Al Jazeera is Qatar's state media.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Thats one.
You're responding with one-liners now? Atleast own up that the content of the article didn't match what you said.
Like i said the whole article is IF, perhaps you want to show what is fact and not If related..
I have been favoring Qatar over SJR. However, this rumored multi-club ownership model with PSG and United at the helm has me nervous - I don't think I want to be part of any ownership that doesn't consider United to the the only club at the summit of any multi-club ownership model.
You said it was harsh to suggest this was state media and I replied saying that it was, indeed, state media. What's the problem?
Stop being deliberately obtuse. I said opinion of state media. Also your sensationalists headline didn't match the content.
Nothing b
Are you incapable of not distorting difficult topics? The article posted clearly states people are being deceived by people for hefty sums and the practice is illegal. It’s the equivalent of migrants coming to to the U.K. being duped by traffickers, or slave labourers.
4.5bn is club valuation. So SJR is effectivelly bidony 69% x 4.5 bn. The Glazers would get 2.7 for their stake. Intresting thing is that currently theGlazers shares stand 10:1 in voting rights. Once the Glazers sell all shares become equall in voting rights
How do you know they don’t? People trafficking & slave labour is illegal in the U.K. but it you dig you’ll find people working illegally for gang of traffickers.
Ok, Fair enough, I'll rephrase it to: Here's an opinion from Qatari state media that suggests very strong links between the bid and the state. Do you feel that is more accurate? I wasn't being intentionally obtuse.
Not reaching 1000 pages yet? I'm disappointed with the CAF.
Catching up again and today might have some of the worst posts yet.
Some people will defend just about anything. Difficult not to have anything but contempt for certain views.
I accept some posters prefer the Qatari bid and thats fine. It's those that will dismiss any concerns and in some cases attempt to accuse posters of racism, xenophobia or even virtue signalling for the crime of being concerned about the treatment of people in Qatar?
Get to feck!
Anyway, off to Harrods. They do a sublime prawn butty.
Some people will defend just about anything. Difficult not to have anything but contempt for certain views.
I accept some posters prefer the Qatari bid and thats fine. It's those that will dismiss any concerns and in some cases attempt to accuse posters of racism, xenophobia or even virtue signalling for the crime of being concerned about the treatment of people in Qatar?
Get to feck!
Anyway, off to Harrods. They do a sublime prawn butty.
I am fine with Qatari ownership, but these are the posts that make this place turn upside down. The reasoning is wild.
Nah, they only do that when it comes to aid.
If we turn a blind eye to state involvement for a moment, and consider Sheikh Jassim to genuinely be bidding privately then the plight of Malaga should really throw up many of the cafs beloved red flags.
- Banned from Europe by UEFA for flouting FFP
- Promising to invest and develop in the local area before reneging on funding
- The development remaining unbuilt as a result
- The club relegated amid unmanageable debt
- Misappropriating club funds and owing millions back to the club
And a whole bunch of people falling for tub thumping and bullshit tweets from mysterious sources.
I wonder why they screwed over Malaga. PSG took precedence?
What do you mean?
The article says he co-owned the club, and the co-owner took him to court and he was not allowed to control the club any more. So it's little wonder he stopped bankrolling the club
Sheikh Jassim is bidding for 100% of Manchester United without any partners
We are not Chelsea. Our owners don’t give a crap.
And, there obviously is only one Al Thani in Qatar.. Just like one smith in the UK.
I understood that, even the most ardent MUGAs accepted that he would have partners in Qatar, whoever they might be. Is this not the case?
None of the "ifs" in that article relate to whether Jassim's bid is linked to the Qatar state, which is (correctly) treated as a given.
I don't think you genuinely believe this is relevant, you just want something to counter the INEOS claims about their ability to run a football club after their experience at Nice and Lausanne. Also a tad dramatic as the situations would be nothing alike. Malaga was bought by a peripheral Al Thani with a view to investment opportunities in the area. Also bought for a relatively small price (especially compared to the billions United would cost) and it was clear from early on that it would be a shitshow. Even if the State of Qatar doesn't directly back Jassim financially, there's still no way they will allow Manchester United to be ran into the ground due to the enormous negative PR it would be for the country. Unlike Malaga, which nobody cares about.
No it doesn’t?
Congratulations on being the first to defend the bid though. Great that you are so sure about something that has been publicised so little. Keep drinking that kool-aid!
I'm not a "MUGA" - Sir Jim and INEOS would be my preferred bidder based on the little we know about each bidding parties intentions
Perhaps he would, but I don't think that's the same as the partner his cousin had at Malaga, and nobody who would take him to court to take away his control of the club. Additionally, United wouldn't be reliant on being "bankrolled" unlike Malaga (and PSG, city, Newcastle)
Read it again, ask for help with the bigger wordsNo it doesn’t?
Congratulations on being the first to defend the bid though. Great that you are so sure about something that has been publicised so little. Keep drinking that kool-aid!
Sorry, not suggesting you were. I just wondered if the debate had changed and I wasn't aware.
Ah I see, no worries. I have no idea really about the inner workings of these bids, I can only take what is public information and decide what to take at face value or not
Of course it’s relevant. Along with PSG they are models of Qatari ownership in European football. It’s interesting that one is blatantly state owned and the other apparently isn’t and to contrast the varying fortunes of the clubs involved. Also interesting that there is talk of Al-Khelaifi bailing out Malaga.
As for the INEOS point, if it’s a choice between ineffectual owners or owners who would take money out of the club, relegate it and have it on the verge of annihilation I know which I’d rather!!
Neither Qatar nor Ineos would be worse for United than the Glazers, especially the Glazers propped up by a loan or minority investment from asset strippers like Elliott. That's all I really care about since those are the only 3 options.
I suggest you read the article again, because nowhere does it state he co-owns the club.
Then consider the FACT that 100% of United isn’t available at this point and all bidders are bidding for the 69% controlling stake of the club owned by the Glazers.
What BS?
We need more official cuntpals.
Ahh, Qatari tub thumping. Sorry, I was a bit slow there!
He’s not going to spend 6 billion on the club and then let it rot
his relationship also soured with another business partner, BlueBay Hotels, with whom he had struck a deal to jointly own and manage the football club
a regional court ordered Al-Thani's removal as club president
Control of club affairs was handed to a court-appointed administrator, Jose Maria Munoz
You're hardly going to admit you are wrong, but however you spin it he is hardly going to continue funding a club under these conditions and it's unlikely Sheikh Jassim would encounter this same issue. Also his statement said he wants 100% of the club, so that is the ultimate goal of his. Don't know why you're arguing.
You're just annoyed at me for "defending the bid" because i'm pointing out things you don't want to hear basically.
- Status