Hmm. Frankly, and I know I'll get stick for this, but if we could set aside valid concerns based on the past, then if existing ownership could raise enough external capital to a) pay back the debt ($800 million?), b) stop taking dividends out ($20 million annually), and c) fund OT renovations ($1 Billion?), that would remove the concerns about state-ownership and also remove the concerns about a new financially-motivated owner, such as a PE firm or Ineos. Total new capital required of about $2 Billion seems doable given the difference between how the shares are valued on the stock exchange and the bids coming in. The new capital would have to be given real shares - none of this dual class stuff any more - so they collapse the dual class share structure. Hmm just thinking about it now, doesnt seem so bad. What do you guys think? *runs for cover*
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
- Status
And that's a problem which is corrected at governance level. Because, as mentioned above, they are the ones with the power to imprison/fine etc.
Yeah that is very true,just hope that both have learnt from mistakes made at current clubs
Big if there... Too much bad blood for this to happen
Plus they won't fund OT renovations out of the goodness of their heart
If the British government falls out with Qatar then I'm afraid a football club will be the least of things you'll be worried about
Right, so you can be sexist as long as you pay a fine for it? You can be a fraud but its find cause you pay a fine?
It makes it right because they are "held accountable" by paying a fine.
So you would be okay with all the human rights, gay laws of ME if they pay a fine?
I don't think so, but his press statement left a lot to be desired compared to the Qatari one, especially as it didn't specifically reference debt relief, infrastructure development or the like, nor did it say anything about buying the club outright, which is why the Qatari position gained a bit of momentum - because some fans interpreted Ratcliffe's release as uninspiring.
These are all nonsense.
If a company is sexist or commits fraud in a functioning society people will be punished. That acts as a deterrent. The fact this system fails sometimes is due to a failure at regulatory level. The simple answer to that problem is that I wouldn't want the US or UK state to own Man Utd either.
There is no possibility of a deterrent for a state.
In theory
Really, they don't get corrected.
You could argue one is marginally worse than the other, but they seem to be adjacent in terms of "awfulness".
More people wanted Brexit than those who didn't. How did they turn out for us? Hahaha
Precisely,have said it many times IF Qatar wasn't sniffing around buying a rival club then absolutely I would vote for INEOS but will admit fear of them going elsewhere is pushing me to vote for them.
More a case of possibly than obviously. City haven't been found guilty of anything yet, and even if they are the punishment could just be a fine they would pay. I hope it's more than that but nothing would surprise me.
Because football/sports is entertaining, a fun thing to spend your silly sums of money on, certainly more fun than taking it to the grave. Just ask Ballmer, Jack Walker or Roman.
Last edited:
Spot on. And my take is that if Ratcliffe did not mention those, he won't probably do them. The whole No New Debt is worrying too.
Oh yeah I massively oppose their human rights but their plans for club are exciting
I'm not surprised TBH, he's not trying to win a PR battle because that means nothing to the people he's trying to buy from
They don't, but again that is a problem at state level which needs to be corrected there. The problem is the system which allows it to happen.
It's also something of a fallacy to compare any company (at least, any modern company) with a country which regularly imprisons people. They are fundamentally different.
Oh okay, the company can exploit the legal loopholes from governments and be sexist and commit fraud because you think they are punished right?
Hes’s not winning the money one either though. So he’s not winning much expect the heart strings of being a true Manc.
Have you seen the sell/keep Rashford thread.
There are legal mechanisms within the states these companies are based in to take a look at these situations. A nation state, particularly an autocratic one, doesn't have such constraints.
He absolute does need to win the PR battle. If fans were set against Qatar it would put pressure on the authorities to block it. Fan pressure/it being blocked are the only way Ratcliffe wins imo.
That's me and Raoul who have explained this directly to you now.
The reports from HRW and Amnesty international are both quite clear that Qatar is a country full of violations towards human rights, the only use you made of the reports was highlighting the parts about possible inaccuracies in the numbers and rates I dropped. The rest of your post was about how discriminating laws against minorities were common many other places as well so that shouldn't be used against the Qatari and how laws against blasphemi are ok because the majority of people there are religious and wants these laws. Then you go on about how they are making changes, though very slowly, which is only natural for a country as conservative both politically and religiously as Qatar.
If that post wasn't designed to defend the regime and minimize the crimes of the Qatari royal family stated in my original post, then what was it?
Maybe you don't think the Qatari regime is as bad as I do, if so you have the right to own that opinion.
Can I ask what you voted?
I really can't stand dictatorships of any kind. It's cancer to development, progress and freedom.
You can also argue that they'll be scrutinized even more because of City, what City appear to have done is falsify their accounts to make it appear they had more income than they had legitimately, United don't need to do that because they already have the income legitimately
No option for the Elliott Group?
Okay. Aren't City being looked into for financial doping? If they are owned by a state that has no laws, why are they being investigated? Surely they can be like we are our own law, we do what we want, we dont care?
Yeah, would be a good chance to filter out all impostors and oppo fans. Although it might be a bit too obvious..
Maybe he is and maybe he isn't - all that's happened so far are opening bids, there's no done deals with anyone
True true. I for one hope it’s sorted quick. I don’t like the sound of the Elliot group.
I think if they floated a much larger portion of the club on the stock market and went for the 1 class of shares they’d leave themselves open to a hostile takeover like they themselves did. We’d probably end up with Qatar or something even worse like Brunei in the long run anyway.
Firstly, one look at the City CAS case should make it obvious how being a state asset makes it very easy to avoid legal scrutiny.
Secondly, City are a state asset operating in a foreign country. The PL can challenge City's owners book keeping in this country, it cannot hold it accountable for actions against it's own people in the UAE.
I am genuinely surprised I have to explain this to you.
We do. And if Qatar meant no debt repayments, plus increased income from a regenerated stadium and legitimate sponsorship then we would be more than competitive with anyone, and within the rules.
Not certain that applies when you are talking about an investment of this nature from the Middle East.
At present City are being investigated by the PL to determine if they have broken PL rules, they are not (yet) being investigated for breaking the law, City maybe found guilty of breaching PL rules but not the actual law of the land
Although what you describe could potentially work, most fans have long divorced themselves from the Glazers, which would make it double hard to convince the fanbase that they have a valid plan in place to address each of the above concerns. It would make it even more difficult when some small island country in the middle east is dangling a carrot of buying the club outright and throwing endless funds into transfers and infrastructure.
I think it highly unlikely that the wealth is sitting as bank notes in a vault somewhere, it'll be sitting in a vault as gold bars, preciouis stones and such like
We are digressing. The point was why is there a difference in acceptance?
So Qatar who said they want to invest in Manutd womens team, we have seen PSG wear LGBTQ kits are not acceptable because Qatar laws.
Yet, we cant ake funding from companies who have been accused as sexist, genderist, fraudist.
Its fine because those companies paid a fine, so its acceptable. That is my point.
- Status