Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
LawCharltonBest said:
So the Qatar takeover stuff lasted less than 24 hours…

Got quite a bit of stick last night when I called bullshit on it. Common sense said it was never a thing
Click to expand...

Yes go on say I told you so whilst we wonder where the next concrete interest comes from
 
LawCharltonBest said:
So the Qatar takeover stuff lasted less than 24 hours…

Got quite a bit of stick last night when I called bullshit on it. Common sense said it was never a thing
Click to expand...
Nothing you posted was common sense.

Firstly, Qatar have held serious talks and that's verified by Ornstein. Second, you can't wish Ratcliff as the only serious party into existence just because they're the only ones who made their interest public.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
So the Qatar takeover stuff lasted less than 24 hours…

Got quite a bit of stick last night when I called bullshit on it. Common sense said it was never a thing
Click to expand...

Alright Nostradamus, why don't you save us the time and enlighten us on who our new owners will be then?
 
Berbaclass said:
Surprised not posted yet
Click to expand...


To me this reads as the QSI are looking to partner up with either private Qatari investors or US investors and take a minority stake while another party purchases the club outright. If it’s private Qatari investors involved then that might be their way of getting around UEFA’s dual club policy.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
To me this reads as the QSI are looking to partner up with either private Qatari investors or US investors and take a minority stake while another party purchases the club outright. If it’s private Qatari investors involved then that might be their way of getting around UEFA’s dual club policy.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what is it IMO, hence the "anyone connected to Qatar"

They're basically just going to back somebody in the short term and probably take full control at some point.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
To me this reads as the QSI are looking to partner up with either private Qatari investors or US investors and take a minority stake while another party purchases the club outright. If it’s private Qatari investors involved then that might be their way of getting around UEFA’s dual club policy.
Click to expand...

Reads to me like Qatar looks impossible,usually Stone comes with the negative tweets
 
Berbaclass said:
What about that says Qatar is dead haha :lol:
Click to expand...
All of it. It literally says “out the question”

You’re just one of these posters who puts that laugh emoji to things you don’t want to hear because it convinces yourself and you hope to convince others that the point is ridiculous. Yet you never offer any reason why. Just the laugh face

VP89 said:
Nothing you posted was common sense.

Firstly, Qatar have held serious talks and that's verified by Ornstein. Second, you can't wish Ratcliff as the only serious party into existence just because they're the only ones who made their interest public.
Click to expand...
You’re paraphrasing Orny quite generously there and Ratcliffe most likely is the only serious bidder at this time. Nothing suggests otherwise

Dazzmondo said:
Alright Nostradamus, why don't you save us the time and enlighten us on who our new owners will be then?
Click to expand...
Ineos. It’s common sense
 
Berbaclass said:
That's exactly what is it IMO, hence the "anyone connected to Qatar"

They're basically just going to back somebody in the short term and probably take full control at some point.
Click to expand...

I wonder if those somebodies would be Qatar Private investors, we’ve literally been hearing this all day. This report solidifies it.
 
Berbaclass said:
How is it impossible if they are partnering up to buy the club. A full takeover currently isn't currently possible due to PSG
Click to expand...

Whenever I see the word minority investment I shudder because generally means Glazers stay in charge and that's just a nightmare
 
LawCharltonBest said:
All of it. It literally says “out the question”

You’re just one of these posters who puts that laugh emoji to things you don’t want to hear because it convinces yourself and you hope to convince others that the point is ridiculous. Yet you never offer any reason why. Just the laugh face
Click to expand...
Looks like I hurt your feelings at some point. Sorry I have no idea who you are pal.

Well done on using that quote fully out of context!
 
LawCharltonBest said:
All of it. It literally says “out the question”

You’re just one of these posters who puts that laugh emoji to things you don’t want to hear because it convinces yourself and you hope to convince others that the point is ridiculous. Yet you never offer any reason why. Just the laugh face


You’re paraphrasing Orny quite generously there and Ratcliffe most likely is the only serious bidder at this time. Nothing suggests otherwise


Ineos. It’s common sense
Click to expand...

Still not convinced they can fund all the infrastructure,stadium and ground changes without demanding a ROI within a certain time
 
Rozay said:
But these are not simply 'tyrants' we are talking about. We are talking about a sovereign state. A recognised one, even if some would try their hardest to not acknowledge their validity.

I am not excusing the atrocities you speak of. I am refuting the insinuation that any subsequent act that is NOT an atrocity is merely an attempt to 'cover up' the atrocities in the first place. Again, this is a sovereign nation state. Not some celebrity or corporation. The complexity and amount of facets to their existence is being severely belittled in favour of a narrow and myopic definition of 'evil doers'. When you start to look at them as an actual nation, the way we look at nations in the West, their deeds do not necessarily have to define them in the same way. This is a country, a 'PR exercise' is massively simplistic, this isn't Mason Greenwood.

The issue I have is the throwing around of the term 'sportswashing' any time an ME state tries to do anything OTHER than behead someone or ban homosexuality is to not acknowledge their credibility as a nation. My argument is that many in the west are too lazy to see them as anything other than 'those barbarians who do x and y', and it would likely be more convenient when the mental imagery of such places were as depicted in movies like Delta Force, with little other than desert land and men in traditional attire in Land Cruisers wielding AK-47s. The fact that the imagery has changed to what would be considered more 'normal' things - leisure, tourism, world-class medicine, architecture and of course - sport is not simply because someone wants to trick everyone into not labelling them as homphobic. It is because all countries would like world class facilities, tourism revenue etc. Not just western ones. Only in Qatar they don't allow you to be gay or drunk while doing it. Which is a valid point to disagree with, my issue is that everything else doesn't start from that position. They are simply developing their countries in the same way Israel has done so post WW2, South Africa has been doing post-apartheid and many others. They are doing it for the betterment of their people. Not for western approval.

The US, for example, is probably the only western state that allows people to simply purchase guns and use them. Unlike the UK and most (all) other western states, their state also kills people. They have a death penalty which others don't. I could list so many more things that the rest of us don't approve of but their actions will never be perceived from the starting position of those things. Perhaps because we have agreed to recognise them as real people and a real country. So as much as I abhor their gun laws, I still go there at least once a year, and I don't view every new attraction in Las Vegas as no more than an attempt to distract from the fact that they have a death penalty. It's just one of their things I disagree with, and there are things that I like. All I am saying is that as a nation, Qatar has the right to be viewed the same. 'Sportswashing', in that respect, I find highly condescending because it would be never be used of a Western State in this day and age regardless of probably anything else they chose to do. So this is not me validating any Qatari practise, it is me taking an objection to the inference that any subsequent act is nothing more than PR. A nation can do both good and bad things. Most of them do.
Click to expand...
Damn, this a fantastic post. Well said.
 
My wife just said while watching Sky Sports that she cant believe KSI can afford to buy Utd :lol:
 
Jaysus the flip flopping in this thread is unbelievable, one minute it’s on because Mike Keegan says it’s so, people saying he’s tier 2 but has been spot on with takeover news then this Jamie Gardner fella pisses on everyone’s chips, what tier is this cnut and why does everyone see his comments as gospel.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
You’re paraphrasing Orny quite generously there and Ratcliffe most likely is the only serious bidder at this time. Nothing suggests otherwise


Ineos. It’s common sense
Click to expand...
Im not paraphrasing at all.
Hes literally said there are talks held with Qatar. And just because Ineos have made themselves public (and so they should because they know they don't have a remote advantage), doesn't make them the most likely.

How ignorant are you to the bidding process, seriously? You think all serious parties have to go public?
 
croadyman said:
Whenever I see the word minority investment I shudder because generally means Glazers stay in charge and that's just a nightmare
Click to expand...

I’d imagine the QSI would be looking to partner up with one of the potential buyers looking to purchase the club. They’d be taking a minority stake in the club with the new owners having the majority, not the Glazers hanging about.
 
Dazzmondo said:
How is it common sense for the most sought after club in world football to be owned by someone with less money than the other interested parties?
Click to expand...
Ineos isn’t just Jim Ratcliffe. They’re loaded and will most likely be backed financially by another party/consortium
 
Status
Not open for further replies.