Ahh OK, fair point. I think people probably just want that fat fat chequebook. Perhaps they only really care about who is best for the club and I would argue an oil state would probably put more into the club in all areas. If you took the moral argument out of the equation I would say they are the better option.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
Ahh OK, fair point. I think people probably just want that fat fat chequebook. Perhaps they only really care about who is best for the club and I would argue an oil state would probably put more into the club in all areas. If you took the moral argument out of the equation I would say they are the better option.
Neither really. Ratcliffe doesn’t strike me with any confident on how OGS Nice is run, how the bid is structured and with his statement. Qatar is, well Qatar, and United shouldn’t be involved with all that comes with it.
Its likely because the other option is thought to involve the possibility of not paying off the debt.
Sad to see so many want to become an Arab toy 
American's toy, far-right tax-exile's toy, Arab toy, I'll prefer what is best for us thanks.Sad to see so many want to become an Arab toy
Bingo, we'll be someone's toy no matter what
For those now doing a 180? Abso-fecking-lutely.
The likes of alexthelion have played the concern of the game, and “I despise those who support state ownership” card for years, but when push comes to shove, the only thing they ever clearly gave a shit about was other clubs having the ability to usurp United.
I guess we knew it deep down, but I naively thought this club, of all clubs, the one who even protested Sky ownership, would be the one desperate to never sell out it’s soul. We’re one of only two clubs in England that absolutely can get by on our own two feet at the very top of the European game, but feck working for it on a level playing field, we’ll just cheat code our way back there.
It is that last thing that I‘m worried about.
City might get relegated and/or titles taken away from them.
They are nations competing with each other, which could determine club policy as well.
How is trying to seriously compete with or challenge the team that's taken the piss out of the league for the last decade or so a bad thing?
The regional rivalry would play a part in them likely wanting to spare no expense to beat them the same way City were hellbent on knocking us off our perch after they were bought.
Unlike with City, they'd have a much stronger foundation to build on as well without needing artificial financial doping given our already available resources and commercial strength. They wouldn't be building Rome, they'd be administering it at its height
The regional rivalry would play a part in them likely wanting to spare no expense to beat them the same way City were hellbent on knocking us off our perch after they were bought.
Unlike with City, they'd have a much stronger foundation to build on as well without needing artificial financial doping given our already available resources and commercial strength. They wouldn't be building Rome, they'd be administering it at its height
Unfortunately that is not true. We have spent a lot over the years. FFP limits don‘t allow us to spend insane amounts going forward.
Ideal scenario, Qatar come in spend the £1 billion + the Glazers have stolen from the club and build us a debt free new stadium, then it's discovered the takeover was corrupt, but as the club is a national treasure we get fully protected from any repercussions, and get ourselves a bespoke new takeover, you know something along the lines of what Chelsea got, only better.
What I want to say is only that you should not throw in all in a basket like you said with your under 25/teenager comparison above. And since you started blaming/defending yourself after one was saying that Boomers are racist (for comparison reason only), I don't understand how that comparison won't get in your head.
You want what Chelsea got? Gawd help us all.
I get what you're saying but I don't think racism is age specific.
However I think it's fair to say that the older you get you are more in tune with global affairs and politics. How many kids / teens care about politics? Hardly any.
That was my point.
Our earning power far exceeds City and if you take our club as it is now, it is far ahead of where City was when they started spending the money. As I’m sure you know, FFP isn’t there to stop clubs spending money; it’s to stop clubs spending more money than they can generate. We can generate insane amounts (with proper investment) and therefore we will be able to spend insane amounts. So what the poster said, really, is true.
An ESPN article that came out today, says the exact opposite.
Did the Qatari bid promise Bellingham and Mbappe?
No it doesn’t…it just says because we spent £200m we’re not going to spend huge sums given FFP.
Yes exactly. We can‘t spend huge sums on transfers unless we cook the books like City. Or hand out 8 year contracts. Both terrible options.
Did the Qatari bid promise Bellingham and Mbappe?
Don't particularly like the idea of middle eastern state ownership but lots of doubts around how Ineos have operated in France plus the lack of clarity of debt.
Ineos were happy to try and buy Chelsea 6 months ago, it's hard to take Raddcliffes love for United seriously. I'm going for a debt free Qatar bid.
Ineos were happy to try and buy Chelsea 6 months ago, it's hard to take Raddcliffes love for United seriously. I'm going for a debt free Qatar bid.
If someone comes along with 6 billion and wants to put United in some kind of trust for the fans, then yes. Obviously that isn’t happening, so it’s two bad choices. I don’t see one being significantly better or worse than the other.
Believe it or not, some people care about human rights outside of Europe too. And you can't separate success on the pitch with human rights abuses in Qatar when the former is bought and promoted by the people responsible for the latter
Certainly better than Nice or Lausanne (?).PSG is run properly
How is saying they will not spend a lot cooking the books? Surely it should be the opposite?
They've never said that, where do you anti-Qatar posters get that from?
Talking bollocks again.
I only want an owner who is prepared to purchase us with no debt, Ineos haven't said they will cleasr the current debt, only not add any new debt. Plus, they will need huge loans to buy the club and then upgrade / build new stadium amd training facilities (if they're even planning to do that). They haven't really set out what their plans are, which is concerning.
Whilst not ideal, the Qataris have said they will do all that debt free. That's what is important to me.
Come on, noone is going to do that
If you can't read, that's not my problem.If that's your only priority how was @Regulus Arcturus Black wrong
He basically said fans like you only cared until big money was coming. Then you retorted that that's bollocks and you only care that big money is coming (in the form of no more debt). Bizarre.
That was in an early tweet. Might have been Keegan.
So we will lose our games to Newcastle, in exchange for Saudis lifting the blockade in some places for Qatar?
Or
We will give Newcastle fans wet seats in revenge of Saudis putting a blockade on Qatar?
I‘m thinking more in line of forcing transfers we can‘t afford, sanctions/relegation, knee jerk manager firings.
Yeah right.
I am still unable to connect all that to a state fund owning a club. All that can happen if individuals own the club too.
Yeah I'm leaning towards this as well.