Jassim loves taxes.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Fixed for you.
I'm sure but it seems his family likes avoiding them in UK.
He doesn’t personally do the chopping.
I mean, Ratcliffe is on a different level of tax evasion if we’re being frank
Don’t be such a negative Nancy
To be fair to Doc, he just wants to be kept aBrest of the latest information.
idk about different level but both (and I mean all rich) as much as they possibly can
You mean he will pay up
Of course he will.
Yeah that what they all like you to think. Yeah easy to look at the big guys and swallow the story. The north sea oil industry in uk is at 75% how much more do you want 99%. The same economic model applied to footballers would be look at Rashford earnings and tax them at 90% and the guy from barnsley tax him too at 90% into the bargain. The price fixing in Holland is much more to do with the hurt. The ridiculous pricing of making diesel more expensive when wholesale price is cheaper and the cost to produce is cheaper. But if you believe windfall taxes is the answer I will see you back here in 5 years and see how that went down with Labour in power.Only a small proportion of Shell and BP's profit is made in the UK, so we should be unsurprised that only a small amount of their huge profits are taxed in the UK.
So if you had to predict when?
Heh. Sure.
Yeah I am sure he is too
The 6 bil the glazers want? That would mean 1.) they would need to raise their bid substantially, which was reported at or just under 5, and 2.) a total loss of face by dropping their pants and bending over for the glazers.
Question is, are they really that desperate for us.
Watch this space on that one I guess,although we have been doing that already for weeks
No that's not what I mean. Legitime is not a word than can be used here as people are allowed to hold whatever views they have as long as they don't threaten others, or express them in a way that constitutes hate speech. If you ask of my personal opinions are on these matters, they are that I detest all forms of collectivism and racism, as I have defined it, is certainly up as one of the absolute worst set of ideas a person can possibly have. Diluting the term will open the door for racism to be accepted again, per my reasoning in previous posts, which is why I get upset when I see the word being used incorrectly.
You're absolutely right that it would be taken right to suspect of being racist in the real world your example , which is the problem. Replace "because some reason or other" with "because in order to protect my access to public healthcare which I am entitled to through taxation and to prevent the wage of my low educated job to collapse as a result of a total inflation of the market for low education jobs through unrestricted immigration". This is certainly not racism and it's not even xenophobic, as it has nothing to do with a phobia.
I am very happy to discuss this further, but not this thread. If you want to discuss this with me, feel free to tag me in the appopriate thread. Thanks for your post(s). I will read your reply to this as an act of respect, if you feel the need to reply.
Is that the only thing that make him morally better than the state of Qatar?
Absolutely insane claim.
Billionares uses tax planning, specialised lawyers and off-shore registration to avoid paying tax. They love taxes and even more so regulations because it kills off any competition and threats to the market share of their already established companies.
I think it's very good that successful businessmen speaks out about these matters. It's way too few of them that does so.
He's not wrong
Yes, I agree.
He's just a regular guy from Qatar.
Disgusting *, really, to suspect him of being anything else.
* Racist (xenophobic, Islamophobic, could be ammosphobic too, as irrational as that may seem, but then phobias do tend to be irrational).
The Lyons share of which is nonsense, unfortuanetly.
Given our transfer debt and squad, its valid
Not even socialists deny it, they just blame it on it not being implemented correctly.
He is so negative on everything Utd related
Good, maybe they'll do something
When you look at how slow and ponderous we were last summer, factor in having less money available and the uncertainty of a takeover I think everyone needs to have very low expectations for the upcoming window until new owners arrive.
Quite possible which is exactly why nation states shouldn't be allowed to own football clubs and for the clubs they own to have that level of influence. Look at the alleged political pressure that was heaped on the PL to allow the Newcastle takeover to go through.
But that ship has sailed unfortunately.
Quite honestly I would take right now
Min-Jae
Rabiot
Kane
Yes I know we need GK,RB,tempo CM too
Well he's not - this much is an indisputable fact
If you want to believe he's some kind of front for a state bid then that's up to you but there is no evidence of that whatsoever
This is the company being taxed though not him personally and all it does is filter down to the staff offshore who end up paying the price ultimately.
Anyhow, the tweet is irrelevant and is just here so people can use it to beat SJR with.
He does petrochemicals, SJ (Qatar) does gas... We all know this.
Ratcliffe is a million miles from perfect but far better than being state owned.
And going beyond that, how much of a benefit would it actually be in the long term?
Chelsea (a team that were only mathematically safe from relegation last week) and city (for all their success, are a team still subject to hundreds of breaches/charges) are arguably not the adverts for billionaire owners that they once were. Who knows what will happen to Newcastle. Still relatively early days.
PSG for all the hundreds of millions (or billions?) spent still haven't won the Champions League and even missed out on Ligue 1 on a couple of occasions. Their fans are also currently protesting the running of their club.
For me, state ownership would be end game. I've mostly stayed away from Old Trafford for the last 11 years due to the Glazers but I'd struggle to have even this level of affinity with the club if we went down that route.
I get why people see it as a good thing, but I don’t think they have really looked into longer term implications. I'd view Ratcliffe in slightly higher esteem than the Glazers and probably the same level as Martin Edwards etc. If he took over, we'd go back to moaning like we did pre 2005. People forget the decade of protests that happened before the Glazers.
If Jassim/Qatar took over, we'd be at the mercy of one man (in a very different way to Ratcliffe) or a state. We could easily get involved in wider political issues that the club should be nowhere near.
Now now, that’s not very Nice…
In fact, it’s Bordeaux-line offensive to all the passionate fans in here!
For what it’s worth, I just wish the Glazers would hurry up and feck off - I mean, what have they got Toulouse?
As an aside, I find it fascinating that people actually peddle the "it's not Qatar, it's a rich dude from Qatar/it's a dude from Qatar with a rich dad/it's a consortium of rich dudes from Qatar" narrative.
Why not just defend the thing itself if you actually believe it's the best alternative? Yes, it's Qatar (it's the state, of course it is, everyone knows it is) but I prefer it to whatever the realistic alternative might be because [state your reasons].
What certain people engage in, or resort to, is called defensive intellectualization. Coming up with obvious bullshit points to make your stance more palatable. It's a form of bad faith argumentation, and it makes this debate (this thread) worse than it could be if people were just being honest.
Why not just defend the thing itself if you actually believe it's the best alternative? Yes, it's Qatar (it's the state, of course it is, everyone knows it is) but I prefer it to whatever the realistic alternative might be because [state your reasons].
What certain people engage in, or resort to, is called defensive intellectualization. Coming up with obvious bullshit points to make your stance more palatable. It's a form of bad faith argumentation, and it makes this debate (this thread) worse than it could be if people were just being honest.
Are you stupid?
No, you are not. I know you are not. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not stupid.
So...see the post above (about arguing in bad faith).
But what if it's his rich dad?
Stop stealing all the puns you fecking Melun.
That's exactly what will happen, Man City is seen globally as belonging to the UAE now more so than being an English football team. To ban or sanction them would have massive political ramifications, there is no way the UK government is not going to get involved if this goes against the owners of Man City.
That shouldn't be so but there are literally billions of pounds that could be lost to the UK economy if this results in a fall-out, which surely will be the case with any ban or sanction beyond a fine.
- Status