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 .
Real Name said:
This is a good post. In which you didnt have the need to retort to mental gymnastics about Qatar, situation there and about the bid itself or to claim its just a pure investment without anything political about it all the whole pointing out the changes in the country happening. To top it you said why you want a Qatar ownership pure and simple and that's fair.

Posters who tend to close their eyes and sugarcoat the Qatar story so they can feel themselves better or whatever about the whole thing should look up to your post.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Yes, I think it is totally obvious that Sheikh No_One_Knew_His_Name_Yesterday is just a frontman for the state of Qatar buying the club. Also, I completely agree with the criticism for the human rights there, admit that the state buying the club is not the same as some company buying the club, and that them buying United is first a political decision, second a financial one, and maybe a distant third being them fans of United.

We will obviously be similar to City and Newcastle in that aspect, but I also think that is the only way to compete (except Apple/Amazon or some extremely rich person like Ballmer/Bezos buying us).

Ideally, state ownership should have never been allowed, but that’s not the case.
 
I'm not any more morally opposed to Qatar ownership than I am to a planet destroying petrochemicals company taking over, or to huge tax-dodging, workers rights abusing companies like Amazon.

What is in Qatar's favour is that you can be sure they will want to prove themselves to the 'the good guys' far more than other businesses who may want to take us over, and will be much more likely to deliver on clearing the debt and better infrastructure.

One of my concerns with Qatar is because of how rich they are whether they will meddle too much in the football side (although there is arguably just as much if not more danger of this with any other owner).

My other concern is that you will also never hear the fecking end of it in the press if they takeover, and any success we have going forward will be tainted in a lot of people's eyes (including our own fans)

You can already see now journalists who have been conspicuously silent about United since we got good again (eg. Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew) have suddenly started to pipe up saying how Qatar would destroy our soul as a club, etc.
 
Revan said:
Thanks.

Yes, I think it is totally obvious that Sheikh No_One_Knew_His_Name_Yesterday is just a frontman for the state of Qatar buying the club. Also, I completely agree with the criticism for the human rights there, admit that the state buying the club is not the same as some company buying the club, and that them buying United is first a political decision, second a financial one, and maybe a distant third being them fans of United.

We will obviously be similar to City and Newcastle in that aspect, but I also think that is the only way to compete (except Apple/Amazon or some extremely rich person like Ballmer/Bezos buying us).

Ideally, state ownership should have never been allowed, but that’s not the case.
Click to expand...
Yup, that can of worms has been opened long ago and it is what it is. Choices are not exactly great, on the contrary.
 
sugar_kane said:
I'm not any more morally opposed to Qatar ownership than I am to a planet destroying petrochemicals company taking over, or to huge tax-dodging, workers rights abusing companies like Amazon.
Click to expand...

Its just because the media portrays oil states as a the root of all evil. Partly because its a simple narrative for people to understand and they are a simple enemy. Oil = bad. Outdated/non-western views = bad. Easy sell.

No one wants to get into the weeds about how any company worth billions will have the morals of a crocodile. How football has been morally bankrupt for decades.

Very few people complaining about City and their sugar daddy or the United bidders will have anything but a laughable leg to stand on when it comes to their own choices. I'm as bad as most when it comes to not bothering to make any stand against these companies if would cause me any pain or lack of comfort.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
When you see the sources of those in favour of Qatar it really isn't too surprising at all. Those are the type of results I'd expect.
Click to expand...

Could probably argue the same regarding those opposing. This is a real generational clash it seems. Old v New fans seem pretty divided.
 
Revan said:
Thanks.

Yes, I think it is totally obvious that Sheikh No_One_Knew_His_Name_Yesterday is just a frontman for the state of Qatar buying the club. Also, I completely agree with the criticism for the human rights there, admit that the state buying the club is not the same as some company buying the club, and that them buying United is first a political decision, second a financial one, and maybe a distant third being them fans of United.

We will obviously be similar to City and Newcastle in that aspect, but I also think that is the only way to compete (except Apple/Amazon or some extremely rich person like Ballmer/Bezos buying us).

Ideally, state ownership should have never been allowed, but that’s not the case.
Click to expand...

Fair play. Can’t really criticise that. It shouldn’t be hard for people to be this honest.
 
mctrials23 said:
Its just because the media portrays oil states as a the root of all evil. Partly because its a simple narrative for people to understand and they are a simple enemy. Oil = bad. Outdated/non-western views = bad. Easy sell.

No one wants to get into the weeds about how any company worth billions will have the morals of a crocodile. How football has been morally bankrupt for decades.

Very few people complaining about City and their sugar daddy or the United bidders will have anything but a laughable leg to stand on when it comes to their own choices. I'm as bad as most when it comes to not bothering to make any stand against these companies if would cause me any pain or lack of comfort.
Click to expand...

Simple narratives that don't hold up to any form of scrutiny.

Because it's obvious oil states buy football clubs for political reasons. What reasons you say? Oh, they're obvious, now run along now.

Or being ok with being bankrolled by banks complicit in money laundering and ethical issues across the globe, because "at least they're not a state"

The contradictions are too many to point out honestly. I do admire those who have a principled consistent stance on this topic since day 1, or are amoral.
 
Seriously, why would they need to cook the books when they wouldn't be starting from scratch like they were with P$G?

There's zero need to artificially inflate anything financially when United is already top 3 biggest club in the world from the offset with all the access to steady revenue streams and massive commercial base that comes with it??

It absolutely is not going to be nearly the same as building from the ground up at City and PSG, it'll be more as if Bayern or Madrid were bought. There's no need to fake anything at all when it comes to finances given their already huge and long built foundations and commercial advantages. It's an entirely different context and set of circumstances to previous takeovers we've seen.

It's genuinely unprecedented so going off those examples is off the mark.
 
Rolaholic said:
Why would they need to cook the books when they're not starting from scratch like they were with P$G?

There's zero need to artificially inflate anything when United is a top 3 biggest club in the world with all the access to steady revenue streams and massive commercial base that comes with it??
Click to expand...
We still need to stay within FFP limits for spending. We have spent a lot over the years. That means we can forget Mbappé unless we cook the books. That‘s just the reality.

I believe it is a blessing in disguise, we are better off making shrewd signings and a star signing once in a while at the right time.
 
NLunited said:
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/soc...r-spend-even-if-qatari-bid-successful-sources

What I have been saying all along. Only way they get to fulfill their promises is by cooking the books. Like at PSG.

Do not want.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? They article mentions not going crazy in the transfer market, why isn't that a positive?

Also their promises are to return us back to our best, invest in the local area and facilities.

The only thing FFP would limit would be transfer spend which I believed most fans were on board with no silly transfers like Mbappe and instead more reasoned players that Ten Hag actually wants.
 
groovyalbert said:
Could probably argue the same regarding those opposing. This is a real generational clash it seems. Old v New fans seem pretty divided.
Click to expand...

As should be suspected. Most people under 25 probably won't give a stuff about any of the negative stuff.
 
Rolaholic said:
Seriously, why would they need to cook the books when they wouldn't be starting from scratch like they were with P$G?

There's zero need to artificially inflate anything financially when United is already top 3 biggest club in the world from the offset with all the access to steady revenue streams and massive commercial base that comes with it??

It absolutely is not going to be nearly the same as building from the ground up at City and PSG, it'll be more as if Bayern or Madrid were bought. There's no need to fake anything at all when it comes to finances given their already huge and long built foundations and commercial advantages. It's an entirely different context and set of circumstances to previous takeovers we've seen.

It's genuinely unprecedented so going off those examples is off the mark.
Click to expand...

Its a strange one. I am not sure why people don't get that. You have different strategies for different scenarios. They keep banging on the same narrative when anyone with any business braincells will know that you apply different approaches for different circumstances.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Right. And all boomers are inherently racist, yes?

Not having a go at you personally - but these kinds of generalizations are bollocks.
Click to expand...

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. My parents are boomers also and not racist. My father is very much against state / royal family ownership also.

I don't think it's much of a reach to say that loads of teenagers on social media who are United fan don't give a stuff about human rights. A lot won't even understand the issues.
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that. My parents are boomers also and not racist. My father is very much against state / royal family ownership also.

I don't think it's much of a reach to say that loads of teenagers on social media who are United fan don't give a stuff about human rights. A lot won't even understand the issues.
Click to expand...

and a lot of boomers are racist. So there is your comparison
 
Nou_Camp99 said:
I don't think it's much of a reach to say that loads of teenagers on social media who are United fan don't give a stuff about human rights. A lot won't even understand the issues.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - if you're talking about teenagers.

But what you initially said was "most people under 25", which is a different category altogether.
 
I can't be in the minority in not actually wanting the club to be pulling a Chelsea/PSG and spending silly money. I honestly get more joy from United under EtH than I did most of the time under Fergie because it was a procession. We were the biggest team in the country and we should have been winning the league. It frustrated the crap out of me that we never really had any sort of European dominance despite our domestic success.

I don't want to win trophies because we outspent everyone by hundreds of millions. I don't want a squad full of mercenaries we paid a hundred million for a piece. The best competitions are those with competition.Thats why the PL is so good. The smaller sides are good. There is good competition at the top usually, certainly for top 4.

I want the new owners to invest in the stadium, the facilities and the fan experience as well as the squad. I want a focus on youth from our academy and I want a team I feel passion for. Not one that was just expensively assembled when money isn't a concern.
 
mctrials23 said:
I can't be in the minority in not actually wanting the club to be pulling a Chelsea/PSG and spending silly money. I honestly get more joy from United under EtH than I did most of the time under Fergie because it was a procession. We were the biggest team in the country and we should have been winning the league. It frustrated the crap out of me that we never really had any sort of European dominance despite our domestic success.

I don't want to win trophies because we outspent everyone by hundreds of millions. I don't want a squad full of mercenaries we paid a hundred million for a piece. The best competitions are those with competition.Thats why the PL is so good. The smaller sides are good. There is good competition at the top usually, certainly for top 4.

I want the new owners to invest in the stadium, the facilities and the fan experience as well as the squad. I want a focus on youth from our academy and I want a team I feel passion for. Not one that was just expensively assembled when money isn't a concern.
Click to expand...

I'm with you mate, the only change I want to see from new owners is to clear the debt, stop leeching off the club and to sort out our infrastructure inc. making sure our internal hierarchy is set up to deliver on pitch (which to be fair we've made decent progress with recently)

We've spent nearly as much as City since Fergie left under the Glazers and have barely anything to show for it.

I'd rather the footballing authorities imposed some proper rules and punishments around transfer funds, that would resolve the whole problem.
 
D4X73r said:
and a lot of boomers are racist. So there is your comparison
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with anything though? Are you really saying that some 'boomers' don't want Arab owners because of their race? What a load of rubbish that is. If Qatar were squeaky clean (or as clean as most) this wouldn't even be a talking point. Everyone would want them.
 
Adam-Utd said:
It's too late to ask that. The moment they allowed Abu Dhabi,Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Abramovich into the league, it was over.

The only thing that can be done is strict FFP regulations (which do seem to be coming now)

I don't agree that endless money should be spent, there should be some sort of parity to remain competitive.

I don't think any United fan really want that to happen either, we just want the debt cleared and enough money to have top class facilities. We can buy our own players like we always have.
Click to expand...
I honestly can't disagree with any of that too much. I do feel that United, as one of the jewels of European football is a step further into the chasm and it makes me really sad. It remains to be seen what will happen to City but there is little doubt now that what they've done is a stain on the history of British football and they are as much responsible for what has happened to us as the Glazers.

As a top European club, we have a responsiblity to the likes of Ajax, Milan, Bayern, Barcelona etc.. to ensure they can compete on a level playing field, same for the other clubs in England. We've seen from the World Cup how bribery and infiltration is used to circumvent regulation so we know we can't rely on that. We should be really careful about what we're about to throw away in exchange for some shiny new toys (our integrity).
 
mctrials23 said:
I can't be in the minority in not actually wanting the club to be pulling a Chelsea/PSG and spending silly money. I honestly get more joy from United under EtH than I did most of the time under Fergie because it was a procession. We were the biggest team in the country and we should have been winning the league. It frustrated the crap out of me that we never really had any sort of European dominance despite our domestic success.

I don't want to win trophies because we outspent everyone by hundreds of millions. I don't want a squad full of mercenaries we paid a hundred million for a piece. The best competitions are those with competition.Thats why the PL is so good. The smaller sides are good. There is good competition at the top usually, certainly for top 4.

I want the new owners to invest in the stadium, the facilities and the fan experience as well as the squad. I want a focus on youth from our academy and I want a team I feel passion for. Not one that was just expensively assembled when money isn't a concern.
Click to expand...
I agree and this is with shoddy Glazer ownership - all we need is the debt off the club so we don't pay the interest for them & then an owner should be tactful enough not to take dividends if it's been a especially bad year. The investment into infrastructure would be easy with any owner who will put some money in (and we wouldn't be playing for the Glazer's debt) I simply don't understand why state ownership is even on the table for anyone.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I agree and this is with shoddy Glazer ownership - all we need is the debt off the club so we don't pay the interest for them & then an owner should be tactful enough not to take dividends if it's been a especially bad year. The investment into infrastructure would be easy with any owner who will put some money in (and we wouldn't be playing for the Glazer's debt) I simply don't understand why state ownership is even on the table for anyone.
Click to expand...
Because there simply isn't many people that can afford to buy the club + pay for a new stadium and training ground without taking on huge debt.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I simply don't understand why state ownership is even on the table for anyone.
Click to expand...

Because we don't get a choice. Its like asking someone if they want beans or spaghetti for dinner. Theres no point talking about turkey twizzlers.

Plenty of people do want us to splash the cash as well. The truth is that most people that can afford United aren't looking to necessarily do what we want.
 
mctrials23 said:
Because we don't get a choice. Its like asking someone if they want beans or spaghetti for dinner. Theres no point talking about turkey twizzlers.

Plenty of people do want us to splash the cash as well. The truth is that most people that can afford United aren't looking to necessarily do what we want.
Click to expand...
Yes but this poll has two choices? I get it is (literally) on the table right now, I should have said I don't get why anyone would want it.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Because there simply isn't many people that can afford to buy the club + pay for a new stadium and training ground without taking on huge debt.
Click to expand...
But if the debt isn't on the club what's the issue? Qatar will lend itself the money so I guess it's a bit different but our issue with the Glazers is they don't put a penny into the club which isn't how many other clubs are run. Look, maybe this is the future of football and we have to choose between parasites and states but I don't think Ineos is either, they might be crap but they're an immediate upgrade on the Glazers purely because they are removing the debt from the club (as I understand it).
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I don't think Ineos is either, they might be crap but they're an immediate upgrade on the Glazers purely because they are removing the debt from the club (as I understand it).
Click to expand...

I think reports have said they are not sure what happens with the current debt. INEOS have said they will add no new debt.
 
Two choices is bit disappointing. If Sir Jim couldn't send any offer, there would be no bidding war and our glorious alternative is next 20 years with Glazers. Happy days.

Choose now, protest later.
 
romufc said:
I think reports have said they are not sure what happens with the current debt. INEOS have said they will add no new debt.
Click to expand...
Guardian reported he said he would not put debt on club, no idea if true but if so I'd be happy with that. If you think the total amount the Glazers have taken out would pay for Spurs new stadium and the Etihad campus outright, I do think it's fair to say United could not only be self sufficient but spend a lot more organically without the need for a country to own us.
 
City is owned by the Emirates, Newcastle by the Saudis and we could be taken over by the Qataris. How anyone can think that this is a good idea is perplexing to me.

These countries are frequently at odds with each other (Qatar blockade for starts).

Club decisions will be heavily influenced by political decisions.

Keep them far, far away from our club.
 
NLunited said:
City is owned by the Emirates, Newcastle by the Saudis and we could be taken over by the Qataris. How anyone can think that this is a good idea is perplexing to me.

These countries are frequently at odds with each other (Qatar blockade for starts).

Club decisions will be heavily influenced by political decisions.

Keep them far, far away from our club.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? In terms of sponsors?
 
NLunited said:
City is owned by the Emirates, Newcastle by the Saudis and we could be taken over by the Qataris. How anyone can think that this is a good idea is perplexing to me.

These countries are frequently at odds with each other (Qatar blockade for starts).

Club decisions will be heavily influenced by political decisions.

Keep them far, far away from our club.
Click to expand...

I dont think many football fans think this is a good situation but now that Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia are already here, it's a 'if you cant beat them, join them' kind of vibe

Could be wrong but I doubt that internal Gulf politics will have much impact on the football though - apart from these countries trying to outdo each other
 
Interesting poll - from the constant noise on the Caf, you wouldn't think that the Qatari's would be winning by such a large margin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.