Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

[MTF]

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.

Good post, even though I don't agree with the conclusions I do agree with a lot of the analysis.

I don't think INEOS would be adding additional capital to the club, in part because the whole thing is already such a stretch as an investment (trades at some 27x cash flow) it's really much more of a prestige asset for anyone than any sort of promising investment.

But just do want to say that there is a way for partial owners to inject equity capital into a business in a way that compensates them for that injection with more of an ownership stake, which is equity subscription rights. All shareholders get a proportional right to contribute to an equity offering by the company, but shareholders can decline to subscribe and get proportionately diluted.

 

[JPRouve]

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.

In relation to your previous post, in my opinion there is one big thing that separates PSG and City to United. It's the finances they are totally different, they purchased City and PSG for significantly cheaper and their total expenses aren't close to 6bn. So if we assume that they are rational, their business strategy with United should be completely different, if I was to guess I would say that the most likely strategy for the bidders that we know will be similar and will be around either financing the debt in a way that adds funds to the club, for example adding a couple of lucrative sponsorship deals like Ineos/Qatar Airways Training center and there is also for both the shirt sponsor. Then I think that they will simply use the club current financial might because we need to remember that we do have money, we simply overspent wildly on players that are now marginal but a year or two of more conservative spendings and we are back in business similarly to Real Madrid a few years ago.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I don't think any Western Arab-owned football clubs have actively sought to undermine their LGBTQ+ fanbase. Generally - and this is based entirely from my surface perception - they've aligned with local attitudes towards the issues.

Of course

Wouldn't otherwise be a violation of UK law?

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.

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?

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.

To be clear, I was simply responding to the post by @Shakesey , which seemed to indicate we couldn't expect Qatar to go against their laws, religion etc.

Maybe I misinterpreted that post.

 

[vanrooney]

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.

Top post. summarizes also my thoughts perfectly, thanks!

 

[NLunited]

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.

Do your own research, it is easy to find. I have posted links to articles before.

Why would they cheat here? To bring in the players they want they will have to artificially inflate our income. We can‘t spend 400 million in one window and not run afoul of ffp.

 

[Revan]

Good post, even though I don't agree with the conclusions I do agree with a lot of the analysis.

I don't think INEOS would be adding additional capital to the club, in part because the whole thing is already such a stretch as an investment (trades at some 27x cash flow) it's really much more of a prestige asset for anyone than any sort of promising investment.

But just do want to say that there is a way for partial owners to inject equity capital into a business in a way that compensates them for that injection with more of an ownership stake, which is equity subscription rights. All shareholders get a proportional right to contribute to an equity offering by the company, but shareholders can decline to subscribe and get proportionately diluted.

To be fair, I mentioned that in an earlier post. It is possible to do such a thing (or even Ineos to decide to give a certain amount of stocks as payment to the board of Man United, which for example consists of the three owners of Ineos). If the compensation is as much as what Ineos put on the club, the shares of others are diluted to that amount. In either case (and the way how you explained is clearer) it is doable, but I think it is a bit less cleaner than just owning the entire club.

As you said though, the main reason why I do not believe they will inject money in the club is that a) the principal investment is just too high, I think INEOS is worth just around 23B (based on SJR being worth 14B and him owning 60% of Ineos) so at 5-6B investment, they are spending 20-25% of their entire market cap at United, b) they are buying United with debt in a non-debt friendly climate, they probably need more debt to invest in United. I do not think it is impossible that they will spend money in United, but I think it is relatively unlikely.

 

[NLunited]

Exactly my point. Why, then, would the Qataris automatically spend, spend, spend and cook the books as is being suggested?

Because they have at PSG and Malaga.

 

[shamans]

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.

That meme you used is silly and I commented on that

 

[JPRouve]

Because they have at PSG and Malaga.

PSG haven't cooked the book yet and I don't think Malaga did but I could be wrong.

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

Because they have at PSG and Malaga.

How much yearly revenue did those clubs generate at the time they were taken over?

 

[JPRouve]

How much yearly revenue did those clubs generate at the time they were taken over?

A mismanaged PSG were at 100m€ in 2010, the same year City were at 103m€.

 

[Water Melon]

Do your own research, it is easy to find. I have posted links to articles before.

Why would they cheat here? To bring in the players they want they will have to artificially inflate our income. We can‘t spend 400 million in one window and not run afoul of ffp.

Its just a hypothesis in your head. They are not gonna spend 400 million in one transfer window. I am ready to bet on that. If they do, I will leave the caf, if not you will. The deadline would be September 1, 2025. Taking the bet?

 

[MoskvaRed]

After nearly 20 years of zero investment in infrastructure, I don’t want owners who can barely afford the asking price. I also don’t want more debt - even if it’s at shareholder level, the expectation is still that the debt will be serviced by United’s revenues. So, with no great enthusiasm, I went for Qatar.

 

[TheReligion]

Its just a hypothesis in your head. They are not gonna spend 400 million in one transfer window. I am ready to bet on that. If they do, I will leave the caf, if not you will. The deadline would be September 1, 2025. Taking the bet?

The caf is serious business!!

 

[ShinjiNinja26]

A mismanaged PSG were at 100m€ in 2010, the same year City were at 103m€.

The reason I asked is because that poster keeps saying the Qatari’s cheated at both PSG and Malaga which I can’t say I was aware of but for arguments sake let’s say they did. Now the whole reason for cooking the books is to gain an advantage by artificially inflating sponsorships to increase yearly revenue allowing you a lot more wiggle room to sign players on big wages and higher transfer fees and close the gap on bigger clubs. In United’s case we already generate over half a billion a year, so why exactly would any owner have to start cooking the books here? It’s nonsense.

 

[Water Melon]

The caf is serious business!!

Well, I am sure he will take the bet. There is no fecking way we are spending 400 million quid in one window. Shitty are in trouble and are likely to suffer because of their actions. Qataris are not idiots to put the project that they are going to invest heavily in, at risk.

 

[glasgow 21]

After nearly 20 years of zero investment in infrastructure, I don’t want owners who can barely afford the asking price. I also don’t want more debt - even if it’s at shareholder level, the expectation is still that the debt will be serviced by United’s revenues. So, with no great enthusiasm, I went for Qatar.
[/QUOTE]

If the Glaziers stay that will be absolute disaster, They sat in the winter window giving our Manager the England world cup money as a budget and now they are considering staying. They are vultures who are coming back to finish United off. I'm sick to the stomach at the thought of it .

 

[JPRouve]

The reason I asked is because that poster keeps saying the Qatari’s cheated at both PSG and Malaga which I can’t say I was aware of but for arguments sake let’s say they did. Now the whole reason for cooking the books is to gain an advantage by artificially inflating sponsorships to increase yearly revenue allowing you a lot more wiggle room to sign players on big wages and higher transfer fees and close the gap on bigger clubs. In United’s case we already generate over half a billion a year, so why exactly would any owner have to start cooking the books here? It’s nonsense.

I don't know about Malaga but PSG had a 100m deal with QTA that was considered out of market by the UEFA but they lost their case, the one thing that PSG are regularly sanctioned for are not breaking-even.

 

[MoskvaRed]

After nearly 20 years of zero investment in infrastructure, I don’t want owners who can barely afford the asking price. I also don’t want more debt - even if it’s at shareholder level, the expectation is still that the debt will be serviced by United’s revenues. So, with no great enthusiasm, I went for Qatar.

If the Glaziers stay that will be absolute disaster, They sat in the winter window giving our Manager the England world cup money as a budget and now they are considering staying. They are vultures who are coming back to finish United off. I'm sick to the stomach at the thought of it .
[/QUOTE]

I think you tried to quote my post. Anyway, the Glazers are not staying - today’s “news” about a hedge fund possibly taking a minority stake is just PR bollocks to try to preserve their negotiating position against low balling bids.

 

[Shakesy]

To be clear, I was simply responding to the post by @Shakesey , which seemed to indicate we couldn't expect Qatar to go against their laws, religion etc.

Maybe I misinterpreted that post.

Yeah, you did

I responded to a poster by saying one cannot expect Qatar to change its own domestic policies.

 

[Redfan94]

After nearly 20 years of zero investment in infrastructure, I don’t want owners who can barely afford the asking price. I also don’t want more debt - even if it’s at shareholder level, the expectation is still that the debt will be serviced by United’s revenues. So, with no great enthusiasm, I went for Qatar.

If you’re to believe the party line that the Qatar bid is not state backed, Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe are a lot wealthier than the face of the Qatar bid.

 

[Shakesy]

If you’re to believe the party line that the Qatar bid is not state backed, Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe are a lot wealthier than the face of the Qatar bid.

The Face. I can't believe I fell for it as a kid. Face. Faceman. What a silly nickname. I was more of Murdock fan anyway.

 

[MoskvaRed]

If you’re to believe the party line that the Qatar bid is not state backed, Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe are a lot wealthier than the face of the Qatar bid.

I don’t believe the party line. Qatar wants to be playing in the big league along with Abu Dhabi and Saudi rather than being in a backwater like Ligue 1.

 

[Biggins]

Qatar will care about success first and profit aspect will be secondary. This will not be the case with any western investors.

From pure football perspective, Qatar is simply a better choice.

Having PSG as a feeder club is just a bonus!

 

[georgipep]

I'd read it, but that for cookie setting page. Takes too long switching them off.

Use the "I don't care about cookies" browser extension"

 

[stevoc]

Qatar will care about success first and profit aspect will be secondary. This will not be the case with any western investors.

From pure football perspective, Qatar is simply a better choice.

Having PSG as a feeder club is just a bonus!

I don't think anyone's buying a football club for £5b and expecting to make money from the clubs own profits.

 

[SAFMUTD]

A little worried after seeing the share drop 6% among fears the Glazers will not actually sell.

 

[Raoul]

A little worried after seeing the share drop 6% among fears the Glazers will not actually sell.

Its down 12.69% today.

That is probably the market beginning to price in the possibility the Glazers will stay.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

Qatar will care about success first and profit aspect will be secondary. This will not be the case with any western investors.

From pure football perspective, Qatar is simply a better choice.

Having PSG as a feeder club is just a bonus!

I don't think anyone doubts Qatar is the best for the football project. That's unless they get too involved and cause a circus of course.

It's what we are trading off in return which stings.

 

[SAFMUTD]

Its down 12.69% today.

That is probably the market beginning to price in the possibility the Glazers will stay.

Feck, hopefully its just a negotiation tactic by the Glazers. After all the fuss made about it if they dont sell it'll be depressing as hell.

 

[Raoul]

Feck, hopefully its just a negotiation tactic by the Glazers. After all the fuss made about it if they dont sell it'll be depressing as hell.

There's probably a lot going on behind the scenes, some of which may have leaked to institutional investors, which is causing them ditch their shares. If Qatar was a sure thing, I think we would've heard more by now. The fact that we haven't suggests there may be other variables at play.

 

[Real Name]

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.

What are you on about mate?

 

[Lrf]

Unless you know more than HRW or Amnesty International the first one isn't a daily occurrence, it's not even a monthly occurrence. The second one isn't a crime it shouldn't be a thing but discriminating laws against all sorts of people are a thing enforced everywhere and these are mainly based on cultures, it's a good thing to criticize people for it but it's not a good thing to act as if it was unique. The point about blasphemy is interesting for me, the vast majority of the population is religious, agree with and want these laws. The point about free elections is not one that I read much about so maybe the 2021 general elections weren't free. And where do you get your info that the entirety of 2m of migrant workers have bad working conditions and are robbed, it most definitely easily happens and isn't curtailed enough but lets not make up figures, in fact NGOs state that the regime has introduced laws to prevent that, they also believe that it's not enough but let's not act as if nothing was done and that it was organized by the Emir.

What you are doing is the one thing that does my head in because not even NGOs do that. Qatar is a monarchy that is culturally conservative and with a religious population. It's important to look at where they started from and whether there is an evoluation and according to pretty much all NGOs and in particular HRW and Amnesty Internation Qatar and the regime move in the direction that we want, which by the way isn't the direction that the locals necessarily want.

This post is the reason they want to by United.

 

[MackRobinson]

In relation to your previous post, in my opinion there is one big thing that separates PSG and City to United. It's the finances they are totally different, they purchased City and PSG for significantly cheaper and their total expenses aren't close to 6bn. So if we assume that they are rational, their business strategy with United should be completely different, if I was to guess I would say that the most likely strategy for the bidders that we know will be similar and will be around either financing the debt in a way that adds funds to the club, for example adding a couple of lucrative sponsorship deals like Ineos/Qatar Airways Training center and there is also for both the shirt sponsor. Then I think that they will simply use the club current financial might because we need to remember that we do have money, we simply overspent wildly on players that are now marginal but a year or two of more conservative spendings and we are back in business similarly to Real Madrid a few years ago.

All of this is quite understandable but the bolded part is my issue. I'm not sure this is true but there are some reports they aren't interested in making a profit, all while clearing the debt, investing in infrastructure, and attempting to make United a European powerhouse. I don't see how any rational businessman achieves that without financial doping.

 

[Zlatattack]

Looks like roughly two thirds of the Caf prefer Qatar.

 

[Dion]

That meme you used is silly and I commented on that

Out of context, and your criticism was ridiculous because of that.

 

[JPRouve]

All of this is quite understandable but the bolded part is my issue. I'm not sure this is true but there are some reports they aren't interested in making a profit, all while clearing the debt, investing in infrastructure, and attempting to make United a European powerhouse. I don't see how any rational businessman achieves that without financial doping.

Investing in the infrastructures isn't financial doping and paying the debts of the previous owners isn't financial doping either. United are currently one of the wealthiest clubs in the world and under good management they are supposed to be a powerhouse no doping is necessary. We are not talking about Altrincham FC.

 

[MackRobinson]

Investing in the infrastructures isn't financial doping and paying the debts of the previous owners isn't financial doping either. United are currently one of the wealthiest clubs in the world and under good management they are supposed to be a powerhouse no doping is necessary. We are not talking about Altrincham FC.

I'm operating under the assumption they are rational businessmen. Investing in infrastructure alone doesn't guarantee anything, and one would assume they would look to upgrade the playing staff (this is where the financial doping comes into play). Besides that, how can they be deemed rational if they aren't trying to make a profit or at least increase the club's value for a future sale? Surely they aren't that altruistic.

 

[Jippy]

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.

Yeah, but Ratcliffe isn't the one making those laws and enforcing them brutally in Qatar is he? If people favour the Qatar bid because their eyes light up at the financing that could really help the team and infrastructure, fine, but let's dispense with the mental gymnastics and false equivalences.

 

[Mwooyo]

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

Nope...this article just regurgitates the same baseless fears from here. Qatar already own a big European club and several european bussinesses...keyword here is OWN. Dont use bussinesses they have invested in and then say investment is different from ownership....these dudes already own several bussinesses in Europe, So show us examples of their human rights abuses or lgtbq abuses against fans of that club or customers/employees of those bussinesses.

This dude is using the laws in qatar as the basis to say they will run any European bussinesses the same way. This is something that has been proven false for sometime now given that they already own many bussinesses in europe and have done nothing more than manage them properly. Whole article is built on sand and falls apart when you actually think about it critically