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 .
Does anybody, who wants Jim over Qatar, wants him because you think that he will be better owner or it is only because of "moral" reasons?

And if its about moral reasons then how far those moral reasons go; would you rather Glazers or Qatar?
 
Last edited:
RORY65 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't think that's a fair comparison Shad Khan is probably culturally Muslim at best and is basically American/western in his ways. (I mean he changed his name from Shahid to Shad so that should speak volumes)
 
stevoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is different, if I'm not mistaken City allegedly committed fraud by lying about the origin of funds which includes using offshore and shell companies. PSG stated where the funds were coming from but the UEFA has a panel that evaluates the market value of deals and adapts them, that process is a bit dubious but it's the rules which were created after the deals were created if I remember correctly. An other thing about PSG which was monitored by the UEFA were loans from I believe QNB.

The point being that there is a fundamental difference between PSG and City, PSG plays with the rules and try to stay at the limits while City allegedly disregarded rules that go beyong Football and are accounting and fraud issues. That's the part that people need to keep in mind City are accused of fraud.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Does anybody, who wants Jim over Qatar, wants him because you think that he will be better owner or it is only because of "moral" reasons?
Click to expand...
States shouldn't own football clubs so even though Jim is a cnut he's still the better option of the 2. Plus for those insisting this isn't a state bid then how can they back the Qatari offer when we have no idea who the guy is or how he made so much money (how is he making so much as the chairman of a bank that makes $2bn in revenue?) and the company through which the bid is being made doesn't currently exist.
 
Real Name said:
What part do you need explaining?
Click to expand...
You know, the bit where you said City didn’t need to cheat. The part that…was the only part.

Maybe go check the part where City were in the league before the take over, and then the part where City spent big, and then the part where City cheated without not needing to do it?

Explain to me the alternate reality you are imagining where City don’t fudge their numbers, work within FFP and gain the success that they have done on a shoestring budget. I’m honestly intrigued to hear it.
 
JPRouve said:
It is different, if I'm not mistaken City allegedly committed fraud by lying about the origin of funds which includes using offshore and shell companies. PSG stated where the funds were coming from but the UEFA has a panel that evaluates the market value of deals and adapts them, that process is a bit dubious but it's the rules which were created after the deals were created if I remember correctly. An other thing about PSG which was monitored by the UEFA were loans from I believe QNB.

The point being that there is a fundamental difference between PSG and City, PSG plays with the rules and try to stay at the limits while City allegedly disregarded rules that go beyong Football and are accounting and fraud issues. That's the part that people need to keep in mind City are accused of fraud.
Click to expand...

PSG tried to cheat the FFP rules with creative accounting (more than once). I believe they got caught and fined both times.

Do we need to have a long winded off topic discussion about PSG in this thread?
 
I never really got the stock going up based on takeover rumours. If someone wanted to buy the remainder of the stock after buying out the Glazers what price would they need to pay? What’s the rules around that in terms of delisting?
 
Bebestation said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting they are. The guy is affiliated with the Qatari state and Qatar has a particular policy on LGTBQ. Therefore, there will always be scrutiny as to whether he accepts or rejects the Qatari state's position on the subject. If he's silent about it, then that won't be particularly reassuring to a section of United fans - both during the bidding process, but especially if were to become the owner.
 
shamans said:
Don't think that's a fair comparison Shad Khan is probably culturally Muslim at best and is basically American/western in his ways. (I mean he changed his name from Shahid to Shad so that should speak volumes)
Click to expand...
I would suggest the bigger difference is that he's not acting on behalf of a state. However, if the people supporting a bid from a state where people are imprisoned for being gay and migrant workers are treated appalling want to pretend that they're actually the only tolerant ones and that the opposition to the bid is due to Islamophobia then good luck to them.
 
MTF said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding honestly.
I thought I could, but failed at the first whistle. You did much better than me.

There seems to be a lot of people here that are claiming the moral high ground, who haven't been in rush to declare that their standards were upheld during the World Cup.
I dare say some have even been using the "H" word, to other posters.
 
Verminator said:
Thanks for responding honestly.
I thought I could, but failed at the first whistle. You did much better than me.

There seems to be a lot of people here that are claiming the moral high ground, who haven't been in rush to declare that their standards were upheld during the World Cup.
I dare say some have even been using the "H" word, to other posters.
Click to expand...
I did go to respond, but I don't really understand your point.

If I watched the world cup, I'm not allowed to not want a Qatari owner?
 
RORY65 said:
I would suggest the bigger difference is that he's not acting on behalf of a state. However, if the people supporting a bid from a state where people are imprisoned for being gay and migrant workers are treated appalling want to pretend that they're actually the only tolerant ones and that the opposition to the bid is due to Islamophobia then good luck to them.
Click to expand...

Not being a state is a difference indeed. As for the rest, I don't wanna start this debate again (in here) but the reason Islamophobia is mentioned is the accusation people have no issues with similar or worse state level crimes but make an exception for the middle east, and not just in football. I have no interest in debating whether or not it is or isn't Islamophobia. My personal opinion is that probably 95% of the folks (at least here or fairly educated ones) are not Islamophobic. Personally, I think there is some ignorance and unconscious bias and most people speaking against Qatar do so from their own (percieved) morals standpoint and not to be racist.
 
stevoc said:
PSG tried to cheat the FFP rules with creative accounting (more than once). I believe they got caught and fined both times.

Do we need to have a long winded off topic discussion about PSG in this thread?
Click to expand...

PSG were sanctioned for overspending(more than once), as have many clubs, in fact it's generally the same clubs Marseille, Monaco, Juventus, Milan, Besiktas plus someone else. These clubs are sanctioned for not respecting the break even rules.

And the inflated sponsorship deals investigation was from 2015 and is a single case, it's the 100m deal with QTA. And a similar case than the one Galatasaray were involved with and both clubs were let free.
 
romufc said:
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
Click to expand...
No, but openly gay United supporters in Qatar will be.
 
Verminator said:
My point would be irrelevant, if you just answered honestly.
Click to expand...
:lol: of course your point is relevant, you're supposedly trying to gauge in a discussion.

I watched it the least amount I've ever watched a WC, part of that was to do with when it was, part of that was my general dislike for our team at the moment and in general because of not being enamored with the whole situation.
Verminator said:
Are Millwall up for sale? :wenger:

People's morals are being called into question regarding human rights, by people who likely put theirs to one side, whilst the World Cup was on.
Click to expand...
Certainly wouldn't be worth buying if they were!

I don't see the equivalence. One was not your personal decision, FIFA and Qatar colluded for this to all take place in Qatar. If you asked everyone the same question at the time on who should host the world cup, USA or Qatar? I'm sure they'd hold the same moral stance.

If you're now asking who the binary choice of Ineos and Qatar ownership should be, the same moral stance would be applied.
 
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.
Click to expand...

come on man, this is absolute nonsense. I would be apoplectic if the Royal Family spent our tax money on a fecking football team, and almost everyone would be if the US Government tried to buy us - it’s not like we don’t have 20 years of hard evidence of our fan base constantly protesting our current private US owners.

But okay, I’ll flip it. How about the US did try and buy us, and all the people who’ve spent countless hours in these threads pointing out how equally awful and oppressive the US has been, or even some of those from muslim countries who would feel a significant moral disconnect if it were to happen, were the ones who felt uncomfortable or unable to support?… What about if Israel bought us? Would it THEN be okay to tell them to suck it up and deal with it without a fight? Would it be okay to to tell them their opinion was in the minority so shouldn’t matter? Or tell them they were being overly political, or even, at a stretch, racist?

If you wouldn’t, fair play. But you’ve got to be even handed with this shit before you start throwing around accusations like that. We don’t have any evidence people would feel like that. But we do have plenty of evidence that people are against state ownership when it’s other teams, but are suddenly fine with it when it’s us.
 
Bebestation said:
I dont think people would cry as much being owned by the uk royal family or US government.
Click to expand...

That is - happily - a practically impossible scenario.

But you're kidding yourself if you think the people who are against Qatari ownership would be fine with United being owned by the US government or the UK royal family.

Seriously, do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that a significant percentage of the people who have a problem with Qatar being United's next owner would be just fine with Manchester United being (de facto, in practice) owned by the US government?

If you do - if you actually do - then you don't understand where the anti-Qatar people are coming from at all. Which - to me - is borderline unbelievable given that you must have read plenty of posts on this subject on here.
 
Andycoleno9 said:
Does anybody, who wants Jim over Qatar, wants him because you think that he will be better owner or it is only because of "moral" reasons?

And if its about moral reasons then how far those moral reasons go; would you rather Glazers or Qatar?
Click to expand...
Yes it's a moral decision and yes I'd rather keep the Glazers. I didn't watch the WC in Qatar either in case that's a followup.
 
romufc said:
So this is only an issue if Qatar buys us? Its not an issue if Ratcliffe or any other buys us?
Click to expand...
Ratcliffe can't imprison people for the sexuality or profession, so no. We wouldn't be owned by an entity that persecutes people for their sexuality.

Surely you can see how this logic goes? Would you be happy being owned by the CIA just because they're only torturing people abroad and not on British soil?
 
romufc said:
So this is only an issue if Qatar buys us? Its not an issue if Ratcliffe or any other buys us?
Click to expand...
Genuinely, how are you not getting what all these posters are telling you? You're surely the most active poster in this thread and must be on a wind up.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Genuinely, how are you not getting what all these posters are telling you? You're surely the most active poster in this thread and must be on a wind up.
Click to expand...
He clearly knows that ethically he cannot square his own morals with Qatari ownership, but instead of accepting that he's made it a crusade to convince everyone else in the world that none of it matters and it's all okay.

Like, I don't especially care if you're in the "I don't care about humans rights as much as I care about Man Utd being good and the Qatari Emir pumping money into the club through some random underling to get around ownership rules is the best chance I've got of seeing Mbappe in a United shirt", in a way I respect the honesty of it and I kind of wish I could think the same way.

But the "everything else is just as bad and it's not state money and you're just racist for not wanting it" is way too much. If you can't be honest with yourself then what's the point?
 
tomaldinho1 said:
Genuinely, how are you not getting what all these posters are telling you? You're surely the most active poster in this thread and must be on a wind up.
Click to expand...
I think the poster genuinely believes they've got their gotcha moment every time they respond and isn't understanding they really aren't.
 
Dion said:
Ratcliffe can't imprison people for the sexuality or profession, so no. We wouldn't be owned by an entity that persecutes people for their sexuality.

Surely you can see how this logic goes? Would you be happy being owned by the CIA just because they're only torturing people abroad and not on British soil?
Click to expand...

I dont think you got what I meant. I meant this issue in Qatar will still be there regardless of who buys us until they change their laws.

I.E. If Qatar buys us that Untied fan openly gay in Qatar gets jailed.

If Ratcliffe buys us, the United fan openly in Qatar still gets jailed.

This is why, I dont want to get into the politics of the countries involved.

I get and respect people when they say, the reason they dont want Qatar is because they dont want state ownership. Fair enough.

Bringing all the political issues, moral high ground, it is an issue for ANY buyer that puts 5bn.

My apologies if the post didnt come across like that.
 
Dion said:
He clearly knows that ethically he cannot square his own morals with Qatari ownership, but instead of accepting that he's made it a crusade to convince everyone else in the world that none of it matters and it's all okay.

Like, I don't especially care if you're in the "I don't care about humans rights as much as I care about Man Utd being good and the Qatari Emir pumping money into the club through some random underling to get around ownership rules is the best chance I've got of seeing Mbappe in a United shirt", in a way I respect the honesty of it and I kind of wish I could think the same way.

But the "everything else is just as bad and it's not state money and you're just racist for not wanting it" is way too much. If you can't be honest with yourself then what's the point?
Click to expand...

Right.

I hope you have the same energy. Now you have said what I think...

So you are not happy with Qatari human rightsut are okay with all the human rights broken to produce the iphone or android phone you are using?

YOu are happy to forego all those human right principles for shoes and clothes you wear right?

If you cant be honest with yourself... whats the point? I see you will hide behind the term "Whataboutism" here.

As long as it suits you, its fine.

I have said my piece, I am not big enough to influence the human rights issues and any other moral issues that come with such big ownerships.

If I went my day thinking about these things, I wouldn't get anywhere, its the harsh reality.

Finally, STOP putting words in my mouth, as I never said if you dont accept you are racist.
 
romufc said:
So this is only an issue if Qatar buys us? Its not an issue if Ratcliffe or any other buys us?
Click to expand...

You're not making any sense now, mate.

Ratcliffe, for all his faults, isn't directly involved with the LGBT situation in Qatar.

Do you - seriously, really - not see the fundamental difference here?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That is - happily - a practically impossible scenario.

But you're kidding yourself if you think the people who are against Qatari ownership would be fine with United being owned by the US government or the UK royal family.

Seriously, do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that a significant percentage of the people who have a problem with Qatar being United's next owner would be just fine with Manchester United being (de facto, in practice) owned by the US government?

If you do - if you actually do - then you don't understand where the anti-Qatar people are coming from at all. Which - to me - is borderline unbelievable given that you must have read plenty of posts on this subject on here.
Click to expand...
So is this about state ownership being crap investment for the government or western human rights being better than the middle east? Because this hasnt always been the case and human rights of states can change pretty quickly.
 
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...
Everyone needs to be able to justify their choices somehow.
Strawman arguments and whataboutism are en vogue for those who prioritise a football club winning games and trophies, and signing whoever people want, over human rights.
Imagine what people are capable of if they were actually personally getting paid off... Honestly, scary thought.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
You're not making any sense now, mate.

Ratcliffe, for all his faults, isn't directly involved with the LGBT situation in Qatar.

Do you - seriously, really - not see the fundamental difference here?
Click to expand...

I clarified my post, I understand I did not communicate this post properly, my apologies.
 
romufc said:
I dont think you got what I meant. I meant this issue in Qatar will still be there regardless of who buys us until they change their laws.

I.E. If Qatar buys us that Untied fan openly gay in Qatar gets jailed.

If Ratcliffe buys us, the United fan openly in Qatar still gets jailed.

This is why, I dont want to get into the politics of the countries involved.

I get and respect people when they say, the reason they dont want Qatar is because they dont want state ownership. Fair enough.

Bringing all the political issues, moral high ground, it is an issue for ANY buyer that puts 5bn.

My apologies if the post didnt come across like that.
Click to expand...
Situation 1 we're rewarding the people doing the imprisoning with the ownership of a club I love
Situation 2 we're not.

Situation 1 LGBTQ+ members of the community dont have to go to United and see constant reminders of the people who would imprison them if they got the chance.
Situation 2 they dont.

There's no way you cannot see this.
 
shamans said:
Not being a state is a difference indeed. As for the rest, I don't wanna start this debate again (in here) but the reason Islamophobia is mentioned is the accusation people have no issues with similar or worse state level crimes but make an exception for the middle east, and not just in football. I have no interest in debating whether or not it is or isn't Islamophobia. My personal opinion is that probably 95% of the folks (at least here or fairly educated ones) are not Islamophobic. Personally, I think there is some ignorance and unconscious bias and most people speaking against Qatar do so from their own (percieved) morals standpoint and not to be racist.
Click to expand...
That's very reasonable. To be honest I just don't think states should be involved at all, none of them would come out of this level of scrutiny looking good (especially the likes of the UK and the US).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.