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 .
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.

No, having exactly the same kind of owner conferring exactly the same kind of benefits most people around here have called "cheating" and being happy about it is why we'll be like City. But maybe you could explain to me what exactly, given Qatari ownership, we could legitimately bitch about concerning City that would not also apply to us?
 
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.

It’s social media. It’s not reality. Real Madrid have been doing what you speak of for years and it brought them 9 years of no Champions League. Football is not that simple. Yes it might mean we have a summer where we can buy Harry Kane and Frenkie De Jong. But so what we’ve been doing that for years anyway. If anything we’ve had 10 years of handicapping. Through that being rubbish managers and a crap CEO.

Those things can still continue under Qatar ownership (A bit of light at the end of the tunnel for you) we will just have nicer facilities to show for it.

I’ve never seen a fan base so spoilt who want fake struggle. We are like famous rappers who want to be gangsters repping Blood or crip.
 
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.
That can't be a serious question? Think about why these states fund these institutions. It's clearly something a state shouldn't be involved in.
 
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?

Ohhh okay. That makes sense.

Lets be elitists. Because the West have polluted the air to get to where they are, no other country is allowed. How do you think UK and America got to this point? Was it 0 net carbon ? The UK / USA have never had human rights issue? No slavery?

So when a country is changing, we shouldn't allow that?

So you are saying backing from a country of such accusations is bad, but backing from Goldman sachs who have been accused of sexist, genderist, fraud is fine?
 
No, having exactly the same kind of owner conferring exactly the same kind of benefits most people around here have called "cheating" and being happy about it is why we'll be like City.

So, City have cheated by cooking the books. Which we know they need to do, to spend.

But we've consistently earning money. Been top 3 earners in world football, even despite the fact that the Glazers have saddled us with massive debts and take out payments.

So why would Jassim need to cook the books, when we earn plentyful?
 
Ohhh okay. That makes sense.

Lets be elitists. Because the West have polluted the air to get to where they are, no other country is allowed. How do you think UK and America got to this point? Was it 0 net carbon ? The UK / USA have never had human rights issue? No slavery?

So when a country is changing, we shouldn't allow that?

So you are saying backing from a country of such accusations is bad, but backing from Goldman sachs who have been accused of sexist, genderist, fraud is fine?

Sure, no one's perfect so everything's the same. Not a lot of people take that kind of reasoning seriously.
 
No, having exactly the same kind of owner conferring exactly the same kind of benefits most people around here have called "cheating" and being happy about it is why we'll be like City. But maybe you could explain to me what exactly, given Qatari ownership, we could legitimately bitch about concerning City that would not also apply to us?

So because one middle eastern owner cooked the books it means they all will? Because its the “same type of owner”?
 
So, City have cheated by cooking the books. Which we know they need to do, to spend.

But we've consistently earning money. Been top 3 earners in world football, even despite the fact that the Glazers have saddled us with massive debts and take out payments.

So why would Jassim need to cook the books, when we earn plentyful?

So, if Jassim didn't cook the books, no United fan would have had any remaining complaint? Everything else, we've been just fine with? And if people think we don't need the money, why is the forum full of posts anticipating the arrival of Mbappe and spending sprees to come? And why is 63% supporting Qatari ownership? Because they're such lovely people, and the former crown prince has a proven record running a top football club?

The answer is obvious: The Qatari bid gets support because people thinks it will put us on the same footing as City and PSG. Which is fair enough. But we can't have it both ways.

Oh, and City just delivered a better financial result than we did.
 
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.

That remains a possibility, yes. Also worth remembering that this is not necessarily a sale - the Glazers have invited offers for minority stakes and full takeovers as part of this process. Everyone has focussed on the sale, because that is the outcome most fans favour. We don't have a clear idea of what the Glazers' preference is, though (it has been reported that the family are themselves split on the best way to proceed).
 
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.
I'm really not an expert on this, but this information is available for anyone who cares to spend 1 minute to check. Jassim Al Thani's father was the former Emir (Dictator) of Qatar, and Jassim himself was the crown prince of Qatar before giving his claim to the throne to his younger brother Tamim, who is the Emir of Qatar today. He is part of the royal familiy ruling in Qatar, they are the state of Qatar and all their money comes from ruling Qatar. I guess they will try to convince UEFA it isn't statefunded, but I think they will have a hard time doing that, so my guess is they will try to lobby their way to getting UEFA to accept that clubs with the same owners isn't banned from European competitions out of fear of collaboration.
Ohhh okay. That makes sense.
Lets be elitists. Because the West have polluted the air to get to where they are, no other country is allowed. How do you think UK and America got to this point? Was it 0 net carbon ? The UK / USA have never had human rights issue? No slavery?
So when a country is changing, we shouldn't allow that?
So you are saying backing from a country of such accusations is bad, but backing from Goldman sachs who have been accused of sexist, genderist, fraud is fine?
The state of this post.
You continue to do you, mate.

Cheers!
 
I'm really not an expert on this, but this information is available for anyone who cares to spend 1 minute to check. Jassim Al Thani's father was the former Emir (Dictator) of Qatar, and Jassim himself was the crown prince of Qatar before giving his claim to the throne to his younger brother Tamim, who is the Emir of Qatar today. He is part of the royal familiy ruling in Qatar, they are the state of Qatar and all their money comes from ruling Qatar. I guess they will try to convince UEFA it isn't statefunded, but I think they will have a hard time doing that, so my guess is they will try to lobby their way to getting UEFA to accept that clubs with the same owners isn't banned from European competitions out of fear of collaboration.

The state of this post.
You continue to do you, mate.

Cheers!
I just meant you'll probably get that kind of answer and it seems he didnt disappoint.
 
Quite surprised by the strong support for a Qatari bid on here - is this just a transfer muppet thing? Or is it worries about INEOS?

Goes against the other poll which shows the majority here (including me) have reservations about a Qatari bid plus all the huge negativity (although much of it unfounded in the end) in the World Cup Forum

I also note The Atheltic did a poll which gave 66% support to Ratcliffe so seems this is a RedCafe thing
 
Funny how our fanbase has trashed the likes of Man City, PSG and Newcastle over the years for their sportswashing, and here we are with 63% of our fanbase wanting the exact same for our club. Some might call that hypocrisy.
 
Oh yes ofcourse, your moral compass stops when its something you dont like.
I think a dictatorship state with a bad human rights record and environmental record is worse than Goldman sachs, yes. A lot worse.

Happy?

Have good day!
 
For what its worth I don't think that Sheikh Jassim being a private investor makes him all that better because it looks like a similar model to russian oligarchs which to me isn't something that I would like. The personal appropriation of sovereign funds isn't exactly a good thing.

And yes, I'm speculating based on the Panama Papers links.
 
So, if Jassim didn't cook the books, no United fan would have had any remaining complaint? Everything else, we've been just fine with? And if people think we don't need the money, why is the forum full of posts anticipating the arrival of Mbappe and spending sprees to come? And why is 63% supporting Qatari ownership? Because they're such lovely people, and the former crown prince has a proven record running a top football club?

The answer is obvious: The Qatari bid gets support because people thinks it will put us on the same footing as City and PSG. Which is fair enough. But we can't have it both ways.

Oh, and City just delivered a better financial result than we did.

If you really think City brought in more money than us, then I now understand why you think we need to cook the books.

But, I for onw, and many others, know that City didn't outperform us in terms of genuine revenue. City have been accused of this many times. And got off with it by a technicality in the European court of law.

I supprt the Qatar bid because it sounds the best financial bid. Jassim would clear all debts and would invest into the redevelopment of the stadium and training facilities.

He would delist us from the stock exchange, and we wouldn't have to worry about paying out dividends. He would plough back in any revenue made by us.

This would allow us to spend all the money we earn back into the cub, and could spend what we genuinely earn.

We have thw status and history ro be earning the big money we have. We have the commercial pull. Our stadium is full every week. We are one of the 3, if not the, biggest club in the world.

City had/has none of the above. They had to cook the books to be able to spend like we can. To try and be as big as us. There's a reason why people call their stadium Emptihad. Pep has had to on occasion beg for people to come and watch them play. City have had to pump crowd noise into their stadium, to even make it sound loud.

To compare us to City is a joke. To have to explain the differences, to one Manchester United supporter to another, astounds me.
 
Quite surprised by the strong support for a Qatari bid on here - is this just a transfer muppet thing? Or is it worries about INEOS?

Goes against the other poll which shows the majority here (including me) have reservations about a Qatari bid plus all the huge negativity (although much of it unfounded in the end) in the World Cup Forum

I also note The Atheltic did a poll which gave 66% support to Ratcliffe so seems this is a RedCafe thing

No. A lot of fans want Qatar.
 
Oh yes ofcourse, your moral compass stops when its something you dont like.

At least he's got one. And he's prepared to use it, which in the real world means making distinctions. You apparently think that's too complicated, and prefer to just throw the compass out instead. That must be very convenient.
 
I think a dictatorship state with a bad human rights record and environmental record is worse than Goldman sachs, yes. A lot worse.

Happy?

Have good day!

Oh yes because the environmental record of a big petroleum company INEOS is very green right?
 
Quite surprised by the strong support for a Qatari bid on here - is this just a transfer muppet thing? Or is it worries about INEOS?

Goes against the other poll which shows the majority here (including me) have reservations about a Qatari bid plus all the huge negativity (although much of it unfounded in the end) in the World Cup Forum

I also note The Atheltic did a poll which gave 66% support to Ratcliffe so seems this is a RedCafe thing

The thing is, our fanbase is so huge that both The Athletic poll and the the one in this thread is covering such a tiny sample size.

Only a 1000 people have voted in this thread - it's nothing.
 
If you really think City brought in more money than us, then I now understand why you think we need to cook the books.

But, I for onw, and many others, know that City didn't outperform us in terms of genuine revenue. City have been accused of this many times. And got off with it by a technicality in the European court of law.

I supprt the Qatar bid because it sounds the best financial bid. Jassim would clear all debts and would invest into the redevelopment of the stadium and training facilities.

He would delist us from the stock exchange, and we wouldn't have to worry about paying out dividends. He would plough back in any revenue made by us.

This would allow us to spend all the money we earn back into the cub, and could spend what we genuinely earn.

We have thw status and history ro be earning the big money we have. We have the commercial pull. Our stadium is full every week. We are one of the 3, if not the, biggest club in the world.

City had/has none of the above. They had to cook the books to be able to spend like we can. To try and be as big as us. There's a reason why people call their stadium Emptihad. Pep has had to on occasion beg for people to come and watch them play. City have had to pump crowd noise into their stadium, to even make it sound loud.

To compare us to City is a joke. To have to explain the differences, to one Manchester United supporter to another, astounds me.

So, we need the money, but also we don't really? We don't need the money, but the Qataris are preferable because they're the best financial solution? We're a commercial powerhouse, it's just that we need someone to foot the bill for downpaying our debt and investing in new facilities. Because.....we can't really afford to do that on our own revenues? So, maybe we need the money? You know, the extra money, beyond our own revenue streams?

Doesn't quite seem to add up, and also seemed to have touched a nerve there. Get used to it mate, because this is what we're going to hear from all around if we're enthusiastically cheering in new mideast oil money ownership. And frankly with good reason.

As for revenue, see for yourself. Premier League clubs dominate Deloitte’s latest Football Money League report - The Athletic You could just assume it's all due to cheating and not real at all, but that would probably be a tad simplistic.
 
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

Why would I need an example from their ownership of PSG when you can already see an effect right here, on RedCafe? How many posters would show the same support of Qatar had it been Liverpool they were buying? Why did so many Geordies suddenly support Saudi Arabia?
 
Fans giddy because other fans have genuine concerns about their club and their support and want to rub it in are literally the bottom of the barrel for me.
No worse than the 'moral crusaders' vilifying anyone who disagrees with them.
 
I'm really not an expert on this, but this information is available for anyone who cares to spend 1 minute to check. Jassim Al Thani's father was the former Emir (Dictator) of Qatar, and Jassim himself was the crown prince of Qatar before giving his claim to the throne to his younger brother Tamim, who is the Emir of Qatar today. He is part of the royal familiy ruling in Qatar, they are the state of Qatar and all their money comes from ruling Qatar. I guess they will try to convince UEFA it isn't statefunded, but I think they will have a hard time doing that, so my guess is they will try to lobby their way to getting UEFA to accept that clubs with the same owners isn't banned from European competitions out of fear of collaboration.

The state of this post.
You continue to do you, mate.

Cheers!

Think you are getting the family members a bit mixed up. Are you talking about HBJ here? Because the Sheikh Jassim bidding for United is not the current Emir's brother, neither was his father (HBJ) at any point the Emir. It's understandable to get it mixed up due to the similarities in names and sheer number of family members but they are not as close as you make out (although they have direct connections) family-wise. Unlike PSG, who is owned by a subsidiary of the sovereign wealth fund, both UEFA and Premier League would have hard time proving that it's state-funded apart from the argument that "everybody knows".
 
Quite surprised by the strong support for a Qatari bid on here - is this just a transfer muppet thing? Or is it worries about INEOS?

Goes against the other poll which shows the majority here (including me) have reservations about a Qatari bid plus all the huge negativity (although much of it unfounded in the end) in the World Cup Forum

I also note The Atheltic did a poll which gave 66% support to Ratcliffe so seems this is a RedCafe thing

Polls on Twitter have shown massive support (80%+) in favour of the Qatari bid. In contrast, the polling done by The Athletic and the United We Stand fanzine had the Ratcliffe/Ineos bid with a clear majority of the support.

As always, it's a mixed bag and United fans are of course not a homogenous group - the results will vary wildly depending on which constituency you're asking.
 
Why would I need an example from their ownership of PSG when you can already see an effect right here, on RedCafe? How many posters would show the same support of Qatar had it been Liverpool they were buying? Why did so many Geordies suddenly support Saudi Arabia?

So how is the idea of fans supporting a Qatar bid equivalent to Qatar using football to push their agenda? Fans can support a middle eastern bid purely based on what they have promised to do...and so far, they have promised to do things right, and they have done things right in similar clubs like PSG. Every single scary thing you think they will do goes against the evidence of how they have run their other European businesses
 
So how is the idea of fans supporting a Qatar bid equivalent to Qatar using football to push their agenda? Fans can support a middle eastern bid purely based on what they have promised to do...and so far, they have promised to do things right, and they have done things right in similar clubs like PSG. Every single scary thing you think they will do goes against the evidence of how they have run their other European businesses

You think PSG is a good example of how a top football club should be run?
 
You think PSG is a good example of how a top football club should be run?

I don't know if a top football club should be run in any specific way but PSG haven't been run in a different way to the other top football clubs.
 
So, we need the money, but also we don't really? We don't need the money, but the Qataris are preferable because they're the best financial solution? We're a commercial powerhouse, it's just that we need someone to foot the bill for downpaying our debt and investing in new facilities. Because.....we can't really afford to do that on our own revenues? So, maybe we need the money? You know, the extra money, beyond our own revenue streams?

Doesn't quite seem to add up, and also seemed to have touched a nerve there. Get used to it mate, because this is what we're going to hear from all around if we're enthusiastically cheering in new mideast oil money ownership. And frankly with good reason.

As for revenue, see for yourself. Premier League clubs dominate Deloitte’s latest Football Money League report - The Athletic You could just assume it's all due to cheating and not real at all, but that would probably be a tad simplistic.

When did I say we don't need the money? We need it to clear our debts. Jassim is the only bidder so far who has said that the debts would be cleared.

And exactly correct, we need someone to clear our debts.

And yes, it is simple, they have cooked the books. That is why the PL have put 100+ charges against them. :lol:

City were/are a nothing club before Abu Dhabi came along. We were/are one of the biggest sports institutions before the Glazers came, and we will still continue to be so under any new owner.
 
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.
Like they have on PSG you mean?

That's a rather nasty anti-Muslim post there, thought a mod would be better than that.
 
The thing is, our fanbase is so huge that both The Athletic poll and the the one in this thread is covering such a tiny sample size.

Only a 1000 people have voted in this thread - it's nothing.
I'm very much against a Qatari takeover myself and it would conflict with my values to a degree that I will probably stop supporting the club if it comes to that. There's no secret I was hoping more United fans would share my stands in this.

That said, it's hard not to recognize that the redcafe-fans are a lot more diverse than the subscribers of the Athletic. We have a global presence, with people from all layers of every society out there in here, and I think that's why some of us many times get's shocked by how different view one can have on different takes on the world. Although I might come across as a highhorse moralist in this thread and other threads about sportswashing and dictatorships owning sporting enterprises, I enjoy and appreciate the debates on here, even when my view doesn't seem win through.

Cheers!
 
How did they force us to buy those players? Glazers are leeches but they backed LVG heavily, backed Mou heavily, backed Ole heavily and have backed ETH heavily.

I don't get the last part to your sentence, we were one of the dominant forces in world football 10 years ago - since then we've been an average team yo-yoing between EL and CL and picking up some cups on the way - most fans of other clubs would kill for that experience. Maybe this is what is at the heart of the high numbers being ok with Qatar owning United, supporting a team is much more fun when they are winning everything? Personally, I think you take the highs and lows and that's what makes the journey worth following as a supporter.

Question for you, which would you prefer?
  1. Win the PL this season with ETH, nothing else.
  2. Qatar buy us, we spend £600m on Mbappe, Hakimi, Kane, Kimmich, FdJ and win the quadruple next year.
If you put it that way, I want us to win the PL this season and also your second choice is flawed from your perspective because I don't want the Qataris to own Man Utd just for the squad's sake. You know full well that we've been lacking in terms of infrastructure, stadium and training facilities, morale and so much more since over a decade. All this is definitely the reason I want the Glazers out. Actually, I don't mind even if Sir Jim took over because it doesn't matter who but I want the rascals out. They might've backed our previous managers but it was only when they were freshly appointed and needed to know that they were backed. Also it was never the right players and never the right system. We should've brought Pep right after SAF retired and imagine the picture then. He would've fixed a lot and was a young hungry coach as well but they didn't because our hierarchy was all wrong. Not until recently have we set things right and we need a reset at the top as well. You cannot say I don't enjoy the journey because I've watched every season since 2003-04 and I've been through a lot of heartbreak. This club and it's fans deserve a lot more than we are getting right now but I'm also happy to convey that EtH has been a delight and everything we asked for.
 
So how is the idea of fans supporting a Qatar bid equivalent to Qatar using football to push their agenda? Fans can support a middle eastern bid purely based on what they have promised to do...and so far, they have promised to do things right, and they have done things right in similar clubs like PSG. Every single scary thing you think they will do goes against the evidence of how they have run their other European businesses

It's not equivalent, but it's also no doubt that they are buying allegiances. I'm also quite certain that Qatar wishes that fans support the bid purely on what they promise to do, and not based on other factors, such as equality or human rights. I could go on, but I guess it's no need for me to be the umpteenth person to describe how sportswashing works.