I fully support and admire your resolve, even if I don't share it.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
Every decision you make is a trade-off between the harm it causes others and the benefit you get for yourself. I have a smartphone because it's part of my job and if I don't have one people literally die. That is a trade-off I find morally acceptable.
My club going from "very rich" to "pointlessly rich" at the cost of glorifying an extremely oppressive regime and further normalising states using football clubs to play soft power games across the world is one I absolutely don't.
And the reason you're so desperately trying to defend this from every possible angle and diminish every other one is because deep down you know this too.
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/qatar-man-utd-takeover-sheikh-jassim-bid-2162864
Most of the arguments in this (and other) thread, summarized in an eloquent manner.
Good read.
Edit: typo
Most of the arguments in this (and other) thread, summarized in an eloquent manner.
Good read.
Edit: typo
I'd read it, but that for cookie setting page. Takes too long switching them off.
Are you willfully ignoring why these states are investing into these institutions though?
They all do it for the same reasons. Make money and improve their image.
It has nothing to do with either.
A national state being the owner of a football club is hugely problematic for a number of reasons. But the most obvious would be:
* They're not operating on the level of any non-state owners in terms of money. They have a financial muscle that cannot possibly be matched by a non-state owner.
* They can - and will, probably - use their ownership of the club politically (in one way or another). This is the main concern - the money aspect is nothing compared to this.
As for your idea about "western human rights" being better: human rights are universal. There is no such thing as "western human rights".
Yep can agree on state ownership part I'm against that in any form but not to the extent I'll boycott Man United. Rather it just didn't happen.
Every decision you make is a trade-off between the harm it causes others and the benefit you get for yourself. I have a smartphone because it's part of my job and if I don't have one people literally die. That is a trade-off I find morally acceptable.
My club going from "very rich" to "pointlessly rich" at the cost of glorifying an extremely oppressive regime and further normalising states using football clubs to play soft power games across the world is one I absolutely don't.
And the reason you're so desperately trying to defend this from every possible angle and diminish every other one is because deep down you know this too.
These examples are flawed.
The example here would be if you only had an issue with Android phone made in china not paying their people enough money but were fine with Apple workers not making enough. Obviously these memes are silly that would be like saying "you post on the internet. Founded by X who was known for X. HAH!" but why do we remove any structure of drawing parallels from similar issues? "whataboutism" has become a means to just not listen to anything else and only this issue.
If someone said state ownership from China or Russia is fine but not Qatar would it not be fair to point out hypocrisy?
The article nails it.
The ONLY logical argument people have is “I care less about human rights than I do about United”. That is a logically fair statement. That’s why we keep having arguments because people keep justifying their opinions horrendously
Except in this particular instance, they've openly said they're not looking to make money
No, THAT example would be flawed. A state owner is fundamentally different in a way that Apple and iPhone simply aren't. The meme isn't about iPhones in particular, it's about this silly habit people have of conflating things that are necessary to a greater degree with things that aren't and that you cannot have a moral stance on anything unless your participation is perfect.
And of course it would, but literally nobody has done that. In fact any time it's been raised everyone involved has explicitly stated that no state ownership would be acceptable.
I suggest you go back and read the comment I was replying to more thoroughly.
Exactly. He is not hypocrite. Unlike those who have moral issues against Qatar but between Glazers and Qatar they will choose Qatar. I mean.....are Glazers combo of Putin and Kim?
Has anyone ever said that?
It's not an exception. Owning Manchester United opens the door to the Greater Manchester market, in particular the real estate market which is in line with many qataris businesses. The point could and is likely to make money around the club and not directly from it.
I'm not replying on the behalf of that comment, I just don't like this meme and the general deflecting word of "whataboutism!" used so often nowadays.
Of course not, it's always the ones who cry about whataboutism being thrown at them who mostly quickly employ it.
What would everyone think of me being the new owner?
How much are you worth?
Sorry but you don't just get to interject into an exchange with someone else and the complain about something out of it's original context and in one that you've invented.
Well you're not in the 85% who voted to sell Rashford so you're already getting to the top of the list.
The UK Royal family wouldn't actually be state ownership but it would ever happen, especially as the non-spare is a Villa fan, US government would have a hell of job getting that thru congress!!Then enjoy living under your rock
I’d be fecking fuming.
As for the CIA, how do we know that the Qatar (or any of the others) bid isn't a CIA front
My mum says you can’t put a price on me if that helps?
Exactly. I’m built for it.
What a post, Bravo!
I don't understand why this very simple point is seemingly so hard to grasp.
(Oh, fine, let's be honest - many posters do get this. They aren't idiots. But they use this laughable "logic", knowing it's...bullshit, because it's actually considered a compelling argument by...genuine idiots, I suppose.)
Against. You would sack ETH and take his job.
Fair enough. Really good post.
85%??
. No way....Blasphemy!
It is genuinely one of the stupidest arguments ever and those that make it are shooting themselves in the foot.
People saying that are basically insinuating their support of United is similar to how they support i-phones or primark. I can only imagine they go out in their Apple shirts, chant apple songs at the tv every week and go to the Apple Stadium to support the release of the new i-phone.
The other argument is 'the UK and USA government is awful and horrendous as well'. Right. Well why do you support United then? There's basically two things here
a) You agree that currently United aren't owned by the UK/USA government so you know it's not the same.
b) You don't actually care what the UK/USA government do, you support the club anyway.
These aren't fair arguments. I've just had a fantastic rebuttal to me that basically says, 'Th e main reason I want Qatar is money and that I don't think the rest of the league is fair'. That's class. That makes sense. Some people will have changed their moral stance because now they benefit from that. Fair enough.
Do you honestly believe if the Sheikh took over there would be discrimination against LGBTQ? Do they really need to come out and make a statement to say they will not be putting signs up saying “No gays allowed on match days”? What kind of commitment are you expecting. Every single person who thinks rationally knows the LGBTQ community are going to be treated exactly the same as everyone else at Utd even if the Qataris took over.
I'd need pics.
Bald = good (but potential fraud).
Ponytail = forget it.
Beard = forget it.
Ginger = depends.
...and so on.
Sounds like you have an undetermined amount of funds the source of which is unknown and family members will have undue influence over you. Clear lack of separation. I’m out.
That was probably a fair % when the poll was actually taken, if it was 8.5% now never mind 85% to sell then I'd be seriously questioning the sanity of some folks!85%??
I’ll put my mum on the board too if that’s okay?
She’s from Manchester and want to school in Whalley Range.
From the club itself, that's doesn't mean not making money. You do realise they are going to be investing in real estate around the club and in Greater Manchester right?
PSG. City. Broken record at this point.
Believe what you want. Don’t care either way. Only wanted to understand if there was some logic or facts I was missing behind this seemingly blind optimism, but it seems that all it really is.
It wasn't, people are just short sighted and emotional when it comes to football.
Do your homework and give me a solid proof of Qataris cheating at PSG and Malaga. Also please elaborate on your claim that they would cheat here too. Taking into account that United, PSG and Malaga can not be compared, while the regulations in the Pem La Liga and League 1 are not exactly the same either.
My response was mainly against the argument of all countries do this all the time. I understand they will make money elsewhere, but I'm not sure how a state buying one of the biggest football clubs in the world, just to make real estate investments in greater Manchester, is the norm.