If a poll was done on a certain player returning to play for Man Utd. I bet the same people who vote for Qatar would vote for his return and likewise the people voting for Jim would say no on him playing for Utd ever again.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
I'll bite. After all, you took the time to go in old posts of mine done in different threads.
I was against World Cup going in Qatar for several reasons: a) it was bought by corrupting people; b) it was build by foreign workers who were working on unsafe conditions; c) there were concerns about the treatment of women and LGBTQ+ community.
As far as I can tell, neither of these 3 things are problematic with the United bid. They are not corrupting anyone, instead are being the highest bidding. If they build a new stadium, it will be build by respecting safety laws in England. And the women and LGBTQ+ United followers have nothing to fear. They mentioned investing in the United's women's squad and in PSG, they even played with rainbow shirts.
While both getting the World Cup and buying United are sportwashing projects (and even more important, putting Qatar in the map and in good terms with Western powers if a larger conflict with Saudi Arabia and/or UAE happens), when it comes to rights of marginalized groups, it actually had benefits for them. Women in Qatar, for example, are not required to wear hijabs anymore, they outnumber men in universities, and the divorce rate is up (for better or worse). While LGBTQ+ community in Qatar is obviously massively discriminated and it is illegal to be gay in Qatar, there were some tiny encouraging steps in this direction too. For example, gay couples were allowed in Qatar, they could book the same room in hotels etc. Far from what we want to see, but remember that it is a culture that 70 years ago were beduins and is pretty much unanimous in opposition of gay rights. But yes, eventually it will get there, and the more interconnections with Western culture, the faster these rights will come.
Now, I won't lie for a single moment and say that this is my primary reason for wanting them at United (to make Qatar a better place). Nope. My main reason, is as you might have guessed, money. United lost around 1-1.5B in the last 17 years as privilege of being owned by Glazers, in paying debt, interest, dividends and commission. Money that if spent on the club would have allowed United to be debt free (or near debt free), and have a new state-of-the-art stadium. Instead, we have an aged stadium, 600M in debt, 300M in transfer debt, and almost no cash reserves. Just clearing the debt and getting a new stadium will cost 2.5B, if not more. At the same time, we have other state agents (City and Newcastle) who are being backed by outside money. It is simply impossible to compete with them, while building a new stadium. In fact, it is more likely that we will need a new debt just to operate, let alone get a new stadium.
Ideally, I would have liked us to be bought by Apple or Amazon, but it ain't happening. The choices are between Qatar, Jim Radcliffe and some American consortium (with Elliot backing). We can exclude Americans as desirable for obvious reasons. Radcliffe is buying the club with debt (albeit it will be put on INEOS), and it is not planning to do a full takeover, so it won't invest much (any) of its own money at United (you simply do not put money in a business you do not fully own, by owning only 70% of United, every pounds INEOS invests at United, 30c penny go to other shareholders of United). They also are not going to clear the debt. On the other hand, Qatar is clearing the debt, not buying the club with debt, and doing a full takeover so probably they will invest their money to build a stadium etc.
Finally, United is my escapism from real-world problems. I want to see United being the best club in the world, not competing for the sixth place, while oil-backed clubs win trophies every year. After a decade of winning only 'moral trophies', I want to see us winning the real ones again. And I think that it is very unlikely for this to happen regularly (one-offs like Leicester are obviously possible) without a sugar daddy. Not unless some law really prevents City and Newcastle owners to put their own money in the club. And after 15 years of waiting for such a law to be enforced, it is foolish to believe that it will happen in the next 15.
This goes back to my first question: Where are you getting these details from when all that has been released is PR fluff? Seems weird to get angry if Ienos wins if we know so little...
Wow. That is quite damning.
30m is what I’ve seen suggested on Google. All we’ve got to go on officially is this which states a proportion of the 50m reduction was due to it:
“The financial impact of travel restrictions on pre-season tours was laid bare in Manchester United’s set of accounts for the year ending June 2021.
United reported almost a £50 million drop in commercial revenue, down from £279 million in 2020 to £232.2 million, and attributed a portion of this loss to their inability to head overseas”
With an overseas tour our revenues will have been back to pre-COVID levels last year yet still we’d have posted 80m plus losses.
Like I said it's hard to know because they don't disclose their financial details but knowing a bit on how they operate in the region and their sources of income then I'm pretty sure they can finance such takeover way easier (ie. having the cashflow to buy it outright). And in the unlikely event of defaulting payments, the government surely would step in. So in a way, a 'yes' with caution is my answer. But we do know how those US banks operate and usually they aren't doing it out of goodwill or because they follow the loanee's agenda (ie. they will only see it from a purely financial benefit POV).
How many billions are we in debt?
From what I believe, the owners can spend their money on improving this.
Lovely post. Couldn’t agree more.
That ain't happening.
Are you seriously denying that Real's good finances are to a large degree because them and Barca fecked the rest of the league in the TV deal? If United was allowed to sell their own TV rights, that would have been another matter. But in England, that ain't allowed.
30-40 + ticket sales.
Not at a cost. Again how do to purchase something for 4bn at a push. Then have to spend a further 2bn then continue to invest £200m to £300m in the playing squad depending on success within a 5 year period without being super wealthy?
I personally cannot see it. But a lot of you guys on here seem to know better than me.
https://www.sbibarcelona.com/newsdetails/index/413
Even the old model is not as clear cut as you make out, as it was voted on by all clubs I believe.
Nail on the head. By Qatar taking over, it does not mean we agree on the countries laws, beliefs etc.. They are taking over a British company which will have to follow UK laws and regulations.
If the person bidding had the beliefs that people say everyone in Qatar does, they will stop the womens team, they will say no gays allowed in the stadium or allowed to play.
This is not going to happen, they will be inclusive.
Life. That’s where I’m getting my details from. Life and history is all around us. Look hard enough you pretty much see the same things repeat themselves in different variations.
It’s how you can see a Todd Boehly and know Chelsea have a huge problem unless they learn and learn quickly.
Not a cost? I don't understand what this means?
Okay let’s go the full 50m. That puts 21 revenues above pre-covid revenues. And we post a 65m loss.
So Qatar is doing it out of sheer goodwill? I'm confused as to why a US bank is evil, but the authoritarian state of Qatar isn't.
Of course
Wouldn't otherwise be a violation of UK law?
In economics they call it opportunity cost.
So they might be able to come in and give us money to buy “Mbappe” but then they aren’t also going to be able to build a new training facility which the 80m Leicester spent probably now costs you £150m.
But alternatively they could get us this new £150m stadium but they we wouldn’t be able to afford “Mbappe” without selling Maguire & McTominay for good money and negotiating a good price with John Mortough sorting out the transfer (who I want to keep by the way).
Does that make abit more sense?
The statement they put out the other day was a golden opportunity to take the issue off the table. Rather conspicuously, they didn't do so.
So what they going to do? Not allow them to have their own parking spaces?
You tell me! These guys are sound hell bent on being negative about them regardless of anything
Was you meant to type "not at a cost"? "Not a cost" I've never heard of!
If the owners are allowed to spend their own money on improving the stadium but allow the club generated money to be used on squad building, etc, why can it not be done?
I have no idea why anyone thinks a Qatari sheikh taking over United would have any impact whatsoever on gay United fans
Of course I understand issues with this in Qatar itself at the WC but this is completely different
Is there any suggestions that there has been any difference in treatment at PSG since they took over? Or with other Gulf owners at City or Newcastle?
Oh you was being funny. No problem, I thought we was having a discussion.
Yes they can. There was nothing stopping us doing this in January too but we only had the funds for two loan signings.
On the contrary. They've had no problem putting rainbow colored numbering and letters on PSG kits. There's nothing to indicate otherwise.
I‘ve gone with Qatar solely based on the good of the club and info we currently have and ignoring their respective backgrounds. Being debt free and able to build up the facilities Is what we need. If in 10 years im visiting OT with my kids and it is a new modern stadium that is state of the art then bring it on. I also am in hope the club can use their own funds to carry on the way we have been with some tweaks here and there regarding dof or ceo if needed. We can spend big sums and few sponsorships here and there for the shirt to improve income would be ideal.
Although It would be an absolute nightmare though if the club turned back into pre ETH like PSG now.
On Ratcliffe. His heart is in the right place and it is romantic. But the way he is funding the takeover concerns me. I am not sure my dream of a new stadium within 10 years would be possible and the debt will still be lurking in some form.
If it was based on the whole package (morals included) it would be Ratcliffe just. And the reason is the Qatari human rights and rules, which outweigh the benefits which they would bring to the club.
I am sticking with the Qataris based on the good of the club.
Although It would be an absolute nightmare though if the club turned back into pre ETH like PSG now.
On Ratcliffe. His heart is in the right place and it is romantic. But the way he is funding the takeover concerns me. I am not sure my dream of a new stadium within 10 years would be possible and the debt will still be lurking in some form.
If it was based on the whole package (morals included) it would be Ratcliffe just. And the reason is the Qatari human rights and rules, which outweigh the benefits which they would bring to the club.
I am sticking with the Qataris based on the good of the club.
Think you misread that or I didn't formulate it good enough - 'Goodwill' as in favorable terms for the loanee just be a part of the bid. Not sure how you managed to interpret your second sentence with what I wrote though.
To me it would have been absolutely bizarre of them to make any comment at all about that
What do you expect them to say exactly ?!
A good and valid question. I'm also keen to understand the concerns of our LGBTQ+ community. The last thing that anyone should feel is that they're not welcome at the club.
True.
Evil = not desirable
I actually wasn't trying to be funny. I make plenty of grammatical errors myself. But when they're pointed out, I correct them. But seen as though you never did, I thought what you wrote was correct. Hence I was confused.
Anyway...I'm not too sure what you mean with your last paragraph? Have you picked up a conversation of mine halfway through, and confusing things here??
The idea we will become Spurs without rich owners is ridiculous. We are the biggest club in the world and don‘t need to be doped.
All we need is investments to redevelop our infrastructure and owners who run the club with integrity and common sense.
The track record of the Qatari is bad in this sense, if you look at the clubs they have owned over the years.
It is incredibly naive to think that they will run us differently. They will want to spend more than is allowed by ffp rules and cook the books. They have done this to every club they have owned.
Even apart from human rights issues etc. , they are bad news.
BTW the hypocrisy of those who made fun of City and Newcastle and now are all in for Qatar money is stunning. You are a bunch of spineless pigshits.
All we need is investments to redevelop our infrastructure and owners who run the club with integrity and common sense.
The track record of the Qatari is bad in this sense, if you look at the clubs they have owned over the years.
It is incredibly naive to think that they will run us differently. They will want to spend more than is allowed by ffp rules and cook the books. They have done this to every club they have owned.
Even apart from human rights issues etc. , they are bad news.
BTW the hypocrisy of those who made fun of City and Newcastle and now are all in for Qatar money is stunning. You are a bunch of spineless pigshits.
Ah I see, so because they don't agree with your opinion older fans = racists. What about younger fans that don't want to be owned by Qatar? Are they racists too?
Obviously.
But this is (again obviously) quite irrelevant. People who are against Qatar owning United haven't adopted that stance because they're worried about the new owners introducing a "no gays allowed!" policy at Old Trafford.
Are you in the UK?
If so, unless you only use solar power, you are writing your posts using something that is being powered in part by gas from Qatar, you must be OK with poisoning the Earth then
We are the biggest club, we dont need to dope, who said Qatar buying = dope?
You said it yourself, we don't need to falsify commercial deals because we already attract them.
This will leave the owners to spend money on Stadium / infrastructure.
How are the Qatar track record back btw? taking PSG from 15th to 1st is bad in your books?
Taking PSG from barely getting CL and not getting out the groups to regular knock outs = bad?
If challenging for CL and finishing top in the league is bad, I want bad.
So what investment are you proposing? Elliot group? That is the only one who has come in and said they willing to invest.
The massive difference between United and City /NEwcastle is we already won titles without sugar daddy, we were competitive.