Sure. We'll be privately owned just like City.
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
Sure. We'll be privately owned just like City.
Both City and PSG are better run than Man Utd,at least for the past 10 years.
So Dyson is going to clean up?
You mean you prefer to cut off one's nose to spite one's face.
And thousands of people livelihood.
SJR was seen as a dream owner simply because he wasn't the Glazers. He represented not himself as a potential buyer of the club, but the idea that we could be rid of the Glazers and our debts wiped. There were always questions over whether he could afford us, he loyalty to United etc. when you actually read in to what he could offer as an actual potential buyer himself.
Fans want the club in the best position to compete off its own back with any new owner and after scrutiny is put on the SJR/INEOS option it doesn't seem like they would be the best option in that respect. The inability to clear the existing debt and unlikeliness to be able to invest what is required in infrastructure immediately is evidence of this.
I don't see the Qatari bid being one with endless riches to fund mega transfers, and wouldn't want it to be, but even beyond that I think it's the best option for the club financially.
Agreed. It's in the interest of any owner to try to enforce FFP across the PL and Europe, as we are a leader in revenue generation it plays to our advantage.
We don't need to sugar daddy for transfers. What we need is someone willing to invest very large sums of money on stadium and training facilities in addition to what has been termed a "United World" entertainment complex. This requires up to £3bn which is pocket change for Sheikh Jassim and guarantees a strong return on investment, so you can be pretty certain they will do it. Perhaps Sir Jim will do that as well, but it would be a huge financial cost even for him. If he committed to what I've said above then I would support his bid, but he seems to be avoiding the topic completely which makes me suspicious.
I just saw that Qatar is the UK’s biggest foreign investor with over £35b put into the UK economy since 2010. They’re already here, all major real estate is funded by them, they’re the largest stakeholder in Barclays and other financial institutions, they own the petrol and gas, and a bunch of high end shops and shopping centres.
Personally I chose not to question where the money comes from as we’d have to start questioning everything then, and the UK economy cannot function without major overseas investment. We don’t save enough, we don’t invest enough and we don’t have access to funds like others do. If we like and enjoy the growth and better standards of living, you need this kind of investment into the economy.
"As an AI language model, I must remain neutral and objective. Therefore, I cannot say who is better for Manchester United between SJR (presumably referring to Sir Jim Ratcliffe, a British businessman who has been linked with a potential takeover bid for the club) and the Qatari's (presumably referring to the Qatar Sports Investments, the owners of Paris Saint-Germain football club and rumored to be interested in buying Manchester United).
Ultimately, the decision on who is better for Manchester United would depend on various factors, including the potential new owners' financial resources, management strategies, and long-term plans for the club. It is up to the fans and stakeholders of Manchester United to decide which ownership group they believe would be the best fit for the club's future success."
So you not really a Manchester United fan then, as clearly you care more about personal agendas than the good of the club
Mathletics
Plenty on this forum seem to equate support for the Qatari bid with being a transphobic, gay hating, satan worshiper.
Everyone just needs to calm down. It’s only football, it’s not going to impact the geo-political landscape so just do whats best for the club…
This is why I think politics needs to be taken out of this. There are so many things that go on in countries, no one is a saint.
Like you said, the UK is doing so much with Qatar in trade and infrastructure, so we cannot involve politics with this.
Every country has their own laws, yes some may not agree with them, but they will have to follow the laws and regulations of the country they are investing in anyway.
You don't see what's bonkers with your claim? It's extremely Western-tinted glass view and way past the border of being ignorant. You mentioned the issues in Qatar and at the same time mentioned US and UK government cannot be compared to Qatar or 'ME Islamic leadership' as you decided to group it as, implying that Qatar government are way worse and at the same time dragging Islam into it. And you continue to downplay it by only mentioning corruption, incompetence, dishonesty etc when mentioning UK and US governments, once again blindly viewed through a Western-lens, as if that are the most serious transgressions made by previous and current governments of those nations. Don't make statements like this if you don't want to influence the debate with political issues then.
Come on you know very well that the bolded part is not true. If anything, it was those hammering down the moral aspect early on that initiated the debate going political. If you find it boring and not relevant, why bring it up time and time again then? It's because it's only relevant if it suits your agenda, regardless if you have done any research on the subject - which by all accounts you don't bother to do. I've provided you with several examples and replies to your statements (situation in Qatar and ME in general, terrorism links etc.), yet you don't want to discuss that suddenly. I have previously stated why I would prefer a Qatari ownership to SJR/US investment banks/US consortiums (seems to be the only options for now) which is not based on your paraphrasing "gimme the moneyyy!" nor is it based on being massively pro-Qatar. Reasons mentioned are both rooted in purely sporting view but also development on the area of human rights issues, hence why I try to provide a more nuanced view (without defending it) of the situation in the region instead of the typical lazy Western reporting you seem to take as face value.
Like it or not, United would be a political tool one way or the other for owners in that cash segment. And no, there's many factors that would prevent the UK (or US in that matter) government having issues with Qatar owning United. There's no chance of sanctions or anything, that is just you trying to stir up issues that aren't there.
Last edited:
Really? According to folk on here it’s impossible to be a Qatari businessman and be separate from the state.
It's a small country where the only absolute minority are locals, so bound to be linked to the state one way or the other. The Royal Family is also huge and consists of several thousand members. That will probably change more in the future with Qatar opening more and more up for foreign investments in a plan to diversify their economy (similar to Dubai).
Would be a disaster waiting to happen tbfAnd 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?!
I don't get the need to play games like this. Obviously I think what I do because I think that is better for the club, why pretend I'm saying anything different?
Obviously you disagree with me about what United should be, and that's fine.
Don't play that card. Some feel it's better for the club if Qatar didn't own United. I'm sure plenty of City fans came out with that argument and now they're looking at the end of a gun barrel.
You could argue people who care about the money and infinite war chests to fulfill their transfer Muppet dreams are following their personal agendas.
We're all United fans. All with different opinions.
Doesn't matter how far the club falls so long as the evil middle easterners don't get their hands on it...
sarcasm to point out the absurdity of that line of thinking
I'm not a fan of the UK, nor of Barclays, or shopping centres. It's not a valid argument in my opinion, it feels like an easy way to turn the blind eye in an attempt to not tarnish your own morals.
It doesn't matter if Qatar obeys our laws and regulations. That's beside the point, if their own laws are horrific then why should they be accepted at United? That same argument could apply to any country, would you welcome the Taliban, Russia or North Korea? Where does the line start and end. Why is it acceptable just because they're rich.
There is no way I would want to raise a daughter in Qatar, would you?
Well of course and that's absolutely fine, but that is not what they said at all - what kind of twisted logic leads any Man Utd fan to think relegation and bankruptcy is preferable to takeover by a Qatari ?
Especially when we don't yet know that many details about this Qatari bid
I see and agree where you are coming from. The reason I say take politics out is because then, I dont think any owner is good for us.
So let me put it this way, would you prefer Ratcliffe? He is borrowing money from JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, who have had sexist, genderist and fraud issues.
I am saying, if you rule one out, they all get ruled our really.
Also, is this just ownership? Why do laws of a country only matter when it comes to ownership and not sponsorship?
I would, but can understand the reservations. If they go down the Dubai route then I would feel even more sure. In terms of safety in Dubai, you could even send your young daughter across town during the middle of the night and expect her to come back without any bad experiences..That can't be said for pretty much every single big city in the West. I have a couple of friends residing there with there respective young daughters and they love it and have so far not suffered any of the issues mentioned, but there's probably a huge difference in where you come from (ie. nations, family wealth etc.) and where in the ME you are residing.
Add to that facilitating criminal networks and individuals and manipulation of markets causing massive recessions and destroying thousands of lives. Without being held accountable (fines are just lip service) so they keep going.
For balance isn't Credit Suisse the center of the panama papers and every bit as bad and damaging as Goldmand Sachs and JP Morgan?
Yea I'd rather raise them in a city like Doha or Dubai than a major American city honestly, they'd be safer.
Still though, I fail to see how those considerations would be in any way relevant to a discussion regarding ownership of our club
Based on their respective history and continued transgressions I would say a no (but open to be told otherwise!), but they are quite similar in being on the receiving end of a laughably amount of fines for breaking the law and still being allowed to continue to operate. What I would say is that the Panama Papers shoved that there's potential serious issues in the entire banking industry in general in terms of market manipulation, funneling money to terrorists organisations and whitewashing in general, not just those who usually are on the receiving end of such accusations (islamic banks mostly, especially the two latter).
Not heard this, could you link me an article.
You guys still trying to justify yourselves to other people? Crazy
Tell Al Thani to come through on his promises of new Old Trafford, renovation and investment in the academy and infrastructure of the club and turning the surrounding area and community into a futuristic metropolis, and we're all good
Tell Al Thani to come through on his promises of new Old Trafford, renovation and investment in the academy and infrastructure of the club and turning the surrounding area and community into a futuristic metropolis, and we're all good
The logic is very simple. A club is more than winning and throphies. It's history, community, even at times ideology. You cannot, for instance, separate Manchester United the club from the Manchester working class movement. You cannot divorce Munich and the Busby Babes from the club.
For me, United being owned by Qatar is such a blow to the club that it's worse than not being in the PL. There are millions of fans around of clubs that don't win, do you think all of them want to become like City and that they're not real fans if they don't?
But the energy levels are definitely down a few notches. I think most people's angst has almost burnt itself out.
Qatar is much safer than Dubai. Dubai is very safe compared to most of the world, but compared to the ME it has a reputation of being the place where you’re most likely to have you house broken into or get robbed/murdered.
Still very very low, and most likely it would you getting involved with the wrong people or the wrong people getting close to you first. But that’s the thing a lot of the “wrong people” from all over the world are in Dubai. I have a hunch something will happen involving a westerner to shatter Dubai’s “safe” reputation and the authorities will clamp down as the locals will start to get annoyed.
Who are they producing better than us? Honestly?
For me Foden = Greenwood as talents with obviously outside of football things being the decider here.
Who is their equivalent of Garnacho right now? Who is their equivalent of Diallo or Hannibal doing well on loans? Most of all who is their equivalent of Rashford? Who are these top young players that they are producing so much better than us? I could give you credit if you made that claim about Chelsea, but who have City produced to even think they have surpassed us in that regard? Is there youth players that have left City to play at a PL level? Hell they lost Sancho because of their lack of pathway to the first team. For all the money they have City's youth performance has been laughable.
What we actually need is someone to buy us and simply clear the debt and use the club's revenues to fund the first team. Upgrading the stadium and facilities can be done by loans taken out against the owners and not the club. That doesn't need Qatar or any other sports washing nation involved.
I agree with the poster you responded to. And if you want to use such silly sayings that have nothing in common with the original argument, I'd say that I prefer for the club to keep its soul clean from money coming from cutting other people's bodies for wanting basic human rights.
Have you been to the Middle East, especially the gulf states?
Right, misread thought he was talking about Ratcliffe himself.
Why wouldn't them obeying local laws and regulation matter? If that isn't relevant why would their laws be relevant either? At what point do laws and regulations matter? The topic is the ownership of Manchester United, so the focus should be on how any prospective owner would control Manchester United. If they are run according to local laws, regulations and customs surely that is relevant. Trying to live life only interacting with things that have complete virtuousness from the way they are run to the owners political leanings or how they run other things from businesses to countries is a pure act of folly in todays world.
- Status