Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
bosnian_red said:
Because that is relevant at all :lol:

Also, are you trying to compare a political opinion'/point of view of an individual to human rights violations? Really?

Greenwood and Qatar are a relevant comparison because they both are a question of do you care about what this person/state does outside of representing Man United, while they are part of our club, or do you only care about how well they kick a ball while they can do whatever the feck they like outside of it?
Click to expand...

I would get that point if it was just a political opinion but we are talking about a lobbyist whether it is in the context of Brexit or in general in the context of environmental rules, the latter being a Human right.
 
bosnian_red said:
Because that is relevant at all :lol:

Also, are you trying to compare a political opinion'/point of view of an individual to human rights violations? Really?

Greenwood and Qatar are a relevant comparison because they both are a question of do you care about what this person/state does outside of representing Man United, while they are part of our club, or do you only care about how well they kick a ball while they can do whatever the feck they like outside of it?
Click to expand...

I assumed before I checked that you would be correct about the connection between the takeover and MG, though I would have guessed the difference to be smaller. What's more interesting to me is the reaction it got, the extreme defensiveness. As far as I can see not a single person in favour of the Qatari takeover has talked about why they think the difference is so big, but have instead made a lot of noise about "not all pro Qatar people" (true, that's what percentages mean), high horses and virtue signalling, and now, "well, maybe those against the Qatari takeover are racist Brexiters, have you thought about that?"

It's fascinating.
 
Godfather said:
Nine months to decide on a preferred bidder is not normal trust me
Click to expand...
it's 6 siblings and each and one of them probably with different opinion so yeah in cases like that it takes time.

If it was dealing with a single owner (for example the Suns) it would probably be made official within 2-3 months.
 
Godfather said:
Nine months to decide on a preferred bidder is not normal trust me
Click to expand...

I don't know what would be normal but from what I have seen recently, the Broncos, Panthers, Wolves or Senators were as long or longer.
 
JPRouve said:
I would get that point if it was just a political opinion but we are talking about a lobbyist whether it is in the context of Brexit or in general in the context of environmental rules, the latter being a Human right.
Click to expand...
Sure. He didn't force it on people though. People were free to make their choice. He may have selfish intentions and only care about making money, but none of it compares to a human rights violating regime and it's really not close to me.

The Glazers are garbage owners. I'd rather they stay than have the Qataris in though, or be the puppet of a state, no less one that oppresses thousands. I'll still support United, but it will definitely kill a lot of what the club represents IMO, and any success will feel pretty hollow on top of that. Posted it in a different thread, but part of the reason why so few people give a feck about city is because there is no sense of risk to them. Success is only as good as it is because there is the chance it all goes wrong, that you feel proud to overcome everything, to bounce back from low points, competing fairly. If you just have unlimited funds to just get it right, it doesn't feel as good, because you almost expect it.
 
bosnian_red said:
Because that is relevant at all :lol:

Also, are you trying to compare a political opinion'/point of view of an individual to human rights violations? Really?

Greenwood and Qatar are a relevant comparison because they both are a question of do you care about what this person/state does outside of representing Man United, while they are part of our club, or do you only care about how well they kick a ball while they can do whatever the feck they like outside of it?
Click to expand...

It is relevant if you want to start moralising and putting others down who don’t share your viewpoints - as you and @NotThatSoph and others are pointedly now trying to do.

Firstly, your assertion that ‘more than half of your country voted for Brexit’ is completely incorrect.

Secondly, xenophobes loved Brexit, xenophobes don’t like wealthy foreigners buying British things, xenophobes very often don’t like Muslims.

Ratcliffe is a Brexiteer, Ratcliffe is British, Jassim however is foreign, Jassim however is Muslim, so IF we’re gonna start correlating a link between supporting Jassim and MG, then let’s also see if there’s a link between Tories / Brexiteers / xenophobes supporting Ratcliffe, yeah?

Oh also, xenophobes don’t like rich, young black guys and MG is a rich, young black guy, so there’s that variable also.

My point, in case you’re missing it, is that I’d prefer NEITHER OF THESE POLLS or ways of thinking, and let’s not start levelling at others our own superiority. That’s my point.

But IF you must do that - lets at least be fair and scrutinise both choices equally, or not at all.

Also, Ratcliffe didn’t just ‘vote Brexit’, he’s the wealthiest man in Britain and thus has extensive political influence ffs.

He personally chose to support Brexit, to help make it happen, he then personally chose to mug off British tax payers and loophole himself out of the same Brexit everyone else had to suffer - a Brexit he’d helped make happen.

He then personally chose to lie / go back on promises he’d made…

The billionaire Brexiteer who betrayed his promises

Yeah, let’s have this guy AND THE GLAZERS, together…

Ratcliffe is a liar

And a tax cheat
 
Last edited:
Rhyme Animal said:
Their owner / leader personally used their wealth and position to fervently support Brexit - the most harmful political happening to this country since WW2, and which has ravaged the nation and seen the lives of countless people worsened / shortened, and in many cases due to NHS, has seen people lose their lives?

And then the owner / leader has then moved all their worth to a tax free location in order to contribute even less to the country?

Guardian - Brexiteer Ratcliffe moves to tax free domicile

Can that, specifically, be levelled at Qatar x 10? Not can you level something different at Qatar, which we know you can, but can that be levelled at them x 10 as you claimed?
Because I care a lot about Britain and I see, every day how Brexit has hurt this nation, both financially and also culturally in the mess we’re left to wade through in its wake.

Ratcliffe is a fecking cretin, let’s be straight here, he’s a bad guy. You may claim he’s the lesser evil, and that’s fine, it’s subjective. But he’s a fecking cretin.

I don’t see how Qatar have worsened Britain though, on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

The thing with Brexit, whether you are for or against, it was a democratic decision. It's far from perfect but currently it's the best we have in terms of making such drastic decisions.

Qatar haven't necessarily worsened Britiain, but as someone I presume is anti Brexit, surely you see beyond Britain and the damage Qatar and their fellow Gulf states do globally and internationally.

I think it's also fair to view nations as more damaging than companies or individuals.

For the record, I don't think Ratcliffe is a good guy. I think he's achieved more than Jassim and probably has.mpre about him to achieve success but that's based on what I know about both. The guys probably ruthless, you don't make many friends getting to the top but that's what he's done, from essentially nothing.

Like every other person here my main focus is the scum gone. I just have a preference based on the two options available. I despise what City stand for and I know people personally who have escaped persecution from places like Qatar.

On the flip side, let's say they win. If United somehow helped them progress as a nation, I'd be one of the first to acknowledge it. I have my doubts though and see a far seedier motive for owning an icon like United.
 
JPRouve said:
No it's from March.
Click to expand...

okay; then that isn't what i understand he said. I believe he said it's his sons investment and he may invest, which is slightly different than saying he is backing the scheme. He also added he didnt like those marketing type of investments.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
It is relevant if you want to start moralising and putting others down who don’t share your viewpoints - as you and @NotThatSoph and others are pointedly now trying to do.

Firstly, your assertion that ‘more than half of your country voted for Brexit’ is completely incorrect.

Secondly, xenophobes loved Brexit, xenophobes don’t like wealthy foreigners buying British things, xenophobes very often don’t like Muslims.

Ratcliffe is a Brexiteer, Ratcliffe is British, Jassim however is foreign, Jassim however is Muslim, so IF we’re gonna start correlating a link between supporting Jassim and MG, then let’s also see if there’s a link between Tories / Brexiteers / xenophobes supporting Ratcliffe, yeah?

Oh also, xenophobes don’t like rich, young black guys and MG is a rich, young black guy, so there’s that variable also.

My point, in case you’re missing it, is that I’d prefer NEITHER OF THESE POLLS or ways of thinking, and let’s not start levelling at others our own superiority. That’s my point.

But IF you must do that - lets at least be fair and scrutinise both choices equally, or not at all.

Also, Ratcliffe didn’t just ‘vote Brexit’, he’s the wealthiest man in Britain and thus has extensive political influence ffs.

He personally chose to support Brexit, to help make it happen, he then personally chose to mug off British tax payers and loophole himself out of the same Brexit everyone else had to suffer - a Brexit he’d helped make happen.

He then personally chose to lie / go back on promises he’d made…

The billionaire Brexiteer who betrayed his promises
Click to expand...


This. Thank you!
 
Enigma_87 said:
it's 6 siblings and each and one of them probably with different opinion so yeah in cases like that it takes time.

If it was dealing with a single owner (for example the Suns) it would probably be made official within 2-3 months.
Click to expand...

I agree but usually you invite bidders if you have a certain idea.
 
Was hoping something big was to be announced directly after the CL-final. People would have cared even less about Citys win than they already did.
 
bosnian_red said:
Sure. He didn't force it on people though. People were free to make their choice. He may have selfish intentions and only care about making money, but none of it compares to a human rights violating regime and it's really not close to me.

The Glazers are garbage owners. I'd rather they stay than have the Qataris in though, or be the puppet of a state, no less one that oppresses thousands. I'll still support United, but it will definitely kill a lot of what the club represents IMO, and any success will feel pretty hollow on top of that. Posted it in a different thread, but part of the reason why so few people give a feck about city is because there is no sense of risk to them. Success is only as good as it is because there is the chance it all goes wrong, that you feel proud to overcome everything, to bounce back from low points, competing fairly. If you just have unlimited funds to just get it right, it doesn't feel as good, because you almost expect it.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally it's not that simple. A lobbyist that support a propagandist like Murdoch don't actually give people free choice, they lie and deceive to get a particular outcome, they create a narrative that influence what is ultimately not a free choice, your hand is essentially guided. Also we are talking about an individual that owns a company that ultimately violate a human right.

The thing is I agree with people that critics Qatar or any states but I'm a bit uneasy with how flippant people are when it comes to corporations violating the same category of rights and also directly affecting democracies through lobbying. It's strange to me because one is far more impactful than the other and it's not the one that people are loudly against.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
It is relevant if you want to start moralising and putting others down who don’t share your viewpoints - as you and @NotThatSoph and others are pointedly now trying to do.

Firstly, your assertion that ‘more than half of your country voted for Brexit’ is completely incorrect.

Secondly, xenophobes loved Brexit, xenophobes don’t like wealthy foreigners buying British things, xenophobes very often don’t like Muslims.

Ratcliffe is a Brexiteer, Ratcliffe is British, Jassim however is foreign, Jassim however is Muslim, so IF we’re gonna start correlating a link between supporting Jassim and MG, then let’s also see if there’s a link between Tories / Brexiteers / xenophobes supporting Ratcliffe, yeah?

Oh also, xenophobes don’t like rich, young black guys and MG is a rich, young black guy, so there’s that variable also.

My point, in case you’re missing it, is that I’d prefer NEITHER OF THESE POLLS or ways of thinking, and let’s not start levelling at others our own superiority. That’s my point.

But IF you must do that - lets at least be fair and scrutinise both choices equally, or not at all.

Also, Ratcliffe didn’t just ‘vote Brexit’, he’s the wealthiest man in Britain and thus has extensive political influence ffs.

He personally chose to support Brexit, to help make it happen, he then personally chose to mug off British tax payers and loophole himself out of the same Brexit everyone else had to suffer - a Brexit he’d helped make happen.

He then personally chose to lie / go back on promises he’d made…
Click to expand...

This is why I do not want Ineos to control United.

But no matter what you dredge up about Ratcliffe, the fact remains Qatar is an autocratic regime buying United for good PR. People support them because they think, with good reason, they'll make United untouchable.

Ratcliffe isn't buying United to appease Brexit, or Britain's current government. But Jassim is buying United to cultivate Qatar's dictatorship.
 
Brownie85 said:
If they're in the final stages of negotiation then they'd be the preferred bidder. As it stands, there is no preferred bidder and SJRs bid looks complicated, moreover now that there could be a pending lawsuit too
Click to expand...
It was looking that way but then SJ had bid a 5th time.
 
Godfather said:
I agree but usually you invite bidders if you have a certain idea.
Click to expand...
I think they have an idea - to get as much money as possible. The issue is (at least from reports) half want to have the cash now, and half want to stay onboard to reap what probably means higher valuation post takeover.

In other words they want to leach as much as possible as long as possible.
 
bosnian_red said:
Sure but it's still a big and telling sample size, that of the almost 300 people who voted in both, 77% of the pro Greenwood people were also Qatar in.
Click to expand...

I voted Shekh Jassim and Greenwood. I’m a terrible terrible person and the spawn of Lucifer himself.
 
SJ with the late grab working exactly how you would have envisioned with the glazers.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
It is relevant if you want to start moralising and putting others down who don’t share your viewpoints - as you and @NotThatSoph and others are pointedly now trying to do.

Firstly, your assertion that ‘more than half of your country voted for Brexit’ is completely incorrect.

Secondly, xenophobes loved Brexit, xenophobes don’t like wealthy foreigners buying British things, xenophobes very often don’t like Muslims.

Ratcliffe is a Brexiteer, Ratcliffe is British, Jassim however is foreign, Jassim however is Muslim, so IF we’re gonna start correlating a link between supporting Jassim and MG, then let’s also see if there’s a link between Tories / Brexiteers / xenophobes supporting Ratcliffe, yeah?

Oh also, xenophobes don’t like rich, young black guys and MG is a rich, young black guy, so there’s that variable also.

My point, in case you’re missing it, is that I’d prefer NEITHER OF THESE POLLS or ways of thinking, and let’s not start levelling at others our own superiority. That’s my point.

But IF you must do that - lets at least be fair and scrutinise both choices equally, or not at all.

Also, Ratcliffe didn’t just ‘vote Brexit’, he’s the wealthiest man in Britain and thus has extensive political influence ffs.

He personally chose to support Brexit, to help make it happen, he then personally chose to mug off British tax payers and loophole himself out of the same Brexit everyone else had to suffer - a Brexit he’d helped make happen.

He then personally chose to lie / go back on promises he’d made…
Click to expand...
My assertion was that "more than half of the country who did vote, voted for Brexit". Is that incorrect? How did the vote go through then? A simply google search says 51.89% of voters voted to leave.

Sure, xenophobes are dickheads. My whole family is Muslim. There were people in my extended family who were murdered simply because of this fact during the wars in the 90's. I don't have a problem with someone being a foreign owner. I wouldn't even have a problem with Jassim if he was just some random investor, completely independent, and it wasn't a state backed bid. I don't have a problem with american owners, or swiss owners, or indian owners, or chinese owners. That sort of stuff literally just does not happen in the Arab states there. Of course it is a state backed bid. It's fine if other people have differing views. I don't care if someone wants that. But yes, I will call people out who bury their heads in the sand about what we would be if they bought us, who try to justify their own views by lying to themselves because it blatantly would be a state backed bid. And I'll call out people who try to claim "not wanting Qatari" is "wanting to see United fail". Which is fecking nonsense.

As for your point about MG, I don't even know where to start there fecking hell. Yeah, they don't want him because he is a young, rich black guy... nothing at all to do with the audio that is publicly available where he got away with what he did. Good talk man.

Yeah Ratcliffe is rich and has influence. He exploits some loopholes for his own wealth. Shitty billionaire things that people do. We all have to make do with some amount of "ah well he's a billionaire he will do billionaire things". There's a massive world in between tax evasion and being the ruling family that oppresses thousands and violates human rights within their country, restricts freedom of choice, etc. The argument of "well, Ratcliffe is a dickhead too" as to why you support Qatar is bullshit, because you can't compare what he did or does to what the Qatari ruling family did or does. You just can't. Own your choice of wanting the Qatari's, but don't give me bullshit about how you are justifying it because of this and that. Just be like croadyman where you openly admit you don't care about what they do off the pitch and just purely care about what they do on the pitch for the club directly. Which is the point of the original comparison to MG and Qatar. For the most part, you either care about what they do off the pitch and it's not a "win at all costs" mentality (wherever that line starts of where you start caring), or you just have a win at all costs mentality. And the question was seeing how many of the pro Qatar people didn't care about what MG did off the pitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sizzling sausages
Keegan and The Times constantly come out with the same article minutes apart from each other. It’s obvious now they share the same source and have a sort of agreement with each other
 
Figgins said:
okay; then that isn't what i understand he said. I believe he said it's his sons investment and he may invest, which is slightly different than saying he is backing the scheme. He also added he didnt like those marketing type of investments.
Click to expand...

I made an assumption I didn't tell you that he said that he was officially backing anything. And he said that if he ever gets involved himself in Football it will be as an investment not for advertisement.

The reason I make that assumption is because he is the one with big money, his sons on their own are not supposed to easily make that type of investments, if something was to go pear shaped, I would assume that their father will bail them out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.