Tom Van Persie
No relation
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 27,473
I think so. They'll bid higher if necessary as well I think.This has been signed and sealed for a while hasnt it?
Yup, in fact just saw a translated qatari article where they specially refer to the issues in bidding directly using QIA/QSIThey are being careful in presenting this deal as private investment. Abu dhabi deal for Mancity and PSG deal by QSI were mentioned directly as State investment if i remember correctly
Da feck is a British bid?
I find it easier to assume all figures are in shekelsCan we just make it a rule for people to use currencies when talking about the numbers? Or maybe use if you're not talking about £££s
That’s what they are hoping you’d say. That’s what they are hoping we all say…I can get behind this.
Da feck is a British bid?
Glazers couldn't give a feck about us. Their motivation is making as much money as possibleJim Ratcliff has “wallsteet backing” financed to the tilt… accepting it could be the Glazers last way of decking us over.
Where are your facts...sources? Educate me.
I think it's naive in the extreme to believe nearly anything the Qataris say. They might preach to be Utd fans and they'll give you this spiel about investing in the club but it's really just PR to try and win over fans. These people talk about investing in the women's team despite the fact their record of treating women is absolutely horrendous. Why would anyone believe a word they say?
Feck its a bidding war! fecking Glazers theyre so lucky after mismanaging the club for so long.
Can we just make it a rule for people to use currencies when talking about the numbers? Or maybe use if you're not talking about £££s
Did it have more windows or doors?Not to brag, but I’ve worked for and been in Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani’s house.
Neither is Qatar if anyone actually bothers to read their statement. They are just saying they won’t borrow money in purchasing the club.No extra debt meaning he isn't clearing the current debt?
Can you send the link?I think so. They'll bid higher if necessary as well I think.
Yup, in fact just saw a translated qatari article where they specially refer to the issues in bidding directly using QIA/QSI
It definitely should be in the American language.Isn't it USD as default given deal will be done on Wall Street?
Da feck is a British bid?
Jim Ratcliff has “wallsteet backing” financed to the tilt… accepting it could be the Glazers last way of decking us over.
I think it's naive in the extreme to believe nearly anything the Qataris say. They might preach to be Utd fans and they'll give you this spiel about investing in the club but it's really just PR to try and win over fans. These people talk about investing in the women's team despite the fact their record of treating women is absolutely horrendous. Why would anyone believe a word they say?
Another reason we can't let you win it this year. Won't hear the end of how you did it the right way and all that sanctimonious crapThese are the guys responsible for the human rights violations in building the world cup. All is forgiven, as sportswashing is alive and well in the city of Manchester.
As much as we hate the Glazers they still have the clubs best interest at heart. (I would hope after owning it for the better part of 2 decades) & I doubt they’d want to feck us over. If anything they’d want the most money. Which Qatar would provide.Jim Ratcliff has “wallsteet backing” financed to the tilt… accepting it could be the Glazers last way of decking us over.
BrilliantSponsorship is not the same as ownership.
Somewhat confused why a different Qatar organisation owning PSG is supposed to be a huge issue. But the other prospective buyer openly openly two teams personally is getting much less attention from a legal pov
His bid doesn’t seem debt-free to the club, no?
Because he is “British”Somewhat confused why a different Qatar organisation owning PSG is supposed to be a huge issue. But the other prospective buyer openly owning two teams personally is getting much less attention from a legal pov
No extra debt meaning he isn't clearing the current debt?