The Qatar bid is not state ownership though...or is it?
Not sure I see that much difference between the Qatar bid and INEOS in terms of morals though as both are equally as bad. They just affect different things/people.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
The Qatar bid is not state ownership though...or is it?
Not sure I see that much difference between the Qatar bid and INEOS in terms of morals though as both are equally as bad. They just affect different things/people.
Looks like the Qataris may or may not have won
Why would they need to?
INEOS with 2bn profits servicing a debt even at 4 times our current debt would be absolute peanuts to the parent company. It’d made no sense to take money out of the club for that.
Also, it’s fecking rich that United fans now think United shouldn’t pay for their own renovation or new stadium
Arsenal & Spurs had to, and have debt to service for that, much of which the new stadiums generate, but no, we’ll lose all our morals not to have to pay our own way now.
It will also make sense for them to have a debt that they can deduct from their taxable income.
yes it is.
Because they still have to pass the fit and proper test and certify the takeover. It’s imply covering conflict of interest
We can’t pay for a new stadium under the new ffp rules. There’s nothing rich about itWhy would they need to?
INEOS with 2bn profits servicing a debt even at 4 times our current debt would be absolute peanuts to the parent company. It’d made no sense to take money out of the club for that.
Also, it’s fecking rich that United fans now think United shouldn’t pay for their own renovation or new stadium
Arsenal & Spurs had to, and have debt to service for that, much of which the new stadiums generate, but no, we’ll lose all our morals not to have to pay our own way now.
1. It's very much state ownership in all but name. The man in question's personal wealth is said to be a mere 2bn or so. However he's the brother of the Emit of Qatar and that family have access to hundreds of billions.
2. Ineos and Qatar are not in same league as morals mate. Sure they manufacture and sell chemicals which aren't exactly environmentally friendly but they aren't responsible for thousands of migrant deaths and homophobia. People really need to learn this point.
I think folks are forgetting that there are always two sides to a coin -- a two-way street. And not absolutes.
Sportwashing maybe an objective on their part but it also opens them up to a global platform where they can be criticised easier rather than in a closed media environment in the ME or Qatar specifically.
At least, 115million people (excl the illegal streamers) watched the Barca v United match. That's a pretty big audience to protest to or bring up an issue.
Qatar's gov't can try even harder to clamp down on any dissent (which will be even more difficult if they bought United) --- or they can slowly nudge forward in terms of better human rights for its citizens.
Unofficially.
Needed to put my glasses on as read that as NonceCafe
If you are a fervent environmentalist, INEOS is the devil. Fracking.
The environment affects us all? Don’t downplay one to make a point .
Not environmentally friendly is like saying Qatar disapproves of homosexuality
its in sheeps clothing
And? The world stops turning?
If that’s true, no owner can do it then?
Ffp in that case means no new stadium, whoever the owner.
No. What started the discussion was if a senior player (or EtH) at United was so strongly against the ownership to the point of wanting to leave would it affect people's opinions of the proposed ownership. A tricky concept, granted.
From what I see you can if the owner puts all the money in themselves. If it goes through the club and they have to pay anything then it goes towards ffp.
It`s a tough one isn`t it. I`m not an expert but from what I have read about INEOS they are contributing (quite significantly) to global warming and the destruction of our planet. In terms of morals everyone is different but I can`t think of much worse than that.
It will inadvertently affect many more people than the Qatari`s? Unless they change their ways...then INEOS are directly having an impact as everyone (and them included) can see the results of not cutting emissions and the amount of damage all the plastic production is doing to the environment. Will they not be responsible for contributing to thousands of deaths and home displacements?
I`m not really for one or the other by the way but if your going to scrutinise one, you have to look at the other and I don`t think just choosing a lesser evil makes things ok
If the debt would be "peanuts", presumably they won't have any trouble raising the bid to the full 6bn+?Why would they need to?
INEOS with 2bn profits servicing a debt even at 4 times our current debt would be absolute peanuts to the parent company. It’d made no sense to take money out of the club for that.
Also, it’s fecking rich that United fans now think United shouldn’t pay for their own renovation or new stadium
Arsenal & Spurs had to, and have debt to service for that, much of which the new stadiums generate, but no, we’ll lose all our morals not to have to pay our own way now.
Then even INEOS would loan through INEOS with it.
Although I’m struggling with that interpretation, I know there was a big discussion yesterday about it. It can’t simply be that no club can renovate or build a new stadium any longer, makes zero sense.
FFS!
6bn isn’t peanuts though
No statement from INEOS/SJR yet?
Doesn't necessarily mean that their cash position would allow a one off payment of 6b
Every normal business finances these things
Would you mind giving us a brief description of what you think the moral issues are surrounding Qatar and Ineos respectively please?
There has been literally no news around players turning down moves because of owners of a club. Such news would definitely not be missed and be brought up.
I don't think it's me who is naive if you feel players will put in a transfer request depending on who the owners are. They aren't really paragon of virtues. You think the players had any qualms in playing the WC in Qatar despite all the negative coverage leading up to it?
Honestly, you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you are expecting even a single player to worry enough to ask for leaving.
It’s Qatar all day long for me but that said even Jim Ratcliffe now looks like an attractive proposition in comparison those US vultures Elliot group.
Going back to when it first broke, they did make it clear from the off that they were exploring all avenues including outside investment. Then a month or so ago it was that the Glazers would prefer investment and staying in charge. Now that $5bn Elliott investment is on the table I honestly cant see them going.https://news.sky.com/story/manchest...-sale-as-glazers-seek-new-investment-12753359
The (potentially) good news keeps on coming
There already has been but it’s certainly not worth reading so you haven’t missed much.
You can literally say that about every owner. It's not just a Qatari concern.
Ratcliffe might buy us and put his brother in charge like he did at Nice.
Massively clutching at straws there mate to fit your agenda. We use chemicals for all different products in the world. They are essential.
To compare that with the needles deaths of thousands of migrant workers and all the other stuff is massively reaching.
Sportswashing works so so quickly. Our fans have been washed by that prospect of cash quicker than The Flash can complete the 100 meters.
For this kind of unbalanced reporting, I hope the Qataris win and takeover the club.
Who the feck cares? This is the biggest moment in United for the next 20 years. If a player or manager leave cause of that, so be it. ETH will likely leave in the next 3 years anyway, and the same can be said for most players. Players and managers are far easier replaceable than the owners (as we saw with the parasites).
I mean to me, anything with "billion" on the end of it can't adequately be described as peanuts. If they're near the limit of the bid to which anything higher becomes unmanageable, then it suggests it's still a load for them to take on. Ineos wouldn't just exist to keep us going, and I'm not sure how much they actually put aside for their greenwashing activities.6bn isn’t peanuts though
Indeed, though to be fair the 80 million metric tonnes of Liquified Natural Gas Qatar export per annum isn't exactly environmentally friendly either.
They’re both infinitely better than what we have now in a sporting sense. Even if you can completely disassociate owners from the club the benefit with Jim is some fans won’t feel that they have to walk away. I don’t agree with the notion the soul is gone if Qatar take over - the history, sense of community and fandom is its soul - but if a minority of supporters walk away regardless of how small then at least part of it will be gone. I find that very sad.
The Athletic have had a clear agenda against the Qatari’s from the get go, it’s clear as day. It will make it even sweeter if the Sheikh does indeed win the race to takeover.
What is it you think Elliot would want for pumping something in the range if £2B into the club? Glazers are greedy as feck but they definitely cannot be that stupid that they'll take on high interest rates on a loan for investment into the club. The club cannot afford to manage that kind of loan and they know it. Super League may never come to pass for EPL clubs if the UK govt gets involved like last time. Would they be foolish enough to take that risk which can pummel the value of the club more? Even Manchester United with a debt of £2B would not be an attractive proposition for States, let alone other buyers.
yep that’s the reason
- Status