Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cassidy said:
Yes so this makes it all ok right? And the owners of said NFL clubs are fit and proper for the PL right?
No one said Qatar has not done wrong, the point I made was had the same happened in Qatar the reaction here would have been worse.
The whole German team made a protest even though they were told not to, they still did it, they were not banned from the tournament.

As for your point about ownership, not sure what you're referring to?
Click to expand...

Did I say it made it ok? In case you hadn't realised it we're not talking about an American owner trying to buy United either.

And, no, the German team didn't make a protest, because they were banned from doing so. All teams were threatened with expulsion if they wore rainbow armbands. All the German players did was cover their mouths during the photo op before kick off. Because, let me say it again, they had been threatened with expulsion. Fans, after being told through public statements that their rainbow attire wouldn't be taken off of them, had them taken off of them. The fact you think that the Germans actually protested says enough in itself.

The end result? No, not the western media shouting "horrible Qatar" like you suggest. The majority of our media was talking about how amazing the tournament was.

I'm actually done seeing these endless arguments go around and around. The same things said over and over. I can't wait until the club is sold so I don't have to read shite like this anymore.
 
Rightnr said:
Some of you are obsessed. One of these is calling the hypocrisy of saying Qatar are bad for the environment and the other one is about Ratcliffe back-stabbing the fanbase by offering those cnuts a way to stay on.

But if you've found only these two (out of 700 or so posts), I guess my point stands that you're making things up.
Click to expand...

I'm of course not looking through all your posts to find these.

Yes, I know the reason you bring up the environment is to defend Qatar, I wasn't accusing you of actually caring about environmental issues. The second one is you replying to tweets about Ratcliffe lobbying for his oil business, it had nothing to do with football.
 
God this is tiring. For me, the sad thing is the Glazers have made Sheikh Jassim a near necessity if we are to compete as we used to. If they hadn't saddled the club with immense debt, siphoned off funds, and let facilities rot, someone like Sir Jim could be viable, and better than being shadow owned by Qatar, which does feel soulless/ not very Man Utd.

However, if Jassim wasn't on the table I think people would still be happy enough with Sir Jim.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Did I say it made it ok? In case you hadn't realised it we're not talking about an American owner trying to buy United either.

And, no, the German team didn't make a protest, because they were banned from doing so. All teams were threatened with expulsion if they wore rainbow armbands. All the German players did was cover their mouths during the photo op before kick off. Because, let me say it again, they had been threatened with expulsion. Fans, after being told through public statements that their rainbow attire wouldn't be taken off of them, had them taken off of them. The fact you think that the Germans actually protested says enough in itself.

The end result? No, not the western media shouting "horrible Qatar" like you suggest. The majority of our media was talking about how amazing the tournament was.

I'm actually done seeing these endless arguments go around and around. The same things said over and over. I can't wait until the club is sold so I don't have to read shite like this anymore.
Click to expand...

The point I was discussing which btw was not with you was that if you don't lose an emotional connection with something then you don't care about human rights (I disagreed). I was pointing out that the same poster had not lost an emotional connection with the PL even those NFL owners own PL clubs. Neither had they even registered that it was even an issue, one of them own United btw

Are you attempting to say them covering their mouths during the photo was not a protest?

The western media definitely shouted horrible Qatar not sure what coverage you was watching.
 
Yeah after reading the latest news, I’m out on Jim.

Qatar it is. Only a matter of time now…
 
Cassidy said:
Happens a lot, media are important in M&A because in reality neither side will actually know each others bids (funny because people argue in here about the amounts of the bids) but in reality I very much doubt what's out in public is accurate.
Each side will be using the media to bluff the other, another consideration is that other major shareholders can sway things and apply pressure, so its a way to get them onside too
Click to expand...


Indeed. That Mpabbe bollocks is probably another example of this. And the negativity surrounding the Ratcliffe bid. I suspect we're all very naive.
 
Well it will certainly crash the Utd website when it eventually happens whoever wins
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm of course not looking through all your posts to find these.

Yes, I know the reason you bring up the environment is to defend Qatar, I wasn't accusing you of actually caring about environmental issues. The second one is you replying to tweets about Ratcliffe lobbying for his oil business, it had nothing to do with football.
Click to expand...
Honestly, for me it's simple. Qatar is best for United if we want to stay relevant and I don't trust Ratcliffe as custodian in the short, medium, let alone the long term if we want to prosper as a football club which is what United is at the end of the day.

I am not trying to pretend these guys are rosy or that football would be the same as when I started supporting the club but everything moves on and we either run ahead with the Citys and Newcastles or get left behind.
 
I feel like Ineos as a company can go toe to toe with SJ’s bid to get the Glazers out.

Seems I’m wrong so I’m still going with SJ.
 
Massive Spanner said:
I think you're the one misunderstanding here because I never said anything remotely along those lines. I simply said that whataboutism is a ridiculous argument that's generally used by dictators and twats like Trump because they have no proper argument. I never mentioned morals in my posts.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the poster you quoted was talking about morals. And I responded with that in mind.

I agree that Trump and his likes has fecked the term whataboutism, but sometimes I think that it has validity - in the example I'm talking about for instance. Nobody likes to have their morals questioned, or even getting patronised - the sender should expect to be held in higher regard if doing so.
 
mu4c_20le said:
The source also claims to still be in the dark, so assuming it's someone from one of the banks working for Jassim.
Click to expand...

The banks working for Jassim wouldn't know how Ratcliffe is financing or the structure of the deal. The people knowing that are either on Ratcliffe side, Raine or the Glazers.

PS: I should say that they are less likely to know.
 
JPRouve said:
The banks working for Jassim wouldn't know how Ratcliffe is financing or the structure of the deal. The people knowing that are either on Ratcliffe side, Raine or the Glazers.

PS: I should say that they are less likely to know.
Click to expand...
Hmm, the information provided in that article was very vague though, and seems generic enough that any decent industry professional should be able to deduce. And no guarantee it's 100% accurate either..
 
mu4c_20le said:
Hmm, the information provided in that article was very vague though, and seems generic enough that any decent industry professional should be able to deduce. And no guarantee it's 100% accurate either..
Click to expand...

In that case what exactly makes you believe that the source is on one particular side? If we believe the source then it's more likely to be someone that would have a legitimate access to it, otherwise there is no reason to make any assumption.
 
RedDevilUnited369 said:
I feel like Ineos as a company can go toe to toe with SJ’s bid to get the Glazers out.

Seems I’m wrong so I’m still going with SJ.
Click to expand...

People think it can’t get worse than the Glazers.

Oh it can get a lot worse and looking at Jim’s bid every detail looks like a disaster in the making. The way it’s being financed, his history with Nice, the Glazers staying on….what could go wrong?!?
 
There was never any doubt Ratcliffe would fund us through borrowing and bonds. Only delusion was the pretense he'd not expect us to use a substantial portion of our income, likely more than we do under current repayment arrangements, to cover/contribute towards these costs
 
Mockney said:
I think this is genuinely the most disingenuously manipulative thing I've seen anyone post. It's utterly mental. United fans of 60 years have seen us win everything, and be relegated in their time. Why would they be significantly more heartbroken by us finishing outside of the top 4 for a couple of season & only winning 4 trophies in the last 8 years!? :lol:



No one - absolutely no one - is a Jim Ratcliffe fan FFS. This is precisely how you can identify the weird disconnect between the two camps here. There are people who might prefer him, but people are not treating the potential success of his bid in remotely the same crassly obsessive way.
Click to expand...

Excellent posts.
 
stw2022 said:
There was never any doubt Ratcliffe would fund us through borrowing and bonds. Only delusion was the pretense he'd not expect us to use a substantial portion of our income, likely more than we do under current repayment arrangements, to cover/contribute towards these costs
Click to expand...

It’s bewildering that this kind of nonsense is posted so regularly in here and with such certainty. It’s blatant fake news and goes largely unchallenged because the thread is largely a pro-Qatari bid echo chamber
 
whitbyviking said:
It’s bewildering that this kind of nonsense is posted so regularly in here and with such certainty. It’s blatant fake news and goes largely unchallenged because the thread is largely a pro-Qatari bid echo chamber
Click to expand...
Yes, because denying reality is obviously a Qatari propaganda point.

Also, anyone using the fake news expression literally discredits themselves.
 
Mockney said:
No one - absolutely no one - is a Jim Ratcliffe fan FFS. This is precisely how you can identify the weird disconnect between the two camps here. There are people who might prefer him, but people are not treating the potential success of his bid in remotely the same crassly obsessive way.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few that do.

Also your post goes both ways doesn't it. There's more than enough that simply prefer a Qatari bid as they think it might be the best for the club without worshipping anything the Qatari state does.
 
JPRouve said:
In that case what exactly makes you believe that the source is on one particular side? If we believe the source then it's more likely to be someone that would have a legitimate access to it, otherwise there is no reason to make any assumption.
Click to expand...
Because the source isn't privy to the put and call options and valuation. It just sounds more likely coming from the other perspective.
 
Water Melon said:
Ineos have a horrific workers rights record. Ineos have awful environmental record. The major owner of Ineos, Ratcliffe is a documented liar and hypocrite with a disastrous record in owning football clubs.
Click to expand...

You really do not have a clue what you be are talking about do you? If Ineos were so bad it would be plastered all over the news. There is no equivalence to Qatar here.

Why do people feel the need to trash someone who would be a massive positive for the club, despite what is said in this echo chamber of a thread.
 
whitbyviking said:
It’s bewildering that this kind of nonsense is posted so regularly in here and with such certainty. It’s blatant fake news and goes largely unchallenged because the thread is largely a pro-Qatari bid echo chamber
Click to expand...

What’s fake news? It’s been reported since day 1 that Jim is seeking funding. Goldmans gave been mentioned throughout the whole process

Theres no indication where funds for the stadium are coming from, the club will be saddled with more debt and to get you even more excited his current clubs are a complete mess.
 
Last edited:
sparx99 said:
I just don’t know why and when it matters. Like why is supporting Utd tied to your own individual morality?
Click to expand...

There are degrees to everything, right? In fact, the degrees are what is most important, often.

You’d do well to focus less on moral image and more on ethics - what is the better thing to do. If someone is against Man United being used as a publicity tool for a autocracy, it’s likely because they care about United and also about people imprisoned for exercising basic human needs - don’t just assume it’s because they want to portray a self image as morally superior.

Buying things from Nike has nothing to do with Man United becoming like Man City. You must be able to form an opinion on wether the one thing is right separately from judging all other ethical dilemmas in the universe simultaneously, no?
 
mu4c_20le said:
Because the source isn't privy to the put and call options and valuation. It just sounds more likely coming from the other perspective.
Click to expand...

That's not what is written, they are telling you that it's the issue within the talks. Basically they allegedly haven't found a satisfactory agreement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.