Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

Which owners would you prefer?

  • Qatar

    Votes: 961 62.8%

  • Ineos

    Votes: 570 37.2%
  • Total voters
    1,531
  • Poll closed .
SAFMUTD said:
Exactly I don't care if the owners are British, Chinese, American or from the middle east. As long as they are the best option for success I'm all in.

I've repeat this several times and I'll say it again, Im not into football because we are the epitome of morality. I want my successful club back, I'll go to church for the rest.
Click to expand...
Spot on.

Keep politics out of football. Some people like to judge fish by their ability to climb trees.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Al Thani's net worth is 1.2bn dollars. Jim's is closer to 15bn.

So Qatar are telling lies before they have even bought the club. The man they say is behind the purchase doesn't even have enough money on his own. If that's not a huge red flag then I don't know what else I can say.
Click to expand...

The big bad Qatar vs the Tory Brexiteer!
 
croadyman said:
Another very good balanced post
Click to expand...

Although totally ignored the point that the Qatari in question doesn't even have enough money to buy the club. He's worth 1.2bn.

So why are the lies and deceit from them? Why can't they just be honest that the money is coming from the royal family as we all bleeding know it is anyway?

I can't get on board with these type of people. Red flags before we have even started.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Although totally ignored the point that the Qatari in question doesn't even have enough money to buy the club. He's worth 1.2bn.

So why are the lies and deceit from them? Why can't they just be honest that the money is coming from the royal family as we all bleeding know it is anyway?

I can't get on board with these type of people. Red flags before we have even started.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the Qatari state would be willing to help him out ?
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Al Thani's net worth is 1.2bn dollars. Jim's is closer to 15bn.

So Qatar are telling lies before they have even bought the club. The man they say is behind the purchase doesn't even have enough money on his own. If that's not a huge red flag then I don't know what else I can say.
Click to expand...

So you don't have any concerns about how INEOS aren't talking about clearing debt in their statements
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Although totally ignored the point that the Qatari in question doesn't even have enough money to buy the club. He's worth 1.2bn.

So why are the lies and deceit from them? Why can't they just be honest that the money is coming from the royal family as we all bleeding know it is anyway?

I can't get on board with these type of people. Red flags before we have even started.
Click to expand...

Yeah his actual worth is a valid concern,however why won't Ratcliffe talk with more boldness about his plans for the club is what I don't understand if he and INEOS combined can afford it
 
Raoul said:
I wonder if the Qatari state would be willing to help him out ?
Click to expand...

My guess is that it's either QIA or a private consortium with originally exfiltrated funds, a bit like some of the russian oligarchs.
 
croadyman said:
Not surprised that United We Stand has Ratcliffe as firm favourite because majority of those will be old school matchgoers
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe. Then are also the likes of O'Neil, from Webby & O'Neil, who doesn't think Ratcliffe is serious and would rather have the Qataris.
 
JPRouve said:
My guess is that it's either QIA or a private consortium with originally exfiltrated funds, a bit like some of the russian oligarchs.
Click to expand...

The Russian oligarchs are all state funded. It is all Putin's money, who then "deploys" it to various people (Oligarchs) to put it to work on his behalf both home and abroad. Abramovich included, which is why Chelsea have new owners today after Putin's invasion of Ukraine. All Qatari money is also in some way or another sourced from the state given that the extended ruling family have no other source of income other than what they siphon from the state.
 
Raoul said:
The Russian oligarchs are all state funded. It is all Putin's money, who then "deploys" it to various people to put it to work on his behalf both home and abroad. Abramovich included, which is why Chelsea have new owners today after Putin's invasion of Ukraine. All Qatari money is also in some way or another sourced from the state given that the extended ruling family have no other source of income other than what they siphon from the state.
Click to expand...

And I believe that it will be state funded, I simply mentioned the two options that I imagine. QIA or a consortium.
 
mu4c_20le said:
To be fair, we always do. Evra incident anyone? We've always been known as a grassroots, liberally progressive club. Be a shame if that ever changes.
Click to expand...

Exactly and that’s under Glazer ownership.

Regardless of who buys us. Unless they go full Todd Boehly our principals will remain.
 
SAFMUTD said:
Exactly I don't care if the owners are British, Chinese, American or from the middle east. As long as they are the best option for success I'm all in.

I've repeat this several times and I'll say it again, Im not into football because we are the epitome of morality. I want my successful club back, I'll go to church for the rest.
Click to expand...

100% especially when there's no transparency between owners about what's transpiring behind closed doors. The perception of what ordaines a 'good' owner is merely measured through what's made available to the public.
 
Irrational. said:
Spot on.

Keep politics out of football. Some people like to judge fish by their ability to climb trees.
Click to expand...
You’re literally arguing for the sale of your club to a politically motivated buyer.
 
Mainoldo said:
Exactly and that’s under Glazer ownership.

Regardless of who buys us. Unless they go full Todd Boehly our principals will remain.
Click to expand...

And I don't think its too much to ask that a new owner conform to the ethos and value structure of the club and nation in which it operates. There nothing supporters can't have each of debt relief, infrastructure development, and and ownership who are inclusive and pluralistic on social issues.
 
Raoul said:
The Russian oligarchs are all state funded. It is all Putin's money, who then "deploys" it to various people (Oligarchs) to put it to work on his behalf both home and abroad. Abramovich included, which is why Chelsea have new owners today after Putin's invasion of Ukraine. All Qatari money is also in some way or another sourced from the state given that the extended ruling family have no other source of income other than what they siphon from the state.
Click to expand...

Basically Chelsea were state funded? Please be true.
 
Shakesey said:
It's concerning that the more we debate this, the more closed off and polarised we're getting.

I commend anyone who is open to be swayed. Too few of these left.
Click to expand...

I am open to be swayed if the Qataris make a public commitment to explicitly reform their LGTBQ laws and a follow on commitment that LGBTQ fans will never be discriminated against in any capacity.

Note that their original statement made no reference to this, which is a central concern among many fans.
 
Raoul said:
And I don't think its too much to ask that a new owner conform to the ethos and value structure of the club and nation in which it operates. There nothing supporters can't have each of debt relief, infrastructure development, and and ownership who are inclusive and pluralistic on social issues.
Click to expand...

I think the two public bidders have. It’s only the rumour mongers of the media and our fan base which are saying otherwise..
 
HTG said:
You’re literally arguing for the sale of your club to a politically motivated buyer.
Click to expand...
In what way are they politically motivated? There’s been no mention of politics of any sort in their manifesto. Their goals and ours are aligned: we want United back to the top of the footballing pyramid. I couldn’t give a toss what happens outside of the football pitch - there’s hypocrisy on both sides and doesn’t concern your average Joe Bloggs fan in the slightest. Focus on the football.

Dion said:
Shouldn't that start with... you know... not letting actual states own football clubs?
Click to expand...

I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest state ownership (which doesn’t seem to be the case with us anyway) has affected the political world in any way.

Just like how people lost their minds when Qatar were hosting the World Cup and it turned out to be one of the best finals in history, they’re throwing their toys out of the pram without even seeing what the benefits to the club might be.

You just aren’t going to find a 100% clean buyer. There’s shit on both sides of the spectrum. We just have to be selfish and go with the proposition that gives us the best chance in football.
 
croadyman said:
So you don't have any concerns about how INEOS aren't talking about clearing debt in their statements
Click to expand...

This is an infuriating stance when discussing Qatar. YES. It is possible to be highly sceptical about both for differing reasons. In fact, I get red flags when I hear anyone is definitely sure about either bidder.

They are both massively vague statements, which is all that you would expect to hear at this stage. Baring in mind we know that they have signed NDAs. We can only discuss with the limited information we have and anything after is speculation - of course this is fine to do, but it needs to be done in good faith.
 
Raoul said:
I am open to be swayed if the Qataris make a public commitment to explicitly reform their LGTBQ laws and a follow on commitment that LGBTQ fans will never be discriminated against in any capacity.

Note that their original statement made no reference to this, which is a central concern among many fans.
Click to expand...
You want Qatar to change its laws. You want Qatar to disregard the laws of its religion. That's not going to happen soon.

So I guess you're not really open to be swayed at all... There's no win-win here you know.
 
Big no to owners who aren't clear about what they plan to do about the debt. I don't even care if the new owners don't invest much into the club. If Jim Ratcliffe had stated clearly that he would clear the club of all the debt and would not borrow money to buy the club, then I'm sure everyone would have loved him as the owner. But right now there's only one buyer who is saying that and what I want from the next owners, more than anything else is to clear the club's debt.
Personally, I'm more than happy to welcome the Qataris if they can help my club get rid of the debt .
 
Irrational. said:
I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest state ownership (which doesn’t seem to be the case with us anyway) has affected the political world in any way.

Just like how people lost their minds when Qatar were hosting the World Cup and it turned out to be one of the best finals in history, they’re throwing their toys out of the pram without even seeing what the benefits to the club might be.

You just aren’t going to find a 100% clean buyer. There’s shit on both sides of the spectrum. We just have to be selfish and go with the proposition that gives us the best chance in football.
Click to expand...
It's a literal state owning a football club.

And yeah, that world cup where they banned beer sales and any display of solidarity with LGBTQ+ individuals.... definitely not political that one is it?
 
Sanche7 said:
Big no to owners who aren't clear about what they plan to do about the debt. I don't even care if the new owners don't invest much into the club. If Jim Ratcliffe had stated clearly that he would clear the club of all the debt and would not borrow money to buy the club, then I'm sure everyone would have loved him as the owner. But right now there's only one buyer who is saying that and what I want from the next owners, more than anything else is to clear the club's debt.
Personally, I'm more than happy to welcome the Qataris if they can help my club get rid of the debt .
Click to expand...
So the poll would be much closer if Sir Jim had put out a better PR statement.
 
Shakesey said:
You want Qatar to change its laws. You want Qatar to disregard the laws of its religion. That's not going to happen soon.

So I guess you're not really open to be swayed at all... There's no win-win here you know.
Click to expand...

A simple statement assuring fans they wouldn't be imposing their backwards totalitarian religious customs on club activities would suffice. United is after all an English club in an environment that respects human rights, and not an entity in the Persian Gulf.
 
croadyman said:
So you don't have any concerns about how INEOS aren't talking about clearing debt in their statements
Click to expand...

We haven't had full clarity on that yet have we?

Would you be happy if INEOS came out and said the debt will be gone too?
 
Raoul said:
A simple statement assuring fans they wouldn't be imposing their backwards totalitarian religious customs on club activities would suffice. United is after all an English club in an environment that respects human rights, and not an entity in the Persian Gulf.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I'm totally up for that. I thought you meant Qatar needs to change Qatar.
 
davidmichael said:
The whole “we’ll be a plastic club like City if Qatar own us” thing is ridiculous seeing as we just need to be debt free, we don’t need to cook the books and are arguably the biggest sports brand in the world with a rich history of trophies so we’ll never be plastic no matter what.

For me the most important thing is Qatar are saying they’ll redevelop the stadium, invest in the training facilities, invest in the women’s team, invest in the youth team, develop the area around the stadium and clear ALL debt whereas Ineos are simply saying they’ll take on the debt which regardless of whatever way it’s phrased means our owner having massive debt.

In an ideal world Ineos would be the ones I’d prefer from a completely moral standpoint but this isn’t an ideal world as football is no longer a sport and very much now big business, does anyone honestly believe Jim Ratcliffe will take on £5 billion debt for United then another billion to redevelop the stadium with there being virtually zero chance of a return ?

I don’t believe for a second Qatar won’t have looked at everything going at City financially and because of the feeling between Qatar and Abu Dhabi they’ll want to be better and do better, they’ll know debt free we blow everyone else away but the brand of the club helps them PR wise seeing as we’re the biggest club in the world that can be bought (Real and Barca aren’t allowed and I believe same applies to Bayern) so will do it all by the book.
Click to expand...
Solid post.
 
Dion said:
For tolerating states using football clubs as exercises in soft power*
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean world economy and political view should continue to be dominated by west instead right. We don’t need a more equitable balanced world setup at all.
 
TheLittleOne said:
I'm very idealistic and dream of an Utopia. The older i got the more i realized all i can do is making the life better of my immediate surrounding. Carrying the world on your shoulder only makes you end up feeling depressed and helpless. Sure, if you feel strong about a specific topic you might be able to improve things a little, but you will never be able to solve all the worlds problems. We should do the little things like do something nice once a day even if its for a total stranger. Also, in my experience, the louder people complain about it,often online,the less likely they follow their words with actions.
Click to expand...

Agreed on pretty much all of that. Additionally, often the louder you preach it the less people you tend to convert. I’d be interested to see if any people have had their mind changed from supporting Qatar by the arguments that have gone on in here. From my own experience people rarely change their minds on the back of an argument on the internet. If anything it forces them into seeking out evidence to back up their own views and ends up further entrenching them. Lived experiences tend to be what makes people change their mind.

I’ve said I’m not in favour of Qatar, going beyond that feels like a waste of my time and everybody else’s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.