Turd and giant douche scenario, but then again all owners are pretty sh*te at this level.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
I cannot compete against philosophers such as yourself who open up by slating everyone who disagrees with them as having a broken moral compass
I think you made my point for me. The point of wanting Qatari ownership is for financial doping. You can‘t separate the two
I know all this but it doesn't mean they won't take money from the club to service the debt they take on.
It was high horses that got us in this mess to begin with
Difficult choice and neither fill me with confidence but in the end the immediate concern has to be addressing our debts so it’s Quatar.
As much as Sir Jim fits the bill being a life long fan and local lad, there are still doubts as to how we would operate, clearing existing financial burdens and progressing in the future.
As much as Sir Jim fits the bill being a life long fan and local lad, there are still doubts as to how we would operate, clearing existing financial burdens and progressing in the future.
I suppose INEOS but we don’t know the details of other interested parties, there are supposedly more involved in this rodeo.
That being said I liked what Qatar said, I didn’t like the lack of clarity and detail in JRs statement. If he could swap PR with the others and commit to what they said he’s be way out in front
That being said I liked what Qatar said, I didn’t like the lack of clarity and detail in JRs statement. If he could swap PR with the others and commit to what they said he’s be way out in front
We're not going to spend that much or anywhere close to it no matter who owns us. There's no need to go to extremes to try and prove a point
You do have a broken moral compass.
Generalising bollox.
Wanting to be debt free is enough for some of us.
Valid arguments are fine, but generalised mind reading piffle is not constructive.
INEOS would be a sugar daddy scenario.
Feckin silent majority is hilarious
Good for you. Get off your high horse questioning people’s morals because they don’t agree with your view. Comes across very dictatorial.
That's how I've felt about the rise of the new City. Even though I don't live that far from Manchester, and I'm old enough to remember City being good in the sixties, I don't really associate the new club with the old.
Hopefully the fact that we are, unlike them, already a top club will mean the continuity will still be there, and maybe the Qataris will be sensitive about change. Investment is needed if we are to compete, I just hope it's done well.
No Eboue? I refuse to vote.
I will sell my vote to the highest bidder.
I will sell my vote to the highest bidder.
I think it's more a matter of them not off-loading their own debt, pulling money out of the club or being lukewarm about success. It would kind of defeat the purpose of sportswashing.
It is more than possible to run United competently and competitively without resorting to financial doping. Although of course it makes sense to suspect the Qataris of resorting to this to give the club an additional boost. But it's far from guaranteed.
Answer the question Andy
I've done some shady things in the past, but have good PR.
Will you sell it to me?
It's not a particularly good choice, I'm a fan of neither route really, but maybe leaning towards Ineos and Jim Ratcliffe, even if he is a union-busting Tory. Also, didn't he go all in for Brexit, and then move some of his operations to the EU, after promising it to Wales? I also suspect he didn't become Britiain's wealthiest man without dabbling in a bit of tax evasion, but that would be pure speculation. Still, probably has a better record on human rights than the Qatari fellas, but overall, it's like being asked which foot you want to use to tread on some Lego.
Though I haven't financially supported the club in years. My streams are illegitimate, and the one shirt I've bought in my adult life is from DHGate. So why should I even care if we're owned by an evil consortium of half a dozen Bond villains, Vince McMahon and Skeletor?
Though I haven't financially supported the club in years. My streams are illegitimate, and the one shirt I've bought in my adult life is from DHGate. So why should I even care if we're owned by an evil consortium of half a dozen Bond villains, Vince McMahon and Skeletor?
First of all, no matter what your opinion is on them, both Mourinho and Solskjaer were severely let down in the summers of 2018 and 2020, respectively. I don't see any way you could argue that, but I'm willing to hear it, if you don't agree with it.
Secondly, why would we win the PL this season with ETH, and then nothing else afterwards? That's a completely unrealistic scenario, just like your second option tbh.
Stand by
Good point, I didn't even make the connectionIt was high horses that got us in this mess to begin with
I've been trying to warn you all about horsesGood point, I didn't even make the connection
But none of ya listened
I voted for who I know will be the new owners not who I necessarily want. Jim Radcliffe can not compete with a State backed bid. One needs financing and the other has a bottomless money pit… Only one outcome here lads!
I think I may bow out.
I'm getting to invested in a situation that I'm bipolar about.
I don't want us to be owned by any state, let alone one that treats its citizens poorly, but I want us to be free of debt which has seen the foundations rot to bolster the team and pay debts.
There isn't an ideal owner out there.
There isn't a possibility for fan ownership.
There is only one realistic option as far as I'm concerned.
I'm selling my vote too.
I don't want state ownership, being in Qatar or the fecking Netherlands. Easy choice for me.
I’d rather you didn’t speak for me. I want United to be as debt free as possible and spend their own money, not that of a state. There are different kinds of debt, it makes far more sense to take a low interest loan and pay it off long term with the extra revenue, than it does to spend your available cash.
That’s not what the Glazers have done, that is a very different kind of debt for a very different reason. The same reason Barca can be in massive financial trouble and still get a loan for stadium refurbs, it’s not the same kind of debt.
Ticket prices have no need to change with extra capacity and hospitality. Naming rights is less of a soul selling exercise than selling the club to a state. Why do United suddenly get to have a sugar daddy who pays for everything, after years of mocking Chelsea and City for it. That’s soul selling.
Qatar will be buying a premier league club. I personally would hate to see us reject Qatar, for them to buy Liverpool and forever blow us out of the water financially.
We've had enough punishment since Fergie retired, it's time to start enjoying the good times again.
For all the talk about Morality, nobody bats an eye about City or Newcastle, so why should we be so concerned?
We've had enough punishment since Fergie retired, it's time to start enjoying the good times again.
For all the talk about Morality, nobody bats an eye about City or Newcastle, so why should we be so concerned?
Do find it funny people talking about debt and how the Qatari bid will leave us debt free etc and they won't have to take out loans etc.
Citys owners took out a 650million dollar loan the other year to finance the football clubs they own.
Seems strange that they'd do it yet the Qataris won't?!
Also people using City as a template for how the Qataris will run United are forgetting that Mansour 'only' paid £210million for City, this is obviously a lot smaller than the £5billion we are potentially talking about here.
So it goes to figure that the money being spent by Jassim would be nothing like it was for City at the beginning due to the initial outlay.
Also consider the fact that moving forward the Qataris will want to see an investment on United, even City's owners make money from the clubs they own ...how?
By selling small stakes in the club.
So, Boehly took out a loan to finance spending at Chelsea.
Anyone that takes over United will be utilising some form of loan finance scheme.
Citys owners took out a 650million dollar loan the other year to finance the football clubs they own.
Seems strange that they'd do it yet the Qataris won't?!
Also people using City as a template for how the Qataris will run United are forgetting that Mansour 'only' paid £210million for City, this is obviously a lot smaller than the £5billion we are potentially talking about here.
So it goes to figure that the money being spent by Jassim would be nothing like it was for City at the beginning due to the initial outlay.
Also consider the fact that moving forward the Qataris will want to see an investment on United, even City's owners make money from the clubs they own ...how?
By selling small stakes in the club.
So, Boehly took out a loan to finance spending at Chelsea.
Anyone that takes over United will be utilising some form of loan finance scheme.
FFP looks to be finally fecking City and Newcastle appear to have taken notice. I don’t think anyone is gonna blow a Glazer free United out of the water financially without massive cheating.
I'm a hypocrites and i think most more or less are themselves. I support United and wants everything best for United. And Qatar is the best bid for United so far.
I dont want to get into all the arguments we having in here and other threads because everyone express everything there is to already. If the bid can make United go back to become the best again and even better than before, help with the infrastructures, stadium, training grounds, surrounding areas and inject necessary money to help with development of the community and the city then i think the bid has more goods than the bads. Better get their money and help the city, community, people, and the club then waisting time on the morals high ground which honestly wouldnt impact them as much as we think we can.
I dont want to get into all the arguments we having in here and other threads because everyone express everything there is to already. If the bid can make United go back to become the best again and even better than before, help with the infrastructures, stadium, training grounds, surrounding areas and inject necessary money to help with development of the community and the city then i think the bid has more goods than the bads. Better get their money and help the city, community, people, and the club then waisting time on the morals high ground which honestly wouldnt impact them as much as we think we can.
That was my vote too. No state ownership. Everything we've said about City's financial doping the last decade would be us now.....feck no
Who’s “nobody”?…. Loads of us do. Regularly. Which is the point.
I doubt for many people it’s solely an issue of ‘getting away with it’
Do you think the crimes the regime of Qatar is carrying out every day regarding human rights and the environment (keep in mind that Qatar also earns their money from petrochemical production and has the 2nd highest ecological footprint per capita in the world) is morally on par with the wrongdoings of Ineos?
Please answer this yes or no, without using the words but, money or dept.
I just mean you have 1 season vs 1 season. I think we will win things in future seasons with ETH for what it's worth.
Re Mou there's an argument he wasn't backed in 18, I agree, but then he was toxic as feck, we were nowhere near 1st and the team felt on the cusp of revolt - the club still bought him £70m (Fred + Dalot) that summer after Pogba, Mkhi, Bailly, Lukaku, Matic, Lindelof, Sanchez. Re Ole, just because there was one window we didn't spend £150m+ doesn't mean he wasn't backed. If we implode this season, ETH is backed again this summer by £200m and we come round to summer 2024 without any progress, I'd say the same for him (although he is competent so that wont happen).
Did you prefer 1) or 2)?
If Qatar win Miguel Delaney will be very upset I know that much.
1) FYI...but I'd also prefer relegation to League Two instead of Qatar taking over.
Why spend your own money when you can spend someone else’s. I think there’s a huge amount of people that see the word ‘debt’ and automatically think of the kind of debt the Glazers have put us in.