You can find it in the other Qatar thread.Yeah right.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
You're the one that spout this theory, why should I be the one to find the proof for you?
In any case, is Mike Keegan the official spokesperson for the Qatari bid?
Thought it was the environment?
No, I don't care if they put in nothing to the team, I want upgraded facilits and NO DEBT, that's the most important part for me. We can live on our own without the debt.
Well, apparently, we have no choice, so of the two we know about, the Qatari bis is, imo, the far better of the two.Thought it was the environment?
Who knows what other options we have?
yeap. We just need to get back to financial terra firma. With ol' Jimbo we will still have the existing debt to pay plus if we need any infrastructure improvements other than a fresh lick of pain, we will need to borrow further. Making ETH fight with one arm tied behind his back.
I don't disagree on that part. We've all wanted United to be debt free for about 2 decades now... However delivering that still amounts to receiving a large amount of money (and would result in a way stronger position in every aspect, which obviously is why we want it). I won't argue any of that.
But if that's what makes Qatar's bid acceptable how does that not amount to throwing out previous convictions for the money?
Only State owners can buy clubs without loans, so you’ve obviously always been for State ownership then, just that it suited you to slag it off and City/Newcastle when then had something you wanted (debt free ownership).
I'm on your side on that topic. Racism is an issue in all generations and that's something I don't like to see. Hoping for the younger generations to remove/abondon that attitude, but currently not looking like it.
But also saying that hardly any kids/teens don't care about politics is not correct. I for myself know a lot more >30 y/o giving a feck about politics, other than the usual "nothing will change/it doesn't matter what/who I vote" and so on. On the other side, I see quite a few <20 y/o really following political situation in our country and also other countries. I'm no expert for kids/teens but since I'm in regular exchange with the age bracket 15-25 years, I do have a few points to consider for those telling things like "teens don't care about politics".
The current political situation in nearly all countries around the globe is horrendous, considering the situation we are all in as human beings. There is hardly any change, no matter how much younger generations are pushing for it, as there are so many "boomers" (or old school politicians, to not generalizate this into a whole generation) who only care about their own benefit. not only single politicians, but also whole partys. The political situation and everything around it is so outdated in my opinion, investing time and learning about it and so on is (IMHO) more like training your 6 year old how to use a fax machine. there needs to be some "update" on all of this to be functional again. but since this is not going to happen, younger generations will more likely not invest into it that much for the politics as of now, but will spend time for more relevant topics for them, like for example the current climate crisis, which is still a topic not really addressed by any of the current politicians in any country. This is now going so far, that here in Austria, the "last generation" is sueing the state/politicians for not keeping up with the right for the future for the next generations and therefore violating the law on purpose. The next generation is invested into politics and global development, but not in the same manner as >30 y/o like to see them to do so, as it is a new way (not directly a better way, but we will see at the end of it)
sorry for offtopic on this
Well you should just say that it is you who can't separate them. If you cant understand that the issues are different well, its on you. For most other people, they can...and thats the reality. Honestly, most people dont live in your black and white world. We are able to see the human rights abuses elsewhere, condemn them but also see the ownership that is complying with european laws and aggressively investing in the club and community. Its not that hard to see
Last edited:
Not necessarily, if the club in question is not as pricy as United.
Didn't watch anything. Didn't click on articles regarding it with exception of threads on the caf where asked if we would watch or something like that.
Don't consider you a bad person for watching.
I couldn't stomach it. It is how i felt about it and my decision on how to deal with that.
The same will go for my continued support of the club with new Qatari owners. I'm looking through threads opening myself up for what i consider good posts to help accept it (so far read one very good, and one that somewhat helps), while putting those i find less than helpful on ignore in order to quell the stream of likely uninteresting points of view.
For now i am in the "this isn't for me anymore" camp. I expect that to stay but continue to look.
It's always the ones you
Sorry, don't see it the same way. Doesn't have to be the Qataris, it just appears that their bid (of the ones we know about) aligns with what I would like to happen.
Do shut up, you're just boring now.
If you're ok with it, there's no need to try and justify it so vehemently. We all know it's not ok deep down but we don't have any power over the situation.
Sorry but you've got an extensive post history saying how bad state owners would be and how keeping the Glazers would be better and now you're doing this when the money arrives... Its just silly.
That's it though. Most of us don't really want either bid, nor the status quo.
People have valid reasons for NOT wanting either bid, but there has to be an element of self denial to think one is a great bid. So, we're left with choosing to prefer, one the the scenarios we don't want.
Arguing Qatar isn't a state bid, is as daft as arguing a tory-donor billionaire is being altruistic.
We can't have what we want. No debt, no state, lots of investment.
Which ones do you want least?
Exactly, this thread is really just abut being honest with yourself.
The choice outlined is Ineos v Qatar (who knows if there are other bids in the pipeline) and Ineos wins, for me, because it's not a country. Simple as that - don't even need to get into the human rights side of things to differentiate - United should not become the plaything of a country.
If someone is ok with state ownership and that state being Qatar, then that's fine - but to pretend the bid isn't state funded is a waste of everyone's time.
The future success of this club rides with Qatar
Anything else on the table is Glazers#2 and we will be in a slumber for many years.
Anything else on the table is Glazers#2 and we will be in a slumber for many years.
Despit they wont clear current debt, not buying 100%, hasving to take massive loans from dodgy Americans, not clearly stated what their plans are.
But that's OK because he's a local British lad from Monaco!
That's not what he said.
That’s not what he said, is it? It’s not even what he implied. He clearly said he prefers Ineos because they aren’t a country. Why are people so consistently disingenuous in this poxy thread?
Oh dear.
Of course. Therefore, all the other choices are bad—maybe some less bad than others or maybe not.Come on, noone is going to do that
So the majority want a Qatar ownership? I think I am shocked, but perhaps I shouldn’t be.
We can’t immediately spend huge sums but in the long term we can. Like I said, the spending limit is to do with how much you generate. Without debt repayments and with sensible investment in the bricks and mortar along with further development of the commercial potential, we will be able to spend more, probably, than anyone else.
Nobody is saying the exact opposite of this. It would be weird if they did.
Just pointing out what he prefers. No need to get your knickers in a twist.
No you didn't, you said he prefers it because of something which he didn't say. It's bad faith nonsense.
I think the majority of the fans believe we will see Chelsea spending levels. Therefpre it is the exact opposite.
Getting Mbappé in summer would be possible MAYBE, because the transfersum would be huge and the wages huge.
Getting Bellingham and Mbappé in one window? Not gonna happen unless the Qataris cook the books.
60% of MU fans are living in the Twilight Zone.
Orcafat didn't say anything remotely like we will get Bellingham and Mbappe in one window, his post was quite measured and conservative.
Why are so many people making stuff up?
Why are you so obsessed with Mbappe? You’re constantly bringing him up despite there being no credible links that we’re after him.
Everyone wants the Glazers gone (obviously) and among the two statements submitted last Friday, the Qatari one appears more attractive because of the outright sale with out debt, a paying off of existing debt, and promises of infrastructure development. That's not to say the Qatari bid will win in the end, or even that the Glazers are guaranteed to sell. There's a lot of wishful thinking based on minimal verified, factual information.
There are tweets with Mbappé mentioned as a target for the Qataris.
There is more propoganda coming from the Qataris getting our fans all riled up promising multiple star signings in one window. The last I read is Mbappé, Bellingham, Declan Rice, Pickford and fecking Kane. I‘m not making this stuff up.
In a poll made by the Scandinavian supporters club, over 80% preferred Ineos. Around 6k votes by paying members.
You should stop reading the Daily Mail or the Sun and present it as some kind of reliable information which we all know is not.