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 .
I'll ask again, since I got no takers from page 24.

Serious question, and not calling any particular poster out, but how many people boycotted the World Cup on moral grounds?
As in, didn't watch a minute due to Qatar's reputation on human rights, or sports washing?

I watched every game I could.
Does that make me a bad person?
 
Bebestation said:
This seems to be people against a religion rather than a state.
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Its weird how saudis,dubai,kuwait,qatar etc are all treated/looked at the same when they all treat their poppulation differently accoring to some freinds who live there.
Click to expand...
Fulham are owned by a Muslim who was born in Pakistan. Are they often lumped in with PSG, Newcastle, City and potentially ourselves? The reason the UK royal family or the US government wouldn't bid is that those are democratic nations (despite the royals and the US governments being cnuts), there would be huge public outcry if money was wasted on such nonsense as buying a football team.
 
romufc said:
Okay lets get to this then... So The Qatari government giving money to this private individual = State owned.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-welcomes-ineos-automotive-investment-to-bridgend-site#:~:text=INEOS received UK Government funding,the outcomes of that work.

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine...-ineos-raise-finance-for-grangemouths-future/

UK govt gives money to INEOS = State owned?
Click to expand...

This is getting out of hand. The Emir of Qatar is all near-all-powerful, dont be obtuse. Its frankly weird seeing this type of argument from you, you seem otherwise reasonable. The money comes from him, ie. the state. He is the state. There is no discussion about that that starts with honesty.
 
Mainoldo said:
How many of those clubs were purchased for 5-6bn£ :lol:
Click to expand...
I get there will be less potential buyers but why would the business model be affected by size? That seems a rather naïve view to take unless you think all owners must operate like the Glazers unless they are countries..
 
Bebestation said:
This seems to be people against a religion rather than a state.
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Its weird how saudis,dubai,kuwait,qatar etc are all treated/looked at the same when they all treat their poppulation differently accoring to some freinds who live there.
Click to expand...

People have repearedly stated this isn't the case, yet you seem determined to push it. A state has powers incompatible with owning a football club.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Perhaps it is, technically.

But that sort of "technical hypocrisy" is...yeah what is it? It's feckin' bullshit.

Would you accuse a single mother of three who barely has enough money to feed her kids, and who (shock!) depends on electricity and/or petrol to...function in the society she lives in a hypocrite because she doesn't build a feckin' solar panel or (somehow) acquires a car that can run on carrots?

It's a bullshit argument/criticism - and you should know this.
Click to expand...
Said mother of 3 didn't criticize anyone though, it's a BS argument both ways, if you don't practice what you preach you shouldn't really be critical of someone else doing it
 
stevoc said:
I get what you're saying but to be fair Qatar also cooked the books at PSG.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the books at PSG haven't been cooked, they actually went about it completely differently to City and it's also a bit more complicated to cook books for french clubs since the books are systematically monitored for reasons that have nothing to do with FFP.

What PSG did was to declare actual sponsorships and let the UEFA reevaluate them the way they wanted. The source of the money is known and the figures paid are known by everyone. City should have done the same thing but for some reason didn't.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I dont think the west is all glory. There are differences between cultures which is totally normal, but a few things cross the line like human rights or treatment of women. Thats all. No need to make it anything bigger than that, like politics or racism. Its none of that.
Click to expand...
The British empire was just as bad. Countries & colonies change. Qatar & saudis dont treat women the same or have the same human rights.
 
Tom Cato said:
This is getting out of hand. The Emir of Qatar is all near-all-powerful, dont be obtuse. Its frankly weird seeing this type of argument from you, you seem otherwise reasonable. The money comes from him, ie. the state. He is the state. There is no discussion about that that starts with honesty.
Click to expand...

I think the money will come from the state, I have never said it wouldn't.

The issue is us saying I dont agree because of their human rights, their rights to women.

We are playing politics against a country that is trying to improve. If INEOS is getting money from Sachs, JP Morgan to buy the club = good

If a individual is getting money from a state = bad.

I dont see why we need to be hypocritical about that because those companies are just as bad, Goldman sachs has been sued for sexism and genderism.
 
romufc said:
Okay lets get to this then... So The Qatari government giving money to this private individual = State owned.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-welcomes-ineos-automotive-investment-to-bridgend-site#:~:text=INEOS received UK Government funding,the outcomes of that work.

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine...-ineos-raise-finance-for-grangemouths-future/

UK govt gives money to INEOS = State owned?
Click to expand...
If the government was in central control of the economy and gave that money to a member of the royal family for the express purpose of buying the club with no intention of it being paid back? Then yes it would. Otherwise no.
 
Qatar for me, i don't believe we will ever see the upgrades necessary in the infrastructure under Ratcliffe and not in the short to medium term for definite.

We have already stagnated and rotted the club from the inside for 18 years I'd rather not wait another 10-15 on the chance we might get some serious investment.

We have already lost so much time and ground we established from being the best in the country, drastic changes are need quickly for the infrastructure of the club and i'm sick of waiting.
 
romufc said:
Okay lets get to this then... So The Qatari government giving money to this private individual = State owned.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-welcomes-ineos-automotive-investment-to-bridgend-site#:~:text=INEOS received UK Government funding,the outcomes of that work.

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine...-ineos-raise-finance-for-grangemouths-future/

UK govt gives money to INEOS = State owned?
Click to expand...

Given money?

It was a loan guarantee mate. That's not being given money by the government.
 
JPRouve said:
As far as I know the books at PSG haven't been cooked, they actually went about it completely differently to City and it's also a bit more complicated to cook books for french clubs since the books are systematically monitored for reasons that have nothing to do with FFP.

What PSG did was to declare actual sponsorships and let the UEFA reevaluate them the way they wanted. The source of the money is known and the figures paid are known by everyone. City should have done the same thing but for some reason didn't.
Click to expand...
I think we know why *cough* £400m sponsorship from Etihad in 2011 *cough*
 
romufc said:
I think the money will come from the state, I have never said it wouldn't.

The issue is us saying I dont agree because of their human rights, their rights to women.

We are playing politics against a country that is trying to improve. If INEOS is getting money from Sachs, JP Morgan to buy the club = good

If a individual is getting money from a state = bad.

I dont see why we need to be hypocritical about that because those companies are just as bad, Goldman sachs has been sued for sexism and genderism.
Click to expand...
GS has never put gay people and dissident journalists in jail, because they don't have the power to.
 
romufc said:
Okay lets get to this then... So The Qatari government giving money to this private individual = State owned.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-government-welcomes-ineos-automotive-investment-to-bridgend-site#:~:text=INEOS received UK Government funding,the outcomes of that work.

https://www.ineos.com/inch-magazine...-ineos-raise-finance-for-grangemouths-future/

UK govt gives money to INEOS = State owned?
Click to expand...
romufc said:
Ok Al Thani is being sponsored by the Qatari Royal Family... happy?
Click to expand...

You're just playing silly beggars now. The difference is obvious to anybody that wants to see it.
 
Dion said:
GS has never put gay people and dissident journalists in jail, because they don't have the power to.
Click to expand...


Let me also tell you something, if Qatar own Manutd, I can promise you, no gay person would be put in jail going to Old Trafford
 
stevoc said:
I get what you're saying but to be fair Qatar also cooked the books at PSG.
Click to expand...

Did they? Overspending and being fined for breaching FFP is a bit different to cooking the books
 
JPRouve said:
As far as I know the books at PSG haven't been cooked, they actually went about it completely differently to City and it's also a bit more complicated to cook books for french clubs since the books are systematically monitored for reasons that have nothing to do with FFP.

What PSG did was to declare actual sponsorships and let the UEFA reevaluate them the way they wanted. The source of the money is known and the figures paid are known by everyone. City should have done the same thing but for some reason didn't.
Click to expand...

Well they over valued their sponsorships, breached FFP rules and were fined. We can call it whatever we like it not much better than what City have been up to.
 
Red in STL said:
Said mother of 3 didn't criticize anyone though, it's a BS argument both ways, if you don't practice what you preach you shouldn't really be critical of someone else doing it
Click to expand...

No, she absolutely did (I said so): the mother of three is a United fan. She doesn't want Qatari ownership. Is she a hypocrite?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I think we know why *cough* £400m sponsorship from Etihad in 2011 *cough*
Click to expand...

But that's a dumb way to do it, you don't think? PSG have a dozen of actual sponsors some are inflated and others aren't, by doing that when the FFP committee has to deal with them, they can't just squash a single ridiculous 400m agreement that is actually worth 50m, it's an accumulation of sponsors from actual companies that can't be erased by the FFP.
 
RORY65 said:
It's madness. Apparently this is a great bid by a guy who is definitely independent of the state, despite all of his links to the state, but who is completely flush from being the chairman of a bank that makes $2bn in revenue and who is bidding through a company that doesn't currently exist. Ineos are peasants on the other hand with their 18 billion euros in revenue (more than 60 if you include their joint ventures), we won't be able to keep the lights on for more than a fortnight if they take over.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that bank (QIB) is also majority owned by QIA - a state owned investment fund. The math is simple for anybody to do.

I also found this...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f.../Who-really-Qatari-bid-Manchester-United.html
 
Bebestation said:
This seems to be people against a religion rather than a state.
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Its weird how saudis,dubai,kuwait,qatar etc are all treated/looked at the same when they all treat their poppulation differently accoring to some freinds who live there.
Click to expand...

It isn't. It is about accepting or rejecting a cultural practice that formalizes and mainstreams blatant discrimination, not about the religion. The NFL owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and Fulham FC is Muslim and no one cares, because he's not a state actor and he is completely integrated into western norms. When a guy comes from and represents a nation state from a region with discriminatory practices that don't align with western values, but wants to buy a club in the west, these questions will be raised as to where he stands on the issue, which is why he could've put the issue to bed in his statement. A missed opportunity that will continue to linger in the background as long as he's in the picture.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
But that's a dumb way to do it, you don't think? PSG have a dozen of actual sponsors some are inflated and others aren't, by doing that when the FFP committee has to deal with them, they can't just squash a single ridiculous 400m agreement that is actually worth 50m, it's an accumulation of sponsors from actual companies that can't be erased by the FFP.
Click to expand...
Yes that's why City getting away with it (until now) was so mind boggling, it just made no sense.
 
Tom Cato said:
I am comfortable that the stance of "Not wanting to be owned by a state-in-principle with a problematic relationship with freedom of press, criminalizes LGBTQ people for simply wanting to be who they are, and forbids women from taking certain jobs, education or travel without the permission of a male guardian" is not a "moral crusader" element, its the bare minimum of what no one should want the club to represent by proxy.

You can :copium: as much as you want, but fact remains that the head of the state of Qatar, will be in control of Manchester United.

There are a lot of wonderful things about both Qatar and not least the people of Qatar. The vast majority of people there are friendly, hospitable and decent human beings. Its more than a bit disappointing that while taking all that into consideration, the people who also live in Qatar, whose basic human rights are being opressed simply by laws made by men, should not be considered when we make up our "moral crusader stance"
Click to expand...
Good post
 
I am not updated on this. So, have a genuine question for people considering Ineos. Why do we think they are going to be different from the glazers? They would be interested in profits and definitely be taking dividends out like the Glazers.
 
stevoc said:
It's a bit different perhaps, still cheating and breaking the rules though.
Click to expand...
Its hugely different and not limited to ME owners.
The falsifying of accounts is as far as I know City and Juve. Hardly a middle eastern issue.

Reservations about state ownership is one thing.
Suggesting middle eastern owners are known for illegal levels of financial corruption in the sport is unsubstantiated.
 
bleedred said:
I am not updated on this. So, have a genuine question for people considering Ineos. Why do we think they are going to be different from the glazers? They would be interested in profits and definitely be taking dividends out like the Glazers.
Click to expand...

Spend £5 billion to take out £33 million every year?
 
Bebestation said:
This seems to be people against a religion rather than a state.
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Its weird how saudis,dubai,kuwait,qatar etc are all treated/looked at the same when they all treat their poppulation differently accoring to some freinds who live there.
Click to expand...
I'd hope they would, but also for starters there's a reason why democratic governments don't outright buy sports teams (and foreign ones at that) for significant money: the citizens would almost certainly question how that investment benefits them, when compared to investment in whatever national projects exists.
 
Raoul said:
It isn't. It is about accepting or rejecting a cultural practice that formalizes and mainstreams discrimination, not about the religion. The NFL owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and Fulham FC is Muslim and no one cares, because he's not a state actor and he is completely integrated into western norms. When a guy comes from and represents a nation state from a region with discriminatory practices that don't align with western values, but wants to buy a club in the west, these questions will be raised as to where he stands on the issue, which is why he could've put the issue to bed in his statement. A missed opportunity that will continue to linger in the background as long as he's in the picture.
Click to expand...
Again your thinking Saudis & Qatari people & human rights are the same.
Do you have a single freind who lives there & complains about living there? All i get is compliments.
 
Cassidy said:
And not limited to ME owners.
The falsifying of accounts is as far as I know City and Juve. Hardly a middle eastern issue.
Click to expand...

No which is why I said in my first post I get what you are saying, ie about not making generalisations.
 
bleedred said:
I am not updated on this. So, have a genuine question for people considering Ineos. Why do we think they are going to be different from the glazers? They would be interested in profits and definitely be taking dividends out like the Glazers.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't take dividends. Sir Jim at least would likely actually go and watch them play. I think something would be done about the stadium. There'd still be debt, but very likely much healthier debt and much more affordable with an actual end in sight.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
They wouldn't take dividends. Sir Jim at least would likely actually go and watch them play. I think something would be done about the stadium. There'd still be debt, but very likely much healthier debt and much more affordable with an actual end in sight.
Click to expand...

Depends if Chelsea are playing at home on the same day.
 
Verminator said:
I'll ask again, since I got no takers from page 24.

Serious question, and not calling any particular poster out, but how many people boycotted the World Cup on moral grounds?
As in, didn't watch a minute due to Qatar's reputation on human rights, or sports washing?

I watched every game I could.
Does that make me a bad person?
Click to expand...
I only watched in social situations, not on my own, and didn't watch any highlights on the official rights holders' YT channel in the US. I know it's hardly a full boycott, and I was generally still aware of what was going on especially towards the end of the tournament, but it was my feeble attempt to minimize my contribution to the whole thing.

I don't think watching makes anyone a bad person, not watching doesn't make me a better person, but at least I think I'm consistent in rejecting Qatar's attempts to buy attention and influence then, just as I am now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.