From Qatar, and the Qatari state are two different things completely.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) look forward to a new life under Ruben Amorim. What system will we be playing? What players will impress? and how will it all go? We also say goodbye to Ruud Van Nistelrooy and review United's 3-0 win at home against Leicester City.
- Status
From Qatar, and the Qatari state are two different things completely.
United don’t need millions pumped into our squad I’m sure erik would like to get what he wants though .
nothing like city , we generate money so it’s not gonna be a problem.
Our club have been giving checks to Saudi telecoms since 2008 , which I am if you follow the money it all goes to the same people essentially. Even sir Jim has connections with the Middle East.
The only thing that plants doubt in my mind is that we've heard rumours for a few years now that only Joel and Avram are interested anymore. The rest have wanted rid for a while, but those two couldn't afford to buy them out. Then you have Neville saying that he thinks they're doing this to pump up share prices for the remaining family, who will sell and leave Joel and Avram with huge investment and they'll still maintain some ownership of the club.
Other than that, I've been saying for ages that they can continue to take £20m dividends per year, but they will never earn the money they would if they just sold. So either they cash out now and be richer than they ever have or will be, or keep the club and leave the wealth to future generations. It looks like they want either option one or a mix of both.
And rightly so will they take the highest offer. They have no real alliance to the club. It was always been about the money.
And you're correct, no one is wrong or correct. However, it would be good to read people have a civilised debate, but I know that won't happen.
Just imagine this fanbase have 50+1 ownership in the club?!
Well according to the Caf, its the same thing.
INEOS statement was geared towards what the fan groups want. They seem to have been in close contact with them over the last year or two and are aligned with their views. Qatar statement was just put out there to appeal to everyone, with the message basically being 'we'll spend whatever it takes to be the best'. An approach United supporters have been entrenched against for years.
And what about the long-term association with state ownership?
Plenty aren't happy with the likes of MUST. MUST don't really represent all fans.
There are plenty who weren't overly impressed with SJR's statement compared to Jassim's.
And I'm not too sure what you mean by United fans have been against 'we'll spend whatever it takes to be the best'? I've not seen a fan say that we've spent too much post Fergie. I've seen them say we've spent badly.
And also, we've bemoaned that over a £1b has been taken out of the club to service debts, etc, which we said could have been spent on the club.
Not too sure we've ever been against spending money.
They don’t matter much anymore apparently.
Which fan groups? I suspect you will struggle to find a homogenic view among United many different fan groups, even among Manchester-based fans. Also think the constant reports of United lagging behind in infrastructure has somewhat changed the views over the years. During the height of the G&G campaign I suspect SJR would have been the dream owner. Sadly, with the cost of the club and how neck-deep in debt Glazers has put us, I'm not so sure SJR's bid would officially be seen as the best for the club among the fanbase.
And what was the outcome? Also the way they bought the club was never going to go down well. This isn't remotely the same, whoever wins the bid, INEOS or Qatar won't be saddling the club with debt.
They still matter, but unfortunately as United turned global their importance has decreased. Hopefully any new owner will engage with the locals in creating a sustainable fan model both suited to the local community but also to attract future fans (like it or not, that bit will probably gain more importance).
Yeah I mentioned this earlier. The 1958 group had Ratcliffe's face on their banner at the protest back in August. I don't think they would've done that if they didn't have reassurances from Ratcliffe's camp on fan ownership.
Huge fanbase, bound to have different opinions, sure it will all calm down once the the Glazers have fecked off.
Here are a couple. Some would call them 'die hard fans.'
https://www.youtube.com/live/NsBi0CpbfTs?feature=share
I know several - although many are in the 'anyone but the Glazers' boat
We've always been against been bankrolled by a 'sugar daddy' as we often refer to it, are you going to deny that? We're happy to spend our money, but this is entering new territory now. As a club we are pretty much maxing out our budgets in terms of transfer spend, wage bill etc. If we want to spend more money to compete in the immediate future (CL & PL) then I think it will take external funding.
And from seeing how Qatar and other rich states operate in their other ventures, I know full well that they'll pump ridiculous amounts of money into our team. Nobody will be able to compete. Arsenal might win the PL this year and they'll be left behind by us soon, simply due to the fact that we'll buy our way to the top. You've already got clubs like Bayern Munich rethinking their views on ownership as they know they won't be able to compete if teams like us go down this route.
When I was at the Barca game a few lads I sit with was talking about the takeover, They all wanted Qatar. My dad was the only one who said sjr .
makes no difference though does it ? The biggest bag wins I’m afraid.
makes no difference though does it ? The biggest bag wins I’m afraid.
Last edited:
SJR was the dream owner only a few months ago. Fans were holding banners with his face on.
What this is, is fans seeing a golden ticket to buy our way to the top. To some, their lives and happiness seem to rely on United being successful, so I understand why they are crack-fiend desperate for this fix.
I think this is also a big issue. We have all been against it when City got taken over however; things change.
We can say we do not want ME money invested into our club, they will just go buy another club. City, Newcastle already gone down that route, look at Spurs and Liverpool looking for funding. If state pumped money comes into Spurs, they would be ahead of us.
Unfortunately, thats the way things are going. People thinking that we can compete because in the past we have competed with our own money are deluded. We competed against clubs that were not state backed, look how we have fared V City in the last 10 years.
They have overtaken our facilities, youth and even success.
Being backed by sugar daddy/state backed states, maybe. I've never been in that camp. No doubt someone will pull me up on it in here.
However, money being pumped in is not something I've seen. Quite the opposite.
And agreed, we have come to a cross road of the Glazer ownership model. This is why we find ourselves where we are today. Many feel, me included, feel the INEOS model isn't going to add much in this area. Whereas the Qatars will, as you say.
However, with ffp, we will have to spend within our own means. Thia is why a new renovated stadium is very important. The sooner the better.
Out of interest, how does our spending stack up vs City and PSG over the last 10 years? We're not Arsenal, we have a lot of money coming in and have been able to compete in terms of finances.
Transfer spend is misleading when you don’t pay your bills at home
What is bonkers about that? There IS no comparison. One is a dictatorial family dynasty, the other is a democratically elected government. They are poles apart in every sense.
Furthermore the UK government hasn’t bid to buy United, so are irrelevant. That they are corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, in it for themselves etc is kinda a given so doesn’t really add much to the conversation.
Everytime somebody says “I am uneasy about the Qatar bid because X,Y,Z” they get shouted down by numpties going what about your government, what about the Americans, what about NI ffs. It’s boring, and isn’t relevant to the sale of United. It is a false equivalence and it has to stop so we can further this debate.
I have yet to see anybody say anything positive in support of the Qatar bid that doesn’t just boil down to ‘gimme the moneyyyy!’ One group doing something bad or immoral doesn’t make it acceptable for others to do immoral stuff, and doesn’t change the fact that United do not need to become embroiled in all this political back and forth that detracts from what supporting the club and watching the games is supposed to be about.
To be honest, I still don't fully know what INEOS/Ratcliffe will do. He/they have the money and means to do everything that Qatart will do. If you or I was Ratcliffe, what would you do? Probably exactly the same as Qatar (remove debt, improve infastructure) and then allow the club to run as a business and not take dividends (£20m per year is pocket change to INEOS anyway).
Given his alignment with supporters groups and his background, I feel like I could trust him to do good by the club. But maybe that's just me.
What bills are we not paying?
The reason we haven't been competetive is incompetence, not lack of funding. Without interest payments we could have spent even more, of course, but the notion that we need state money to compete is completely wrong. We're filthy rich, but wasting it all. People want state money so we can blow everyone out of the water, instead of the situation now where we spend very close to the top.
The claims of terrorism are geopolitical for the most part, and can be leveraged at any country who has taken part in suffering, coups etc. I don't think that's a particularly fair stick to beat Qatar with.
Womens rights, LGBT, worker deaths, lack of political freedom, terrible judicial system etc on the other hand absolutely are. We can support the Qatar bid, but best to keep our eyes wide open about what we are supporting.
Womens rights, LGBT, worker deaths, lack of political freedom, terrible judicial system etc on the other hand absolutely are. We can support the Qatar bid, but best to keep our eyes wide open about what we are supporting.
Where are you on this whole thing? Glazers in? Hoping for a 3rd party?
That's partly because little was known about him other than him basically being among the richest in UK and apparently a massive United fan, but probably mostly due to him then seemed to be the only viable answer to our desperation of finally getting rid of Glazers. Reports questioning his actual allegiance to United and ability to fund the rebuild (not on the transfer market) has raised a few concerns.
We have not maxed out or potential in the market at all, the Glazers have taken out the most money by far in the PL and significantly hamstrung both current and future revenue streams by doing that. We need external funding for infrastructure upgrades, but many will just view that as a correction to the Glazer era of taking our money out of the club, not as a sugar daddy injection. That need to happen regardless if the owner is SJR or Qatar.
Once again, United fanbase is not very homogenic, so hard to say for certain what people's agenda is for wanting a certain ownership.
Stadium upkeep and improvements and apparently everything in and around the training ground since 2009.
look how far behind the other top clubs we’d be when you realise Spurs and Arsenal have new stadiums, Liverpool is continually adding seat and widening stands and just (or recently) moved into a new training complex and the facilities City have built.
We put that towards transfer when we shouldn’t have and now we need an oil state or some ridiculous billionaire to catch up or we’d be severely restricted in spend when having to pay 2b just to catch up with our rivals
Spend totals are a lie, they invested while we splurged so now we’re behind in having in invest anyway
Yep, I will tell you how we stack up, we have the 2nd most net spend. We can criticise City for spending alot of money to bridge the gap from where they were. Once they bridged the gap, they started operating in a more sustainable fashion.
I do like this myth about Arsenal though, we have so much more money to spend, but in the last 5 years we spent 55m more than Arsenal.
I don't know why people only look at transfer spend. Building a football club for the long run is based on alot of things, City had no youth structure 10 years ago, now they are producing youth at a very high level.
We can talk about spending all we want, we have a leaking stadium, poor training facilities compared to what our club is.
https://www.football365.com/news/transfers-premier-league-five-year-net-spend-man-utd-man-city
We have 600m debt on the club, which with interest rates rising will mean we will double / triple, so if we are paying 20m a year on financing the debt we could end up paying 50m. Is that sustainable?
If we are not winning, we are not attracting the same commercial deals, Team Viewer already want to cancel our sponsorship. Our commercial revenue is falling, we cannot just live on our name.
I'd prefer bankruptcy and relegation above Qatar, easily, which means I also prefer the Glazers above them even though I obviously don't want them here. There are no good alternatives, but I'm sure we could end up with someone better than the Glazers if we're "lucky".
That's true but one ting we can be certain about is that it's not just transfers that need funding. We need stadium and training ground improvements. There's also vast ROI potential in developing United themed experiences through what Neville has called a "United World" type of entertainment complex. These 3 things together will cost between £2bn and £3bn. That's not something that will be provided by someone other than either a state funded (not state owned, there's a significant difference) entity, or an extremely wealthy and generous owner.
Would SJR be willing to spend on the area in that way? Likely
Is SJR wealthy enough to put in 2-3bn into infrastructure? Unlikely.
Hence why Qatar is popular. There's a lot more investment required than just money spent on transfers that will make us a sustainable powerhouse for the long term. We have opportunities for ROI that only extreme investment and wealth can help realise.
Last edited:
He's already talking about no "new fresh debt" on the club, etc. No one from his camp have spoken about clearing all debts from the club. And then you have the stadium redevelopment, etc. A lot of money. And let's not forget, United would be a part of his wider portfolio. Other parts of his assets would need investments, too. So it's not like just United would be the only asset to think about.
I'm not too sure I'd trust SJR. If you hear what OG Nice fans have to say, they say he hasn't lived up to his words. Also, the lack of progress there, and the Swiss club, don't fill me with much faith.
But hey, no one will know what will be what, until they take over. Jassim could be terrible with all the money, and SJR could be fantastic within a tighter budget. But from the face of it, I'm in favour of Qatar.
Very funny analogy here.
Incorrect.
Personally, I want rich owners to clear the debt and run the football club better. There are only a handful of people around the world that can buy this club without debt, most are ME owners.
We already spend loads of money on transfers and have the ability to blow them out of the water, what we do not have is world class facilities and infrastructure.
City 10 years in are producing better youth than United, who have historically been the best at this. They have much better infrastructure than us, all within 10 years.
Now, Newcastle will be doing this, they already have the stadium anyway.
Can someone ask ChatGPT - Who is better for Man United, SJR or the Qatari's?
Let's settle this once and for all.
Let's settle this once and for all.
Why would any future success have no value? Like I said I don't see any Qatari takeover as pumping in millions upon millions outside of the initial infrastructure requirements. Beyond that they aren't simply going to throw money at us when we can easily stand on our own two feet when we aren't hamstrung by Glazer debts, dividends, incompetence etc.. If that's the case then any success would be on the backs of what the club has earned itself without a parasite sucking away at it. Even if money being pumped in continued past the initial infrastructure I doubt fans wouldn't be going delirious when we lifted our first Premier League or Champions League trophy post-takeover. If success was so easily bought City & PSG would have won the Champions League already as well remember. Again though I don't see silly levels of investment being a continuous thing, Qatar aren't fools and they are looking to diversify their investments and boost their profile on the world stage not to blow their fortune on a game.
For your second point of course we don't know for sure, but there are limitations to what clubs can spend with UEFA and Premier League regulations. We'll have to spend within our means according to the regulations regardless. The reason City are in trouble is because they had to resort to shady tactics to boost their pot of cash to compete. That is because they aren't a big club with the fan base that comes with. United of course are a massive club and will have plenty to pump in themselves when not being sucked dry by the Glazers. Also just to say I think it's obvious that Jassim is simply a middleman and Qatar will be the true owners, to think otherwise is fanciful and if it wasn't for UEFA competition regulations these hoops wouldn't be getting jumped through. The horse has already bolted on that front though so no point getting upset over it (please see Leipzig/Salzburg). I do see it as a potential conflict of interest beyond the Ratcliffe/Nice one though as United would clearly get preference over Nice, whereas PSG in current standings would be on a more level footing. Though gun to their head I believe Qatar would back United as the bigger club historically and due to the huge upfront capital they will have to put in for United compared to what they paid for PSG.
Qatar has been linked to shady stuff for sure and it's policies for many of the things mentioned in this thread don't align with how I'd like the world to be or with western ideals in general. To think the world is a place of virtue and that most countries don't have blood on their hands is a nonsense though. If there was evidence they'd be taking money out of the club to fund terrorists that's a different story. Or if they were taken illegally or immorally gotten funds to fund their purchase of the club again it's a different story. Whilst some of their customs may be seen as immoral I haven't seen any evidence that their billions have been gotten illegally so I'm not sure how it'd be classed as blood money. They'd simply be a custodian of the club, which in itself brings greater scrutiny from the public and western world than they'll have had before and add pressure and impetus to slowly but surely reform. At the end of the day if the club isn't lobbying for the treatment of women/LGBTQ+ etc. and migrant working conditions seen in Qatar to be replicated at United which is never going to be the case then I'm good. Not to mention the fact that Qatari and ME money is already bountiful within UK society so in my eyes another case of the horse has already bolted.
- Status