That’d be news to them in a none democratic state.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
That’d be news to them in a none democratic state.
Does he make money from cycling, Nice, F1 or the Kipchoge run?
I think he makes way more than enough, more than he could ever spend even if he tried, and at 70 he just wants to do some fun things with his vast wealth that’ll leave a legacy.
Your reply was to someone who sarcastically said "I respect and admire your belief in a nations morals and values that put women beneath the man to the point where she needs permission from a male guardian to study, work or travel." because you'd said "For tolerating people with different ideologies and world views I think."
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot "tolerate people with different ideologies" but also "not accept anything as a whole" when it comes to things like sexism and homophobia. You either don't tolerate homophobia and sexism or you do. It's not "tolerance" to blindly accept every single aspect of someone. Some ideologies are harmful.
@Tom Cato was right on this.
Presumably, yes. Why wouldn't he?
Respectfully I don’t know what views he holds but as a religion Muslims hold certain views like do other religions. If you disagree with those what phobic is that? Islamophobia? So how far down a rabbit hole do we go?
Well he doesn’t is the answer. Cycling runs permanently at a loss and he has made no money and only investments in football and rugby, same with sailing.
Why wouldn’t they? Because they make 2bn a year with their parent company, that takes care of everything and gives them a chance to invest heavily in hobbies.
Why didn’t Jack Walker make money from Blackburn? Or Roman at Chelsea? Or Ballmer?
https://cyclingtips.com/2019/05/what-does-ineos-have-to-gain-by-sponsoring-a-cycling-team/
The sub two hour attempt cost Nike 30m, and yet INEOS made a MUCH bigger deal of it, so likely cost much more.
https://www.ispo.com/en/markets/15940-how-eliud-kipchoge-ran-marathon-under-two-hours?amp
When you’re the richest man in your home country, you can do these things as fun hobbies. It’s no different really to someone on 20k a year spending 1000 quid on a United season ticket. Well, except that season ticket will be worthless in a year, whereas the club you own won’t.
Last edited:
if any of these bids are serious i’d expect to see them purchasing mbappe and leaving him outside ot as a present. fans would rush to the ground on thursday to see him in a bow next to megastore, grown men would weep and ask their children if we can keep him, the sheik/sirjim would then say yes.
If you were bidding to buy a business would you tell the opposition what you were going to do?
No... no it's not.
If you disagree with Islam's stance on homosexuality it's not Islamophobia, you can believe whatever you like without forcing that view on others.
Qatari Owners = Huge investment and all debts cleared. Vanity project for the owners so no costs will be spared. United would be the jewel in their sporting crown. There are SOME questions regarding human rights but realistically no different to Adidas using Asian sweat shops to make our kits wish we happily buy. For any concerns around LGBT issues, just look at PSG, Man City, Newcastle - All owned by similar or same owners and that has never been an issue. Just scaremongering and attention seeking.
Sir Jim'll Fix It = Borrowing money to buy the club and debts being moved to another company....but they still need to be paid off, it doesn't matter where the debts are. No company will happily take on someone else's debts without some reward. Huge spending needed for stadium + training facilities which will require MORE loans. He will make the Glazers debt look like an over due water bill. He's an opportunist who sees a once in a life time chance to buy a British establishment and will say and do whatever it takes to get it.
In my opinion, Qatari ownership is a no brainer. If we miss this boat and they look elsewhere - prepare for another decade or two of pain.
Sir Jim'll Fix It = Borrowing money to buy the club and debts being moved to another company....but they still need to be paid off, it doesn't matter where the debts are. No company will happily take on someone else's debts without some reward. Huge spending needed for stadium + training facilities which will require MORE loans. He will make the Glazers debt look like an over due water bill. He's an opportunist who sees a once in a life time chance to buy a British establishment and will say and do whatever it takes to get it.
In my opinion, Qatari ownership is a no brainer. If we miss this boat and they look elsewhere - prepare for another decade or two of pain.
Reading helps. No one said you should tolerate homophobia or sexism.
That doesn't mean you can’t respect other things from their morals and values unless you are essentially reducing their entire culture to sexism and homaphobia.
“You can respect their morals and values and still disagree with aspects”
Its not a difficult sentence to break down.
Otherwise there isn't a set of morals and values you could ever respect from any culture since they will all have something you disagree with (and not small things either)
Its always easy to spot people with a general lack of tolerance of difference.
What's being gay got to do with Ratcliffe? Is he anti LGBT or something? I'm not informed too much on him, I just know that he's supposedly a Utd fan who liked Chelsea for the past decade or two and who wanted to buy Chelsea as well.
He bought Nice because he's a lifelong fan?
This idea sports ownership isn't a business decision because a tiny minority of owners have bucked that trend because of their own personal wealth is silly.
Any business that gets involved in sport the decision is taken like any business decision is, because the investment as an opportunity to make money has been identified, often by direct brand awareness. From the very article you posted:
"typically, sponsorship is all about raising awareness and enhancing brand recall, so that when people see a name they think ‘Oh, I know them; they’re cycling sponsors.’ And so, it begins to shape people’s perceptions, change their attitudes and behaviours.”
Unless you think every cycling sponsors are doing so purely for philanthropic reasons? Do you think every Premier League shirt sponsorship is just some good blokes doing a good turn?
The life long fan argument for SJR means absolutely nothing by the way.
I've been a life long Ferrari fan, doesn't mean I'm qualified to run their F1 team.
I've been a life long Ferrari fan, doesn't mean I'm qualified to run their F1 team.
Such nonsense.
The reward is owning a football club many people pay a large chunk of their wages to watch.
His company debt would be the equivalent of you buying a season ticket every season with your salary.
Jack Walker, Roman, Ballmer, plenty of stupidly rich people take on a hobby like this, that’s the reward. They don’t need anything else from it.
SJR/INEOS make a loss in cycling, spent tens of millions getting Kippers to run under 2 hours, make no money from sailing nor Rugby, nor Nice.
But for some reason for United, they’d need an extra reward?
It's a good job that none of the bidders will ever read any of the stuff on here, because if they did, i suspect they'd collectively say, feck that, it's not worth the hassle and leave the leeches in charge!
The ignorance of history here is mindblowing.
You support an English club, a country whise wealth and prosperity has been built upon, amongst other things, the slave trade, opium and famine.
You can keep isolating your words from the context in which they were said but it doesn't do anything.
It's not 'tolerance' to overlook institutional homophobia and sexism, which is what Tom was objecting to. He wasn't calling you out for 'tolerating' anything, he was calling people out for turning a blind eye to it.
I think it’s both, as it was for Roman. They love the adulation, they love the hobby, and the parent company gets incredible PR.
I’m sure Jim and the other 2 owners see the sports ventures as win wins for the company, despite none of them generating money and most in fact running at a loss.
Ah this argument? A new one
None of the English crown, the East India Company, nor 10 Downing Street are bidding for United.
Good thing rich people hire professionals to do that job
Was Roman a lifelong fan of Chelsea?
He bought Nice as it’s well, in beautiful Nice, and he probably wasn’t a lifelong fan of TeamSky either.
But they are fun projects.
Dunno man, he ‘hired’ his brother to run Nice. It did not end well.
I said the words… I know the context
Feel free to keep telling me what I meant though
Hasn’t ended at all.
Nice have a cracking new DoF mind and are the form team in France. I think this new structure, with Bob still as the head of football for INEOS, looks promising long term for Nice.
Yeah let's go back hundreds of years and compare it to right now.
Manchester United was never owned the state of England either so how is that even relevant.
Just be honest about your motives......money. Stop all this whataboutery. If Jim Ratcliffe was richer than the royal family of Qatar you'd have a different opinion rendering whatever you have to say pointless.
Aren't Nice worth like 3x what they paid now?
Really, I recall not so long ago folks tearing down statues because of their links to slavery, yesterday the players took a knee to protest against discrimination, around the world people had marches for BLM, folks are helping Ukrainian's, housing them, feeding them and such like
Lots of people care about lots of things
So its about making money then and not sporting success and the club being run in a sensible manner? Keep Glazers then?
Could well be the case. They have been quite shit though. I don’t care how much United will be worth for Sir Jim to sell in 19 years, but how well we do in pitch in those years.
Congratulations! After 4 years there, they will finally finish in the fourth place.
After 4 years of Qatari in PSG, they had won 3 league titles.
But Nice are the better ran club!
If that's the case, why not pay the debt off from the start, they can easily afford to? SJR is worth £20b and INEOS have revenues of £60b, so what's £500m to them?
The reality is, the money will be moved to INEOS to shut fans up, they can then say the club is "debt free". They will take profits out of United to slowly pay that £500m off.
By the way, that's just the debt the glazers will pass on, not the billions more they'll loan to buy the club, get a new stadium, update the training facilities etc. (If they'll even bother doing that as nothing was mentioned).
So it's more than just a passion they want to blow some money on, it's a business acquisition.
United are worth a lot more than what they were purchased for. I wouldn't say the Glazers have done a good job.
It’s funny with INEOS and Nice, because those desperate for ME money want to ignore how successful INEOS sporting ventures have been and concentrate solely on Nice, pretending the whole thing has been some mass clusterfeck.
If you didn’t know better you’d imagine they were regularly finishing bottom half and been owned like Everton
They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Is it right for a nation to use football to push its own agenda on fans?
Because if you actually think that buying United has nothing to do with their agenda, I have a forum full of people defending Qatar that tells you otherwise.
Would you be okay with a nation that self-determined something that went against human rights? I'm not saying that Qatar does, I'm just curious about where you're drawing the line.
Hahahaha
Club’s value under Glazers (who bought it for 800m) has increased around 7 times (assuming it will be sold for 5-6B).It’s funny with INEOS and Nice, because those desperate for ME money want to ignore how successful INEOS sporting ventures have been and concentrate solely on Nice, pretending the whole thing has been some mass clusterfeck.
If you didn’t know better you’d imagine they were regularly finishing bottom half and been owned like Everton
They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Awesome owners!
One of my main takeaways from this thread is that the bidders who haven't publicly announced their interest yet are probably wise to hold off, as you really don't need to be dissected this thoroughly in the meantime.
They are being run in a sensible manner. However, I don't think the plan was to topple PSG's dominance with signings like Aaron Ramsay and Ross Barkley. If that was the case, Sir Jim should be sectioned the next time he comes in for another bid.
Regardless, he isn't a Nice fan as some of you have pointed out, so his running of Nice is totally irrelevant to how he'll run his boyhood dream club. The one he witnessed when he was there in 1999.
Exactly my point. So why people feel the need to criticise posters for wanting Qatar owners is behind me @Dion.
So maybe a couple of you guys needs to wind your neck in.