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 .
Nori- said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because if the debt was on 2015 terms with better interest rates than today, why not? it’s peanuts for INEOS to service.

I think some people see debt and only think “Glazer debt”, probably not realising that even City took out a loan on the club last year and that amazon currently have 169bn of debt.

https://finbox.com/NASDAQGS:AMZN/explorer/total_debt
 
Red in STL said:
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
Click to expand...

Yeah a small number of people did do those things. Events that occurred a very very long time ago. How is that even comparable to modern day?
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
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 :lol:

They actually seem to have a very good structure in place now, and as you say, the club value has also increased.
Click to expand...

Weren't the INEOS cycling team involved in some drug use controversies?
 
Revan said:
Club’s value under Glazers (who bought it for 800m) has increased around 7 times (assuming it will be sold for 5-6B).

Awesome owners!
Click to expand...

Man United debt pre-Glazer: 0
Man United debt 2023 including transfer debt: approaching 1bn

Nice have no such issues, they are after PSG, the most financially sound club in the country.

Silly comparison.
 
Revan said:
I am much more in favor of Qatar but I do not think this is correct.
Click to expand...

Revan, you’re a good poster. How did you get to favouring Qatar from these points?
Revan said:
.Those workers didn't die in order for us to get a World Cup. They died in work, and went in work in order to provide money for their families. Cancelling the World Cup won't make things any better or worse, people will still continue dying inQatar cause of terrible work conditions.
Click to expand...
Revan said:
. Chelsea fans complaining about City and PSG is a bit like Saudi Arabia saying that Qatar funds terrorists, as hypocritical as it can be.
Click to expand...
Revan said:
Totally the same bar being 50 times bigger, not having medieval laws for most part and having a rich culture.
Click to expand...
Revan said:
No, Doha is not a place where terrorist attacks happen regularly. However, Qatar next to Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, and is an extremely small country located in the most unstable region on the world..
Click to expand...
Revan said:
No, it is not excellent anywhere. Even ‘rich’ countries like UAE or Qatar, the quality of life there for 80-90% of the population is absolute shit, essentially they are slaves. Just that they are not Arab Muslims but Indians, Bangladeshi or from Philippines.
Click to expand...
 
Mainoldo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because homophobia is an attack on other people and their ability to live their lives free from persecution. There's a fundamental difference between being critical of a view which affects nobody else and one which impacts millions of others.
 
red thru&thru said:
Weren't the INEOS cycling team involved in some drug use controversies?
Click to expand...

This was Sky cycling, they had a Dr working for them who was subsequently banned. They also abused the exception rules for medical conditions, bit like Liverpool having about 11 asthmatic players.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Man United debt pre-Glazer: 0
Man United debt 2023 including transfer debt: approaching 1bn

Nice have no such issues, they are after PSG, the most financially sound club in the country.

Silly comparison.
Click to expand...

They are?
 
Hal9000 said:
This was Sky cycling, they had a Dr working for them who was subsequently banned. They also abused the exception rules for medical conditions, bit like Liverpool having about 11 asthmatic players.
Click to expand...

I’m much preferred the idea Jim himself was injecting them with speed against their will in the middle of every big climb.
 
Dion said:
Like the Qatari state bid for United, it wasn't as nearly cryptic as you hoped.
Click to expand...

Nothing cryptic I just found the line funny. Apparently though I took it out of context…
 
adnando said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its not right for a nation to use football to push its agenda. How has Qatar used football to push its agenda. Do you have an example from their ownership of PSG. Lets talk real life examples...not imaginary shenanigans
 
Dion said:
Because homophobia is an attack on other people and their ability to live their lives free from persecution. There's a fundamental difference between being critical of a view which affects nobody else and one which impacts millions of others.
Click to expand...

There are millions of people who are Muslim and disregarding a country due to their understanding of their religion is Islamophobic to me.

So just relax and like you said earlier leave people to believe what they want.
 
Mainoldo said:
Somewhere out there people are writing similar sentences to you in regards to a male wanting to be referred to as a female.

There is no right or work in the view of the world. How you feel about certain laws and beliefs I respect yet might not agree, or maybe I do. But for the love of he/she… what does this have to do with Manchester United the football club.
Click to expand...
The mere fact that you can argue either sides of this topic is something impossible in Qatar
 
Cassidy said:
Nothing cryptic I just found the line funny. Apparently though I took it out of context…
Click to expand...
I'm not the UEFA panel who decides on dual ownership, you don't need to tell me those lies :)

Mainoldo said:
There are millions of people who are Muslim and disregarding a country due to their understanding of their religion is Islamophobic to me.

So just relax and like you said earlier leave people to believe what they want.
Click to expand...
Leaving people to what they want to believe is not the same as allowing them to inflict their beliefs on others without challenge.

I don't care what you think about gay people or women, I care about how those beliefs cause you to treat them. If you use your religion as a shield for mistreating people then it is a legitimate subject of criticism. That's not islamophobia, there are millions of Muslims who manage to go around without persecuting homosexuals or treating women as second class citizens.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
@Nori-, I’d like you to explain the following:

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ancity-debt-loan-accounts-borson-21130764.amp

What’s 500m to Abu Dhabi?
Click to expand...

Just had a quick read of that. There's a few points you can take from it....

1. The City owners can't keep ploughing money in the club forever. At some point they have to run it like a business and maybe taking out loans is part of that process but that doesn't apply to United right now. Our club is being sold, the potential buyer (Qatar) are offering to buy outright. No loan, nothing. That's very different to spending billions on City for over a decade then changing the way you do business. Look at the following quote from the article;

"But there is a difference between the debt City have taken on, and the leveraged debt used by the owners of United and Liverpool to buy those clubs....Servicing those debts does not benefit United and Liverpool at all, whereas the plan for the CFG loan is to use it to improve the business, even at a time when Covid is biting deep."

There's good debt and bad debt. SJR for all we know could be taking the same approach the Glazers did when they bought us. Why risk it when there are better options on the table?

2. What City are doing doesn't = United will do the same. Abu Dhabi taking out a loan, doesn't mean the Qataris will.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
People believed in witch hunts and slavery… I don’t believe “leave em to believe what they want” is quite enough.
Click to expand...

Its not enough but exclusion doesn’t help anything especially when we should know changing of these views is a process (that we only recently overcame here and are still on said journey)

You do not promote tolerance with intolerance.
 
There's a wide gap between "exclusion" and "allowing their government to buy one of the mot famous football clubs in the world while they're still putting homosexuals and dissident journalists in prison".

I don't think it's remotely unreasonable to expect to treat the Qatari state somewhere between those two extremes.
 
Dion said:
I'm not the UEFA panel who decides on dual ownership, you don't need to tell me those lies :)


Leaving people to what they want to believe is not the same as allowing them to inflict their beliefs on others without challenge.

I don't care what you think about gay people or women, I care about how those beliefs cause you to treat them. If you use your religion as a shield for mistreating people then it is a legitimate subject of criticism. That's not islamophobia, there are millions of Muslims who manage to go around without persecuting homosexuals or treating women as second class citizens.
Click to expand...
So now Im a liar? Interesting.

I actually agree with your last paragraph. How people go about this though today is extremely counterproductive and intolerant which achieves little.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Nor with ignorance or indifference.
Click to expand...

No one said you should be ignorant or indifferent. Intolerance and exclusion achieves little. Unless the intention is to anex them to a part of the world and give zero fecks about their citizens.
 
Nori- said:
Just had a quick read of that. There's a few points you can take from it....

1. The City owners can't keep ploughing money in the club forever. At some point they have to run it like a business and maybe taking out loans is part of that process but that doesn't apply to United right now. Our club is being sold, the potential buyer (Qatar) are offering to buy outright. No loan, nothing. That's very different to spending billions on City for over a decade then changing the way you do business. Look at the following quote from the article;

"But there is a difference between the debt City have taken on, and the leveraged debt used by the owners of United and Liverpool to buy those clubs....Servicing those debts does not benefit United and Liverpool at all, whereas the plan for the CFG loan is to use it to improve the business, even at a time when Covid is biting deep."

There's good debt and bad debt. SJR for all we know could be taking the same approach the Glazers did when they bought us. Why risk it when there are better options on the table?
Click to expand...

We know he isn’t, because he can’t leverage it on the club, and unlike the Glazers who had no huge giant parent company, it’d be moronic from a business stand point. You don’t leverage debt on a company with 100 times smaller revenue than the parent man.

The Glazers only did it because they had no other possible vehicle to purchase the club, hence the uproar at the time due to payment in kind loans with 16% interest:eek:
 
Last edited:
Cassidy said:
So now Im a liar?
Click to expand...
I don't think this is even close to the first time today I've pointed out you're telling yourself comfortable lies rather than acknowledging a truth that makes you uncomfortable.

But other than that, correct, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.