for the government to dare irking them
Not really. It's used in many incorrect ways to label and shoot down anyone who strays off the politically correct agenda at the moment however.
A racist is someone who believes that the human population can be categorised and classified into hierarchies based perceived biological differences, that it is very important to live by this taxonomy and (very importantly) that the races this person believes to be inferior can be exploited through such things as discrimination or antagonism.
It's very scary and it should be not dilluted with social constructivism. EG, as has been discussed in this thread before, being in favour or Brexit in order to stop a wage dump on low educated jobs and to protect access to public healthcare is not racism.
It isn’t really a dilemma for anyone looking at it logically.The reality is that nobody who can afford to spend 6 billion on buying a football club can afford it without being a bit of a C*nT
It's trying to decide who is the lesser of two evils that is the dilemma.
It won't happen as the legal fallout would be astronomical. There's every chance the PL won't be able to sanction City either for their infringements as the legal resources at their disposal could tie the PL in knots for years, if not decades. Not to mention the political pressure not to alienate a favoured ally. At most there will be a fine or a sentence that will be greatly reduced on appeal.
We're on page 1,344 now and these arguments have been going round in circles for months. You've all been here years so know the rules on not insulting others and the need to be careful when accusing others of racism.
Asking for calm, reasoned debate in this thread feels a forlorn hope. The guy in a Qatar flag is obviously a massive tit (assuming the pic on twitter I've seen was real), but was a minority of one and no doubt a thick, attention-seeking twat.
It won't happen as the legal fallout would be astronomical. There's every chance the PL won't be able to sanction City either for their infringements as the legal resources at their disposal could tie the PL in knots for years, if not decades. Not to mention the political pressure not to alienate a favoured ally. At most there will be a fine or a sentence that will be greatly reduced on appeal.
Yeah you are probably right. Could be interesting from an academic point of view to study the rules regarding this particular subject. Also the company is registered in the Cayman Islands and listed on the NYSE. Would be interesting to know which set of rules would be applicable in the present circumstance.
Just over a week ago there were people who struggle to feed their kids lining the streets twerking for a man in a golden carriage. Sometimes, morality takes a backseat to the dance of circumstance.It astounds me how many are seemingly willing to twerk for Jim all in the name of morality. The irony.
I wasn’t aware this account was supposed to be real
Look at yourselves.
Arguing about the population of middling French cities.
Stop the madness.
Yes, really. Whether you like it or not(and I personally don't like it), racism extends beyond race, there is a recognized overlap between for example racism and xenophobia. The meaning of these terms is more nuanced than you think.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/xenophobia-and-racism-difference
Not really. It's used in many incorrect ways to label and shoot down anyone who strays off the politically correct agenda at the moment however.
A racist is someone who believes that the human population can be categorised and classified into hierarchies based perceived biological differences, that it is very important to live by this taxonomy and (very importantly) that the races this person believes to be inferior can be exploited through such things as discrimination or antagonism.
It's very scary and it should be not dilluted with social constructivism. EG, as has been discussed in this thread before, being in favour or Brexit in order to stop a wage dump on low educated jobs and to protect access to public healthcare is not racism.
Be very interesting to see their reactions if Qatar do a similar deal and allow the Glazers to remain in the background with a small minority.
In fact if Sir Jim was offering 100% buyout and Qatar was only offering enough to remove them as majority owners but also pledging massive transfer kitty they'd still prefer Qatar.
It is so painfully obvious what they want.
off to buy my Qatar flag for the next home game!
No. Read the link you provided. Their conclusion is that racism is different but a person can be xenophobic AS WELL as a racist. Isn't this prety obvious? What racist would not oppose immigrants?That person is more or less always going to be xenophobic as well. This doesn't mean that the terms are the same.
It's very dangerous to dillute terms like racism because when you oppress something it comes back stronger. This has been shown in other fields of social science. In Scandinavia the differences in choices of career between men and women have increased as a result of measurements aiming at decreasing them. In In the case of racism this means that when all objections to multiculturalism is considered racism, people who oppose multiculturalism but are not racists are going to start thinking that perhaps racism is not that bad as it's been labelled. Then the door or open for actual racism to enter the political agenda.
Semantic Overlap
Once again, while it is certainly possible to distinguish between xenophobia and racism on a number of levels, it is also possible that the words may be used almost interchangeably. Each word may also have some degree of semantic overlap with nativism, which is defined as “a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants” or “the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation.”
Please be advised that there are many words which have definitions that are not accepted, or employed, by all the speakers of a language. Racism and xenophobia are likely two such specimens, and serve as reminders of both the messiness of the human condition and the human vocabulary.
He's is saving money to pay off (some) glazersThe idea that it will deter investment is simply stupid. Even with the windfall tax they still get to profit in the billions. They just don't want to pay a single penny.
Id applaud FIFA/UEFA if they decided that all state owned club must be sold in exchange of a level playing field. But it ain't going to happen. Thus if 'cheating' is allowed then its not cheating at all. Thus I'd rather see my club benefiting of everything that football provide then being run 'responsibly' by people who relegated a Swiss club and who thought that signing the likes of Barkley, Ramsay, Schmeichel + involving cyclist man in football is a good idea.
You've literally no idea what you're talking about.
What legal fall out? There is diddly squat City can do legally if they're found guilty. No appeal to CAS as they don't have jurisdiction and they've already exhausted all of their legal options in trying to halt the process reaching this far - and failed every single time.
If found guilty they can appeal but it only goes to another independent arbitration panel and then that's it - there's no more recourse available to City.
And in the event they are found guilty, the PL will have no choice but to throw the book at them. Otherwise they will be sending a message to every other PL club that it's ok to commit the most egregious offences and you'll only get a slap on the wrist if found guilty - which would destroy the credibility of their product.
Yeah that's what should have happened way back in the summer of 2008,you could even argue 2003 before Abramovich bought Chelsea