Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dion said:
It's not possibly true, it is true. A simple understanding of the Qatari economy is enough to know that there simply isn't source of wealth big enough to buy United that isn't directly controlled by the state.

It's why the bidder is the son of the former PM, a member of the royal family, an employee of a state funded bank which is bankrolled by the Qatari SWF. Those are the facts.
Click to expand...

Not factually correct by the way, but sure
 
United owned by Qatari, City by Abu Dhabi, Newcastle by Saudis. The prem will generate more money than ever before. I wonder how many clubs in the prem are owned by British people or businesses, and how many of those won a major trophy in the last 10 years. The world has indeed gone global, and I am absolutely loving it.
 
Oh god we've actually got people pretending its not the state now. Fecking hell have some dignity lads.
 
Freak said:
Love how the media is going all in on this Qatari Sportwashing narrative now that it involves United. Where were they when the Saudis were buying Newcastle or when UAE were buying City?
Click to expand...

It certainly happened, but it ended once those owners got their feet under their respected tables. It’ll be the same with us. There’ll be plenty of articles about it being sad that we’re being taken over by a state, but that’s totally valid, it’s fecking sad.
 
Cassidy said:
Not factually correct by the way, but sure
Click to expand...
You say this but I notice every time you do it's a totally unqualified statement without any evidence, and there's absolutely no rebuttal when you're given all the ways the current buyer is inextricably linked to the Qatari state.
 
Freak said:
Love how the media is going all in on this Qatari Sportwashing narrative now that it involves United. Where were they when the Saudis were buying Newcastle or when UAE were buying City?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you can find an article from every journalist criticising Qatar's takeover of United also criticising SA's takeover of Newcastle. This seems like a bit of a victim complex.
 
Freak said:
Love how the media is going all in on this Qatari Sportwashing narrative now that it involves United. Where were they when the Saudis were buying Newcastle or when UAE were buying City?
Click to expand...

They're obviously going to focus more heavily on United because its a global brand. City were bought well before this narrative was even a thing
 
romufc said:
The hypocrisy from fans is great.

Al Thani bids as private individual to buy the club - fans "Dont be silly, get your head out the sand, its state funded, no one in Qatar has that money without the state"
Ratcliffe will take loans to pay to clear debt - same fans " Reports say, INEOS will fund the debt"

If its Ratcliffe, believe what is reported, if its from Al Thani, use your common sense.
Click to expand...
It's common sense to assume that a group that makes 18 billion euros in revenue (plus 10s more from their equity share in joint ventures) would be more likely to take on a loan that they could easily deal with rather than a football club that is a loss maker and has revenues below £600m. Same way it's common sense to assume that the son of the former PM (who is estimated to be worth about $1 billion), a relative of the Emir and the chairman of a bank, whose revenue amounts to about $2bn a year and whose main shareholders are a sovereign wealth fund, probably isn't making so much (billions a year I guess) to purchase a football club himself.
 
ShinjiNinja26 said:
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.
Click to expand...

American publication. Islamophobic and anti ME is the norm. In fact, its probably what their readers want to see.
 
Freak said:
Love how the media is going all in on this Qatari Sportwashing narrative now that it involves United. Where were they when the Saudis were buying Newcastle or when UAE were buying City?
Click to expand...
Where was the reporting when the Glazers took over and ruined us? Where's that reporting been the last 10 years? Last I read it was great for the city of Newcastle to have these new owners, and it's great to see the biggest club in the North East doing well in the league apparently. But of course, United have to be the beacon of morality all the time.
 
Freak said:
Love how the media is going all in on this Qatari Sportwashing narrative now that it involves United. Where were they when the Saudis were buying Newcastle or when UAE were buying City?
Click to expand...

Newcastle's takeover was covered massively from a social/political perspective

I'd say there hasn't been too much coverage around City's owners aside from people like David Conn.
 
crossy1686 said:
Where was the reporting when the Glazers took over and ruined us? Where's that reporting been the last 10 years? Last I read it was great for the city of Newcastle to have these new owners, and it's great to see the biggest club in the North East doing well in the league apparently. But of course, United have to be the beacon of morality all the time.
Click to expand...

The Glazer takeover was national news at the time. It was talked about every day for at least a month.
 
DevilRed said:
American publication. Islamophobic and anti ME is the norm. In fact, its probably what their readers want to see.
Click to expand...

An article critical of Qatar is neither Islamophobic or anti ME. There are legitimate criticisms to be had, just as there were before and during the Qatar WC. Just deal with the fact that some are going to disagree with you instead of defaulting to "Islamaphobia" each time someone publishes an article that doesn't conform to views.
 
crossy1686 said:
Where was the reporting when the Glazers took over and ruined us? Where's that reporting been the last 10 years? Last I read it was great for the city of Newcastle to have these new owners, and it's great to see the biggest club in the North East doing well in the league apparently. But of course, United have to be the beacon of morality all the time.
Click to expand...
The Athletic have consistently ran articles critical of Newcastle's owners, where have you been exactly? Is this a case of selective blindness or selective memory loss?
 
Raoul said:
An article critical of Qatar isn't neither Islamophobic or anti ME. There are legitimate criticisms to be had, just as there were before and during the Qatar WC. Just deal with the fact that some are going to disagree with you instead of defaulting to "Islamaphobia" each time someone publishes an article that doesn't conform to views.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear at this point it's a deliberate tactic to undermine criticism and not a genuinely held belief.
 
DevilRed said:
American publication. Islamophobic and anti ME is the norm. In fact, its probably what their readers want to see.
Click to expand...

Mind-boggling that you think the subscribers to Athletics Sports content want to see islamophobia. That's a bit of a niche market isn't it? Sports content with an anti-islamic slant.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Eh? Around 45% are "not happy" one way or the other.

People who are "not happy" about the bid do not support it (which is what the poster you quoted was talking about).

Given the options available (and the way they're formulated in the poll), it's not unreasonable to conclude that the number of posters who are actually perfectly happy/fine with a Qatari takeover is around 50% (perhaps even lower - less than one in four have absolutely no reservations).
Click to expand...
63.6% Qatar
36.4% SJR

What do you want more?
 
Withnail said:
Mind-boggling that you think the subscribers to Athletics Sports content want to see islamophobia. That's a bit of a niche market isn't it? Sports content with an anti-islamic slant.
Click to expand...
He doesn't think that, but when you're presented with an uncomfortable truth it's much easier to develop fantasies than face it.
 
Dion said:
Like I said, sportswashing is about as cryptic as the offside rule. You don't have to explain it every time you talk about an offside decision.

If you have a specific exchange you think shows his lack of understanding of sportswashing then please do share, but I've also been following him for a long time and he's consistently criticised sportswashing in football and displayed no lack of understanding of the concept.
Click to expand...
But he’s been trying to define it and hasn’t made sense every time he’s tried?
I still don’t understand arguing in his corner here. The man thinks Qatar is an oil state feck sake.
There’s still the semantics of not even knowing if this would make us state owned or not despite all the pretending to know to the contrary.
This is peer reviewed and here’s a paper on the subject but actually showing we would be state owned seems beyond people behind telling us we know, we just know.
Is it fact that rich people in Qatar need permission as to how they spend their money? Do we actually know this?
I do think we would be state owned but there’s still a good chance we’re not.
 
Freak said:
Love how the media is going all in on this Qatari Sportwashing narrative now that it involves United. Where were they when the Saudis were buying Newcastle or when UAE were buying City?
Click to expand...

Where were they when they bought up half of central london among other things like Harrods.
 
RORY65 said:
It's common sense to assume that a group that makes 18 billion euros in revenue (plus 10s more from their equity share in joint ventures) would be more likely to take on a loan that they could easily deal with rather than a football club that is a loss maker and has revenues below £600m. Same way it's common sense to assume that the son of the former PM (who is estimated to be worth about $1 billion), a relative of the Emir and the chairman of a bank, whose revenue amounts to about $2bn a year and whose main shareholders are a sovereign wealth fund, probably isn't making so much (billions a year I guess) to purchase a football club himself.
Click to expand...

Okay, your issue is that Al Thani will get state funding and Qatar have issues that people have cited as the reason you dont want this right?
 
Dion said:
You say this but I notice every time you do it's a totally unqualified statement without any evidence, and there's absolutely no rebuttal when you're given all the ways the current buyer is inextricably linked to the Qatari state.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You might want to actually supply the evidence to back up the claims you are making...
 
Raoul said:
An article critical of Qatar is neither Islamophobic or anti ME. There are legitimate criticisms to be had, just as there were before and during the Qatar WC. Just deal with the fact that some are going to disagree with you instead of defaulting to "Islamaphobia" each time someone publishes an article that doesn't conform to views.
Click to expand...

It's sad, that many posters come back with that. It makes it feel more like a sportswashing project when they do.
 
pocco said:
Unfortunately, you're on a Manchester United forum and discussing the sale of Manchester United. People will share their feelings and thoughts about this and everything, which is the great thing about the forum.

The people interviewed in that video have their own views, and that is fine. But listen to what they are saying - money, money, money. One mentions their human rights issues, but seems to get past that quickly because money, money, money.

We've been told for years and years that United don't need an investor (by United supporters groups) as we make enough money, and that the Glazers taking money, their debt and poor running of the club is the issue. So why do we need to sacrifice our image and beliefs, the relationship with female supporters and footballers, for more fecking money?
Click to expand...

That's cool and all - and is something I understand, but much like people are posting their views on said potential takeover and how they feel about the people welcoming it - I shared my feelings and thoughts about this happening, as well as how I feel about people shaming fans (who I believe have little to no control over what's happening)

My posting of that video wasn't to present their views as universal or that there's a general consensus on how people want this to go - it was an extension of me replying to your "Go to Manchester and argue etc etc...it didn't matter to you but it did matter to majority etc etc" sentence. As I said, I'm local to Manchester, and though it's only anecdotal - the overwhelming majority of people I've encountered over here are leaning the same way as the people in the video (it's not even close), so it's not a minuscule stance only held by non-locals or people that don't care or never cared about anything besides success and big signings - online polls suggest the same.

United needs a lot more than just big signings to succeed and be prosperous long term. The stadium is...a relic. We have had (ex)players saying the gym/training/recovering facilities have the same equipment they had 17 years ago - and then there's the debt. Considerable investment is needed overall. I'm not sure that just being rid of Glazers and their dividend collecting hands would be enough to course correct. I think ultimately, a good number of people don't see this as sacrificing our image nor the relationship with the women's team and women supporters. The reporting around this has been a bit muddled - from "private investor(s)" to "100% state backed". Some people look at it like "I support the club, not the owners". Others will say "the club's still based in England FFS - those things won't change for us". Others will tell you ME states are making changes . Others will say some already sponsor English clubs etc etc - and others will tell you to look at PSG where LGBT campaigns and women's team have seemingly not been stopped or hindered etc etc.
 
Raoul said:
Ok. And you don't think being the monarch of a nation is being affiliated with the state ?
Click to expand...

I didn't say he isn't affiliated with the state, I said it doesn't mean the state is the buyer.
E.g for instance if I do a deal with someone from Qatar where I work, someone who was the Son of a former Emir, then they would be a PEP (politically exposed person) but not the state itself.
Is he a member of the state itself no. Now possibly this is to work around some things, or possibly he is buying from his own interest. I have not stated which either way, nor do I pretend to know the answer like some
 
romufc said:
Okay, your issue is that Al Thani will get state funding and Qatar have issues that people have cited as the reason you dont want this right?
Click to expand...
I don't want state ownership, through whatever means, and am baffled by people who are supportive of a bid, regardless of the ethical issues, that is not clearly being genuine about the source of the funds and bidding through a company (Nine Two Foundation) that doesn't actually seem to currently exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.