And yet we’re three points off them coming off our worst season for years, with fully incompetent owners. PSG haven’t managed to win a champions League with Qatari money either. There’s no guarantees.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
And yet we’re three points off them coming off our worst season for years, with fully incompetent owners. PSG haven’t managed to win a champions League with Qatari money either. There’s no guarantees.
A nice way to put it and I'm exactly the same.
Jim would be much better than the Glazers and we'd not have to sell our soul to achieve that. He's a local United fan too.
We're compared to them now, no? How much we've paid out in debts, and how much City have invested, etc.
But we all know historically there is no comparison. They can hardly sell out their stadium, we constantly do. We were winning before the new owners, whereas they weren't.
Depends what comparisons you want to draw.
Yep, so our success in the last 5 years is, we are 3 points off City in second.
Who said there are guarantees? On the pitch?
The guarantees I do have is, with the Glazers the club will rot to a point where no one will be interested in it.
Jim is taking a loan to clear our loan, so in 2/3 years he could end up doing exactly the same, get another loan on the club to finance his loan.
I just want to say one thing to the people who prefer Qatar over Ratcliffe, "A known devil is better than an unknown angel".
Yeah we're compared favourably in the way you describe. In ten years time, we'll mostly be compared because we're both owned by states.
Thank you @Solius 
Think we're not too far from that point already.
Needed saying.
Also think it's quite synonymous of the entire world. People just don't care about anything anymore only what can make their lives better.
Imagine being reminded of everything bad in Qatar every time we win anything. Nah not for me. It's simply not worth it.
Voted for ineos at the moment but I'd like to see more about the financing aspect. If they are draining us to fund the loans then no but if they service it themselves then yes
What about Nice? Ask the fans of Nice and PSG if they would swap owners.
Also, City being 3 points ahead is a bit selective, isn't it? Since SAF lest they are 147 points ahead. Since the takeover, they are 109 points ahead.
Love these votes. “Everyone’s a nob who doesn’t agree with me”.
That remains to be seen. Those points could yet be removed from them.
This is pretty much as I see it.
We need to be free from the shackles Glazers have put us under with their enormous debt. Our stadium, academy and training ground are all in need of big investment, something which INEOS won't fund from their own pocket and will ultimately end up saddling us with more debt.
Qatar is the obvious choice here.
Qatar is the obvious choice here.
There is no way the football club could survive the impact of loans as high as this, the club would be owned by Ineos whose profits are circa 2.5 billion a year thats an astronomical amount of a money per annum to make and dwarves any profit the football club could hope to make over multiple years, not all debt is bad debt.
The people who are the most important are the fans of our club. We all know what our club is. We've not really ever been liked by the the authorities, or the media. But we all know we've been around, and successful, irrespective of our owners.
We will be the first actual powerhouse of a club to be bought by the ME/sugar daddy. A club with an already established history and tradition. Let's see how things play out.
Last edited:
Add them to the poll!Glazers In
I knew a girl who had that stamped on the small of her back
I know we all hate for us to be state owned but honestly I'm sick of us being the only team who thinks so many times before we sign a player in spite of all the money the club brings in. I want the Qataris to take over because I want to watch exciting football and the best footballers to represent Manchester United.
Fair shout.
The point is that we’re more than capable of competing without being state funded. The Glazers could have done this if they had any idea how to run a football club. You also do not understand the specifics of the Ineos bid and how it’s being funded. None of us do yet.
Irrelevant. Nice don’t have the same self sufficiency that United do. United don’t need piles of cash to compete, they need to be well run.
The point about City is that we are competing with them already. I’m not talking about the last 10 years, that’s clearly through the mismanagement of the club by the Glazers, not because we couldn’t financially compete with City.
Qatar is definitely the best option, its pretty much the only way Utd will ever be debt free and have a new stadium without it impacting future financing.
People are overreacting as always.
People are overreacting as always.
So fellas, what are you gonna drink tonight? We have Oil Cola and Glazers Light.
I think more information is needed, because right now we are voting in esentially a couple of vague announcements in social media plus our own prejudice.
Isn't that supposed to be good when you're freezing?
I think more information is needed, because right now we are voting in esentially a couple of vague announcements in social media plus our own prejudice.
Isn't that supposed to be good when you're freezing?
I suppose you can go off their official statements, too. I did prefer what Jassim had to say compared to SJR.
Threadstarter makes poll private in bid to appeal to silent Tories
I've updated it to private, didn't set up the poll myself, but after reading your post i think it may well sway some people.
Kind of like all those people who silently vote Tory.
This is very very hypocritical of you btw. How can you say to me, I do not understand the specifics of the Ineos bid?
When you cant tell me the specifics of Al Thani's bid? Just because he is a Qatari national, you are assuming its a state funded deal?
What I do know is Nice, who are owned by Ratcliffe are not well run, that is evidence to me.
What people don't also understand is, I know United can compete without very rich owners but without that money, United cannot build a stadium and training complex without taking loans.
Do you not think we've started to do that now though? Take a step back and look at things as if you were just a neutral fan, United even with crumby Glazer ownership which took money out of the club, spend average minimum £100m a year and pay market leading wages, the issue hasn't been not being able to get players we want it's been an amateur club structure which, in turn, lead to poor managerial appointments and generally expensive flops for signings. Since Woodward has gone, dare I say it it's looking relatively positive for us.
Even if I look at it in purely football terms - wouldn't it be far more satisfying to getting to the top properly without financial doping? I'd be far more proud of our success. Turning on the infinite money cheat is like save scumming in football manager... Sure you took a league 2 side to the CL within 4 years, but how many times did you reload the game to do so? It just doesn't feel the same.
United is a club that quite simply - doesn't need ME owners. We need our debt cleared. We need investment into the infrastructure (which doesn't need to happen asap, it can happen over time). Aside from that? Let the clubs money stay within the club. We can run as a self sustaining club.
United is a club that quite simply - doesn't need ME owners. We need our debt cleared. We need investment into the infrastructure (which doesn't need to happen asap, it can happen over time). Aside from that? Let the clubs money stay within the club. We can run as a self sustaining club.
Voted Qatar
It's the only sure way to guarantee being at the top of world football for an extended period, but that's not to say there aren't still alternative ways of achieving this.
Thing is, we aren't in any position to judge the bids as we don't have full access to the details, and those who do are hardly going to be making a decision based on morals.
It would be cool to know how each bid prepares to engage with fans/open communications. I'd probably swing towards SJR right now, but very much aware that he will almost certainly be representing a palatable face for something far more in line with what we've experienced under the Glazers.
Both of the known bids represent far better alternatives to the current ownership, however. If the Glazers do attempt to keep hold of the club via a partial sell, there should rightfully be up-roar. I fear the current on-pitch promise will convince a couple to stick around.
It is a fecking abomination that this is even a contest. Fecking Qatar?! How utterly shameful
Cowards.
But what does that history and tradition principally stem from?
Our history and tradition?
Umm, time?
58:42 at the moment - closer than I thought.
I voted Ineos, but we know far too little about these bids to make an informed decision at the moment. Very unlikely that they are the only two bids, either, so this is a false dichotomy at this stage.
I voted Ineos, but we know far too little about these bids to make an informed decision at the moment. Very unlikely that they are the only two bids, either, so this is a false dichotomy at this stage.
What are you insinuating?
I'm indifferent to both; i don't have enough info to make a call.