Yep, I thought you didn't have a clue with what was going on.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Yep, I thought you didn't have a clue with what was going on.
Or it's just this (from the article above)...
“Qatar is moving into the post-World Cup phase of its sport and national development strategy, which continues to emphasize industrial diversification, the quest for legitimacy and the promotion of constructive international relations,” Chadwick said.
“Owning such a high-profile club would also have nation-branding, soft power and reputational benefits. But it is also worth specifically noting that the Manchester ship canal has just become a freeport, which suggests some interesting possibilities for prospective Qatari investment.”
Despite Qatar’s various investments in other football clubs across Europe, including in PSG and Sporting Braga, Chadwick said that Al Thani's position in the Qatari royal family is far enough from the top-level officials to allow the Gulf country to elude European ownership regulations.
INEOS or anyone taking over can take advantage of the worldwide fanbase. The Glazers probably would if they stuck around. There is one reason Qatar want United and one reason alone - "quest for legitimacy".
Unlike the morality lectures and the superiority lectures these posts are football related
Sure mate, sure.
Is there talk about politics?
Cause apparently Qatar bid doesnt have anything to do with it.
Credit Suisse are doing well in the banking league atm though.
If your refering to me here in the bolded then your right, I do
Your one of the worst posters on here, and I'm glad I called you what I did, it was fully deserved.Crazy thing is when you stop with the ridiculous wumming I actually agree with some of things you say on this whole subject.
Edit: turns out it's not me after reading more of the thread, it's @Chief123 , enjoy that badge my friend!
Last edited:
Credit Suisse are doing well in the banking league atm though.
Credit Suisse are doing well in the banking league atm though.
Qatar only owns 6.8% of that
At least Mike Keegan gets paid for his work
Sure anyone including INEOS can take advantage of the fan base. But you look at the people who went to the meeting last week and it will indicate a few things. Jassim's delegation versus INEOS.
INEOS was all internal folks -- and sporting folks which I suspect reflects how they see this project -- a multi-club opportunity. The Jassim delegation was of a wider scope.
That's why all this talk about being state-owned or nothing is just premature or reflective some personal bias.
You mentioned the freeport opportunity is another potential project that synergies with the assets that are under Qatar state ownership already.
I have said it a few times, when we figure out their business model then we will know who is involved.
One thing I am certain of is at this scale/level; within 92 Foundation there will be Qatari government-linked companies ie companies with QIA ownership but a large portion of the equity is floated on the stock exchange. It is both politically necessary and financially prudent.
Then maybe in a few years time, they could float the 92 Foundation or whatever vehicle they could use on the Stock market to distance themselves further from any state ownership relationship.
Last edited:
When do we get to figure that out? Once we're knee deep in something we can't get out of?
Never doubt what all these ‘worried’ opposition fans around the country are truly worried about:
Last edited:
Yes, that is right, if we want to build infrastructure now, then yes, but I think if the Glazer's debt is 100% wiped, and the club can be given a year or 2 to get to a healthy financial state, then we can just borrow money from the banks and rebuild the stadium and the training facilities (this is as I said we are debt free and in a strong position financially).
i get paid for mine as well. Do you get paid for yours?
I assume when they win the bid or when they are more confident and are close to it. There has been no financial exchange or legal obligations at the moment (between bidders and Glazers other than some NDA) --- only a PPT presentation and discussions at the moment
If I was Jassim, I don't see any obligation to tell the world who the partners are at this point. It's just too premature. Why tell INEOS or other bidders what his magic sauce/business model is?
Also, some of the partners' activities/involvement may not kick in for another few years -- like the freeport opportunity.
I have said in the past, from a 90,000ft level the deal makes more sense for the Glazers with the Jassim. They already have some Gulf presence with their cricket T20 team/club. Why not partner with other Qatari entities which Jassim can bring? Win-win deal.
Agree with that.
That's the impression I get in honesty. Most fans realise that United are by far the biggest club in England and without a Glazer ball and chain around their leg would still have been competing for titles in the majority of the post-Ferguson era.
With those debt repayments gone, and an owner who doesn't restrict signings that the manager/footballing execs want, rival fans will be expecting United to win titles again in no time.
If I wasn't a United fan, I would feel pretty frustrated about that prospect too. (As a United fan, I'm still worried they'll stay for some reason)
I think the deal will get done at some point because Qatar can offer so much more outside of a monetary transaction. Sir Jim can only offer a couple of barrels of toxic chemicals.
Probably great if you want to dispose of a body...
The problem with SJR for me is that he is quite a shrewd businessman. I dont think he would overpay for players and I dont think he would give them mad as hell contracts. Then you get into a position like Spurs where you are buying cheap and old or just plain not good enough. He is definitely more savvy than the Glazers who quite simply threw money about every year gung-ho to keep us afloat and around Top 4 to make sure they could take their dividends.
I think he would remind me a bit of Daniel Levy, someone who wont be taken for a mug and would run the club smartly.
For this I actually think SJR would be worse for Manchester United than the Glazers.
I think he would remind me a bit of Daniel Levy, someone who wont be taken for a mug and would run the club smartly.
For this I actually think SJR would be worse for Manchester United than the Glazers.
I don't think Nice have regressed at all, their league position may have held steady but certainly in Europe this season they have been relatively successful and signs point towards an upwards trajectory.
There seems to be a binary thought process on here which is if INEOs taking over is bad for the club then the Qatari bid is good.
Unfortunately we wouldn't know how the Qataris would run the club, as we have no benchmark to compare it too.
I'd say taking out any politics and morality beliefs, INEOs have experience now in how to run a club and are trying to build a portfolio of clubs which will assist United moving forward.
The Qatari bid may well be the better option, we just don't have any idea of how they'd go about running the club on a day to day basis, so no one can really make a judgement on that either way.
True and I can appreciate your viewpoint mate and I'm not being blasé about what the Glazers have done to United. It's just that it doesn't override my wish to see the club stay self-sufficient.
Also for me we have to be wary of the motivations behind that sort of help. If a person/people are willing to foot the £1-2 Billion bill for a stadium rebuild/redevelopment without expecting it to ever be paid back. Then personally I'd like to know the intentions behind that generosity.
They didn't bring a sports or football consultant so maybe they will only assess after they get in or maybe no change for the time being.
Different business models.
Levy is napoleon bonaparte compared to the guys running the football side of Ineos
Maybe making profit long term if the club was sold on one day. But I don't see anyone whether it be Jim or Jassim spending £5-6b on a football club to make short term profits.
No problem with you questioning my P.O.V. It’s what the forum is for.
It’s pretty simple. Show me the profit INeOS has made from their sporting ventures. Show me how it’s a bigger portion of their income than their other venture (grenadier car/chemicals/health products etc.) Show me how pumping £6b into a football club is a better way to make money than putting it into their other businesses. I don’t think it is. INEOS is a business behemoth, and they dwarf United in every conceivable way. If it was simply a money making exercise their are much cheaper clubs you can maximise investment on. Sir Jim seems pretty set on United, he doesn’t seem interested in a Liverpool or Spurs investment, he was never linked to Newcastle who would have been way cheaper. As a money spinner United doesn’t make sense. There is simply more to it than that.
I don’t know whether Jassim loves United/football genuinely but the fact is until it’s proven otherwise the prudent position on the Qatar bid is that it’s state backed as that is the most likely outcome.
Yup, keep laughing. I’ll assume you have nothing valid to add to the conversation.
Easier than chopping them up I suppose. Something the Geordies have no issue with.
And with Sheikh Jassim on the board…he limited or reduced their holdings to 6.8%. That’s smart business.
Yeah that's how it normally works mate and this is the route I'd like to see the club take. It's not the easy road of course but Old Trafford as it currently is and the same with Carrington was paid for by the club.
INEOS do not own Abidjan. The have a partnership with OGC Nice.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…….
Actually they increased it. Wouldn't be nice go check things before you criticise?
https://www.reuters.com/markets/dea...-stake-credit-suisse-just-under-7-2023-01-23/
Then they'll be loads of bullshite articles written by swan funded media telling lies about ducks apparently.
So they increased it just 2 months shy of today’s bailout. Smart business as I said.
I don't know how you can blame credit suisse mishaps on an organisation who owned just 5-7% of the shares. There again we are used in here to blame every thing on qatar
Just making a devilish effort to equalise the tone of the debate…you know with all Brexit Jim, bike man stuff.
- Status