Because if there is subterfuge which is later uncovered we could end up in the same situation as City.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
Insha Allah we can. Have some faith my habibi, our new owner won't be a state, he's a massive United fan who cares about the club and has the monay. The dream owner. We deserve it after having to put up with Citeh and asthmatic Liverpool.
That's quite a big thing, isn't it?
Being used as a tool to promote a governments financial interest wouldn't sit right either. To that end I hope we don't go from being probably the most commercially lucrative sports team on earth to someone that just has lots of phoney sponsorship deals we're not actually paid for because the owners have alternative strategic reasons to promote those organisations. Pretending Qatari Corn Flakes are sponsoring the training kit for £150m a season in a deal that doesn't actually exist.
No, because once the club is bought, we have enough commercial revenue, we do not need to make numbers up.
Like I said, I was told if an American / English company buys it, we shouldn't care about how they do it because there is a higher power for punishment.
Raine group is American, they will not allow fraudulent money to buy United, if they do they will be punished.
We really have no need to cook the books. We’ve always had good accountants. If they want to promote flight Qatar or whatever.. so be it. We’ve been doing it for years anyway. When I go abroad United adverts are everywhere. Especially in that region.
Because sport is about competing on a level playing field. It's like saying some athletes should be able to take steroids.
Are you a bot?
Raine group are working for the Glazer's interest and not FIFA, UEFA or the PL. Every other club in Europe should and will be hugely concerned about this deal.
So nobody care about Chelsea inflating the market? Or before that the Roman era. Or after that City’s rise?
We are already big. I think it’s silly to believe United will now be buying players for £300m
But funny enough a lot of people want new Directors.. what do you think they will want to do? Not spend.
Yes, most care about it a lot and think it's totally unacceptable.So nobody care about Chelsea inflating the market? Or before that the Roman era. Or after that City’s rise?
We are already big. I think it’s silly to believe United will now be buying players for £300m
But funny enough a lot of people want new Directors.. what do you think they will want to do? Not spend.
Wonder what you thought of Newcastle United's takeover by Saudi Arabia.
I quote the Human rights organisiation Fair square in their letter to UEFA:
"No consortium of Qatari investors capable of such an acquisition would be able to convincingly demonstrate their independence from the Qatari state."
I thought wow, Newcastle will not spend loads of money and be in chance of wining trophies. It also was a bid from the sovereign fund.
I agree, that's why I referenced a legacy rate I'm paying and then how much more the risk-free rate is today.
I see all these people talking about debt, leveraging assets and whatnot as if 2022 never happened.
It's probably one of the main reasons the Glazers have to sell in the first place!
No not jealous fans. I’m talking about football. All of this was allowed with no push back.
Chelsea are spending £600m in two windows based on amortisation like they are the first football club to hire an account
Manchester United being owned by a state will change is minimally except for hopefully a nice new stadium and training facilities which match the size of our club.
How we compete will still depend on our manager and how well the club is ran. This is the Premier League. It work’s different over here.
Thats nice. Fair Square are the law? are they involved with anything to do with the buyout?
Are they also engaged by the UK /USA / Rainne group to carry out checks?
Well that's specifically true. Maybe we don't need super wealthy owners.
I'd personally go with the bid that ensures EtH backing and infrastructure upgrading.
The Glazers rate, Ineos rate and the Qatar rate would all not be different though no?
Yes. I'm a bot.
Where do Jassim accuire the 6bn + future money to spend from? His own pocket?
Without state backing or regime fund, how do you think an individual in Qatar will get enough money to buy Man Utd and invest in shiny new stadiums and players? I'm sorry, I find it a bit staggering tbh.
Al Thani, to correct you is the one who has made the bid. His father was part of the governance in Qatar, a very wealthy man, so it could come from him, inheritance.
Do you think Jim Ratcliffe has 6bn in his account ? Do you think its coming from his pocket?
There are 2 different things. State backing and state ownership.
Why is state funding a bad thing? I mean almost every club has state funding now. Arsenal have a stadium called Emirates (state), Real Madrid, I could go on.
Been reading that the Ineos bid might not really clear our debts and also they will take out loans themselves to finance their bid plus any additional investment in United?
Would that mean we'd just go back to how things are with Glazers? Spending bulk of club's income repaying our debt and also have an owner interested in getting $$ out of the club to pay off their own debts?
Would that mean we'd just go back to how things are with Glazers? Spending bulk of club's income repaying our debt and also have an owner interested in getting $$ out of the club to pay off their own debts?
So nobody care about Chelsea inflating the market? Or before that the Roman era. Or after that City’s rise?
We are already big. I think it’s silly to believe United will now be buying players for £300m
But funny enough a lot of people want new Directors.. what do you think they will want to do? Not spend.
It wasn't great when City or Chelsea went down that road, but we coped because we were already so far ahead and had the best manager and best team. We were a well oiled machine.
Us being pumped full of cash is a prospect football has not yet seen. The first super club the be backed by such wealth - there will only be one outcome. And it is probably silly to believe we wouldn't be spending £300m on players, or breaking records and pushing the limits, at least.
For some people I think the transfer market and success of their club is imperative to their wellbeing and happiness. I already see people gloating on social media about how nobody will be able to compete with us, as if that is such a great thing.
Is there a probability of any takeover deal falling through and we end up staying with the Glazers or a majority shareholder? That would in my eyes be the worst outcome.
Is 'state funding' not just a means of pretending that the state aren't fully involved in this? We know they probably need to hide it due to their involvement with other clubs, and it is largely suspected that they are behind this to some extent. So trying to differentiate between state backing and state ownership is probably pointless in this instance.
This is true. You're either a fool or trying to rationalise your stance on the Qatar bid if you can't recognise this.
Is it easy to manipulate votes on this site? I can't believe that most of the supporters welcome a dictator from Qatar as an owner.
A vote was held in the Norwegian supporters' club for Manchester United, a whopping 82% wanted to block the Qatari dictator's opportunities to buy the club.
A vote was held in the Norwegian supporters' club for Manchester United, a whopping 82% wanted to block the Qatari dictator's opportunities to buy the club.
Al Thani's father is a very wealthy individual. He can easily lend his money to his son or gift it to him, without any state money.
We are assuming its state money. The state could then say, we will give you some backing too.
Red Bull own 2 CL clubs, if the state wanted to own two clubs, they would do it, considering who is on UEFA's board.
Never knew you are a financial expert of Qatar. So everyone working in Qatar, regardless of job, its state money?
I don't think I did? I even added "evil" in front of the word capitalism. I'm fully aware that some companies and individuals are worse than others. If the poll contained other companies than Ineos then I would have to read up on which company is the lesser evil before voting. But as things stand now we're presented with a very binary choice, and for me there is no doubt which option is worse from a moral standpoint.
How would the same apply to us?
I'm not sure if you are trolling or serious to be honest
You do know he's the older brother of the Emir, Tamim, and that his father was the former Emir? Nothing to do with the state at all. Except of course being the former crown prince and big brother of the monarch himself.
It will be very hard for him to convince anyone that this bid is not somehow connected to the state.
I reckon Ratcliffe would use Ineos means to finance the bid. What was your point?
Edit: I mixed up the names, and got the wrong Sheik. It is not the older brother of the Emir who's made the bid.
Last edited:
.......because a clear majority of us is apparently also happy - in many cases downright eager - to have a similar owner, in the gleeful expectation of wallowing in cash?
Are you some kind of expert on Qatar rulling family.
How do you prove it will be state funded or state owned. Al Thani's father is a very wealthy man - answer.
So wallowing in cash is the reason why we'll be like City? As a club, we've always had money. Even before the Glazers. So that doesn't count.
In this case it's not just state backing, it's it's state backing from an absolute monarchy dictatorship with a bad human rights record and the 2nd worst CO2-footprint per capita in the world. How is that not a bad thing?
His father was the emir, no longer and his father has individual wealth too. Are you saying that none of the royal family have individual wealth?
So Inoes have 5bn in cash reserves to pay the fee is it?