sglowrider
Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
This seems a very one eyed view of things to me and you won't be surprised to hear that I see a very different picture.
There is the majority (based on polls here) who prefer the Sheikh Jassim bid as it seems the best for the future success and health of the club in terms of debts, the stadium etc.
Then there is a vocal minority who are antiQatar, I don't actually see many arguments in favour of INEOS apart from 'well it's not Qatar'. I can understand some of the worries presented but don't agree with them all.
In this group there is an extreme faction (and it's mostly these posters who turn this into a heated hysterical discourse) so entrenched in their position that they say they will boycott the club with the most extreme saying they prefer the club suffers and even gets relegated or goes bankrupt (not that either is likely) under the Glazers rather than Sheikh Jassim takeover.
These lot also go around claiming some kind of patronising moral superiority - this extremist POV is absolutely mental to me as it quite clearly isn't in the best interests of Manchester United and that is what is most important to me and many others.
Although there are antiJim arguments, I don't see anyone saying they will stop supporting if INEOS takeover so no extreme positions on that side.
Personally I prefer Sheikh Jassim based on the info available to us but, despite what you may think, it's not a strong preference as there are too many unknowns about both bids to be nailing colours to either mast so I'd still take Sir Jim over the Glazers and just hope he has learnt from mistakes at Nice.
The vast majority of fans that I know would sit in this category of just wanting the takeover to be done, either way, as soon as possible so that ETH can get on with his planning for next season. Seems the most reasonable point of view to me too, but obviously the extremists will not agree.
Nail on head.