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 .
MackRobinson said:
What did City and PSG care about FFP?

Once again, do you honestly think they will spend billions on a football club, clear the debt, rebuild/renovate the infrastructure, and then decide not to invest money into the transfer market, one of the most significant factors for success? Based on the track record of the other state-owned clubs it would be wishful thinking or an outright delusion to believe that.
Click to expand...
What about Newcastle, the latest of the state owned clubs?

City and PSG had to break the rules to become relevant, we (and Newcastle to an extent) already are, therefore no need to be extravagant.

By the way, what's all this crap I keep seeing about Mbappe? just ante-Qatarists making things up again?
 
Red in STL said:
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
Click to expand...

Forget getting gas from Qatar, the UK government transports it to UK, think about those costs.

Some people have this high moral ground but when you ask them something they will hide behind "whataboutism"
 
RedSky said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nope older was a reference to how society has changed and hopefully a lot of people believed improved along the years.

Not every negative reference has a negative objective.
 
alexthelion said:
What about Newcastle, the latest of the state owned clubs?

City and PSG had to break the rules to become relevant, we (and Newcastle to an extent) already are, therefore no need to be extravagant.

By the way, what's all this crap I keep seeing about Mbappe? just ante-Qatarists making things up again?
Click to expand...
Newcastle have hardly spent anything, certainly not enough to be breaking the rules yet
 
alexthelion said:
What about Newcastle, the latest of the state owned clubs?

City and PSG had to break the rules to become relevant, we (and Newcastle to an extent) already are, therefore no need to be extravagant.

By the way, what's all this crap I keep seeing about Mbappe? just ante-Qatarists making things up again?
Click to expand...
Everythings made up right now due to limited info. Your getting triggered by by one side shows your priorities really
 
red thru&thru said:
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??
Click to expand...

I am stating all those things you said about us being able to generate our own money still stand true now but we still couldn’t afford anything but loan signings this January. So I was just confused with us being in such a state you feel it is easily reversible by just changing the name of the owner and removing dividends.
 
Rood said:
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 ?!
Click to expand...

If its an issue of concern to a significant portion of the match going fanbase then why not squash it as part of the release, just as they did by assuaging concerns of infrastructure investment or needing to take out a loan to complete the sale. An unforced error imo. Its clear why they didn't do it, because it would be perceived as embarrassing for them to be linked with the issue domestically within Qatar and in the region.
 
Mainoldo said:
Nope older was a reference to how society has changed and hopefully a lot of people believed improved along the years.

Not every negative reference has a negative objective.
Click to expand...
Society always changes, always has and always will, some things improve and some things don't, some things get better and some things get worse, one thing that is constant is the each generation blames the previous one for most of their troubles
 
Mainoldo said:
Nope older was a reference to how society has changed and hopefully a lot of people believed improved along the years.

Not every negative reference has a negative objective.
Click to expand...

Right, so to understand your argument... you're saying older fans that don't approve of Qatar are racists but younger fans that don't approve of Qatar aren't racist because society has changed.

Let's just dismiss all older fans opinions then? Or are the older fans that back Qatar ok because they share your opinion?
 
Red in STL said:
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
Click to expand...

What you're saying is that an average person, who happens to be a UK national, has to "use solar power" (what? in a private capacity?) in order to escape being "OK with poisoning the earth"" if they happen to have issues with Qatar (in this case: as potential owners of Manchester United).

You do realize (I hope) that this is an insane argument that doesn't make an ounce of sense?
 
Raoul said:
If its an issue of concern to a significant portion of the match going fanbase then why not squash it as part of the release, just as they did by assuaging concerns of infrastructure investment or needing to take out a loan to complete the sale. An unforced error imo. Its clear why they didn't do it, because it would be perceived as embarrassing for them to be linked with the issue domestically within Qatar and in the region.
Click to expand...

Interesting take.

I say this because many are saying, don't believe their statement because it calls for private individual - Oh its Qatar you will be silly to believe a statement.

Yet, one bit they don't mention, its like they should have?
 
alexthelion said:
What about Newcastle, the latest of the state owned clubs?

City and PSG had to break the rules to become relevant, we (and Newcastle to an extent) already are, therefore no need to be extravagant.

By the way, what's all this crap I keep seeing about Mbappe? just ante-Qatarists making things up again?
Click to expand...
Newcastle was just recently sold, but I would bet on financial doping in the future

No need but why on earth wouldn’t they be extravagant when it seems like they will spend extravagantly on everything else. The optimism seems misplaced
 
RedSky said:
Right, so to understand your argument... you're saying older fans that don't approve of Qatar are racists but younger fans that don't approve of Qatar aren't racist because society has changed.

Let's just dismiss all older fans opinions then? Or are the older fans that back Qatar ok because they share your opinion?
Click to expand...

You sound abit triggered because a discussion about race was brought up.

Let me reference it this way and leave it be. In Jamaica there is a lot of Chinese investors and ownership. Those who have been on the Island a long time don’t really like it. Regardless of the benefits.
 
romufc said:
Interesting take.

I say this because many are saying, don't believe their statement because it calls for private individual - Oh its Qatar you will be silly to believe a statement.

Yet, one bit they don't mention, its like they should have?
Click to expand...

The bid has been branded as "The Qatari bid", which ostensibly makes it Qatar and not an individual. The guy is a state actor whose money emanated from the state, so ubiquitous references to Qatar among the bidders makes him synonymous with the country.
 
Mainoldo said:
You sound abit triggered because a discussion about race was brought up.

Let me reference it this way and leave it be. In Jamaica there is a lot of Chinese investors and ownership. Those who have been on the Island a long time don’t really like it. Regardless of the benefits.
Click to expand...

I don't like it when posters like yourself label a portion of our fanbase as racists.
 
Frankiekeane said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be a good poll too.
 
Raoul said:
The bid has been branded as "The Qatari bid", which ostensibly makes it Qatar and not an individual. The guy is a state actor whose money emanated from the state, so ubiquitous references to Qatar among the bidders makes him synonymous with the country.
Click to expand...
I think formally the bid if just some consortium lead by that guy. Of course this is horseshit, but formally it is this way *. So obviously, they do not see necessary to mention Qatari issues, similar to how Glazers didn't mention Iraq war in their takeover of United.

* One of those things that it is not true, that Sheikh Jassim knows that everyone knows that it is not true, and that everyone knows that Sheikh Jassim and co know that everyone knows it to not be true.
 
alexthelion said:
No worse than the 'moral crusaders' vilifying anyone who disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I disagree. There are levels and context to everything of course, and people simply critical of the INEOS bid or grudgingly resigned to becoming what we always liked to say we wouldn’t, shouldn’t be slated in anyway, but in general fans who are happy that the club might get a huge injection of wealth, whatever the cost, who had previously stated opposition or derision of other clubs being state owned are clearly hypocrites, and calling that out is fair game. I see it more like those who make a big song and dance about free speech but then bristle at the actual reaction to what they say - because what they really want is to say whatever they like, and also have it completely embraced, lest it make them feel uncomfortable

Not to mention that fans who are genuinely considering whether they can still support the club (who will admittedly likely be a minority) are obviously in a rubbish position that they’d rather not be, and it must be wrenching - whereas those delighted are not. They’re getting what they want and should therefore be a tad more aware and respectful that other fans are finding it tough. Especially if one is a local or match going fan with a real life altering decision to make, and the other is not (though again that obviously isn’t always the case)

There’s context to everything of course, but there also a difference between being a sore loser and a bad winner.


Chesterlestreet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’ve no doubt that any Qatar bid would never stoop to that (as evidenced at PSG) but it must also be noted that Qatar did very much do something like this at the World Cup, where they physically prohibited anyone wearing fecking rainbows in the stadiums. I’m frankly slightly aghast at how quickly things like that were forgotten by the end, just cos the football was good. It might not be a reasonable assumption in this context, but it’s also not completely out of the realms of possibility. Especially if we ever play any games over there, which likely will be a direct consequence of our ownership. If - for example - there are openly gay fans who pride themselves on attending any and all United games, there could genuinely be a worry that they could be unwelcome at some point, in at least some context.
 
I must say, for a group that generally hates City for all the right reasons, I'm a bit shocked at the current tilt of the poll.
 
RedSky said:
I don't like it when posters like yourself label a portion of our fanbase as racists.
Click to expand...

Racist is a strong claim. Having an ideology on what something means to you doesn’t mean you are racist.

Let’s not try to always be so easily offended. But if I caused offence I apologise to you.
 
Raoul said:
If its an issue of concern to a significant portion of the match going fanbase then why not squash it as part of the release, just as they did by assuaging concerns of infrastructure investment or needing to take out a loan to complete the sale. An unforced error imo. Its clear why they didn't do it, because it would be perceived as embarrassing for them to be linked with the issue domestically within Qatar and in the region.
Click to expand...

What's your concern exactly? And what did you want them to say about it?

"We want to buy Man Utd, we will invest in the team and stadium. We want to win things. And BTW, we all good with the gays."

Like I said, IMO they didn't do so because it would have been absolutely bizarre of them to mention anything to do with that in their first statement - possibly in the future if things move on with the bid they could address such things.
 
Mainoldo said:
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.
Click to expand...
If history is a lesson, we should all expect financial doping from any state-backed ownership
 
Why are people acting like INEOS are just the Glazers 2.0 and then the only other option is Qatar?

On a scale of owners with the Glazers being at the bottom (syphon money out, put nothing in) and Qatar at the top (pump money in for sportswashing, happy to take great losses) there is a whole world of in between.

We don't need Qatar to stop this:
66ab8ac0-db75-4b07-a438-a553dd40b2ef


We just need a non leech owner which, judging from the above, is still the PL majority.

Edit: and this isn't including the sickening amount of £££ the Glazer's have cost us in payments for their debt.
 
Mockney said:
Especially if we ever play any games over there, which likely will be a direct consequence of our ownership. If - for example - there are openly gay fans who pride themselves on attending any and all United games, there could genuinely be a worry that they could be unwelcome at some point, in at least some context.
Click to expand...

Yep, true - absolutely.

Anyway - my point was about the...absurd (and, let's be clear, intellectually dishonest) focus on what could happen at Old Trafford.

Of course they will not do/implement anything even remotely "anti-gay" in terms of anything taking place in England. We all know this - it's not a part of the equation at all, but it is (shockingly, I would say) actually used as a distraction tactic by some people: "Hey, relax - they won't ban gay people from Old Trafford, or force our women's team to wear hijabs, so what's the problem, eh? Western propaganda...something, something."
 
romufc said:
Never knew you are a financial expert of Qatar. So everyone working in Qatar, regardless of job, its state money?
Click to expand...

Read the quote I am referring to. Everybody is highly suspicious of this bid and the origin of the funding and, given the grip that the state has over its people, businesses and government bodies, it is very difficult to say for sure that they don't have involvement. No matter what anybody says, it will probably always be disuputed and will take some amazing, bulletproof evidence to convince people otherwise.

Besides, the link between this guy and the state are clear.
 
troylocker said:
,.....but you will accept money from Qatar who has the 2nd biggest CO2 footprint per capita in the world, and has been accused of greenwashing themselves? Qatar controls 13% of the worlds total fossil natural gas reserves and has huge oil reserves.....
Greenwashing and polution is a problem, both when it comes to Ineos and Qatar.
Click to expand...
Yet it's conveniently ignored by most when it comes to Jimbo/Ineos. Wonder why that is?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Why are people acting like INEOS are just the Glazers 2.0 and then the only other option is Qatar?

On a scale of owners with the Glazers being at the bottom (syphon money out, put nothing in) and Qatar at the top (pump money in for sportswashing, happy to take great losses) there is a whole world of in between.

We don't need Qatar to stop this:
66ab8ac0-db75-4b07-a438-a553dd40b2ef


We just need a non leech owner which, judging from the above, is still the PL majority.

Edit: and this isn't including the sickening amount of £££ the Glazer's have cost us in payments for their debt.
Click to expand...

How many of those clubs were purchased for 5-6bn£ :lol:
 
pocco said:
Read the quote I am referring to. Everybody is highly suspicious of this bid and the origin of the funding and, given the grip that the state has over its people, businesses and government bodies, it is very difficult to say for sure that they don't have involvement. No matter what anybody says, it will probably always be disuputed and will take some amazing, bulletproof evidence to convince people otherwise.

Besides, the link between this guy and the state are clear.
Click to expand...

Correct, so you are worried that there will be funding from the government?

So why is Emirates sponsor not seen as Qatar state backed funding? Its the same thing. The state might be sponsoring the individual.
 
Revan said:
If we want to compete with City (who is cooking their books and will continue doing so), yes we have to. There is no universe where United builds a stadium with their own money, clears the debt with their own money, and somehow is competitive with City and co.
Click to expand...
No we don't if the loans are cleared and OT refurbishment/new stadium are built by the Qataris.
 
MackRobinson said:
I can only look at the clubs they have taken over and that's precisely what they have done.
Click to expand...

I know but I’ve placed a caveat on that claim which should be very important.

The whole point of their actions was to increase improve the competitiveness of their purchase. Therefore this should not apply to us. If we use history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.