Ultimately, I trust Ratcliffe running a football club more than Jassim, especially if he approaches it like his brother. Also if things go badly, the notion of protesting against a guy who nobody knows exists is a bit unnerving.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
Whoever wins I’ll be initially sceptical of. Both of them could turn us into a circus at worst case scenario, whether it be Qatar pulling some vanity signings that don’t benefit us in the long run and treating us like a FIFA UT game, or INEOS being penny pinching feckers and employing the wrong people.
INEOS are taking some reputational risk in buying United. The club would be the undisputed crown jewel in their sporting portfolio and them running us like a joke doesn’t reflect well on them as a conglomerate. They’d want United to be the best in the field like they are in their primary petrochemical fields. This isn’t some family that just wants in on the gravy train like the Glazers were. I personally believe that this is INEOS’ way to break into the mainstream corporate and consumer world, by attaching their name to a hugely popular sporting entity. Not many people know of INEOS but many people probably will if they were to be the new United owners. They are a highly ambitious conglomerate and not in it to collect some measly dividends. I think they want to muscle in on that Red Bull territory and build their reputation up on using sporting ventures to enhance their global appeal.
Regarding Nice and Saint-Lausanne, you could probably theorise that these were just dry runs to what they really wanted to do (i.e. United). It should be acknowledged that neither of them have really kicked on under them as a caution but surely they’d know that it’ll be a lot different at United. Nice itself was bought by them for like the same fee as we paid for Antony last year for example.
INEOS are taking some reputational risk in buying United. The club would be the undisputed crown jewel in their sporting portfolio and them running us like a joke doesn’t reflect well on them as a conglomerate. They’d want United to be the best in the field like they are in their primary petrochemical fields. This isn’t some family that just wants in on the gravy train like the Glazers were. I personally believe that this is INEOS’ way to break into the mainstream corporate and consumer world, by attaching their name to a hugely popular sporting entity. Not many people know of INEOS but many people probably will if they were to be the new United owners. They are a highly ambitious conglomerate and not in it to collect some measly dividends. I think they want to muscle in on that Red Bull territory and build their reputation up on using sporting ventures to enhance their global appeal.
Regarding Nice and Saint-Lausanne, you could probably theorise that these were just dry runs to what they really wanted to do (i.e. United). It should be acknowledged that neither of them have really kicked on under them as a caution but surely they’d know that it’ll be a lot different at United. Nice itself was bought by them for like the same fee as we paid for Antony last year for example.
Its hardly the most rosy outlook if Nice is anything to go by, but if he lets Ten Hag work and we get the stadium and our facilities fixed then it will still be a massive step up from the Glazers. I have my doubts but really hope to be pleasently surprised.
Yeah the way NICE is run fills me with dread
Clearly, you've done your research. Ratcliffe would make us mid table, go and have a look at what he is doing to Nice, the captain is coming out and saying there is no direction, the club is run badly.
They have a squad full of loan players, at least PSG are winning things.
PSG are a fecking joke mate.
It's hard to know actually what either of these two will do if they win the race to buy the club. My understanding and of course its probably wrong, but Qatar will clear the debt, build a new stadium and develop the lands around the stadium, while with Ratcliffe the debt will remain, I am not sure what he will do about the stadium, but there's no plan to develop the lands around the stadium. If that's the case it's Qatar all the way.
How exactly does running Nice and Lausanne like a joke reflect well on them as a conglomerate?
PSG are a joke, yes but can you imagine a club that is a joke, yet cannot be touched by Jim Ratfliffe's Nice.
What makes people think that he will compete against City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Newcastle, Liverpool when he cant compete against a joke PSG?
Because United if a far more lucrative club, obviously. No idea what sort of revenues Nice brings in but would imagine it's a tiny fraction of what United can generate. Hence a far more difficult task to get Nice eating at the top table, while also being run in a sustainable/FFP compliant manner.
Agreed.
Because Paris can attract players far easier than Nice. Just look at the names that played for them before Qatar vs Nice.
Because they spent over a billion on transfers at PSG, and lots of it before FFP was a thing. Same as Man City. They became a big club before the regulations and now it’s impossible to undo that.
Because they’ve chosen to invest over a billion for sportswashing purposes. Ineos clearly do not want to invest that level of money as they don’t have a need for sportswashing. United don’t need that level of investment to compete.
Do you want me to keep going?
What does lucrative club have anything to do with how the owners run it?
We are a lucarative club under the Glazers, would you say we have been sustainably run?
Nice have not improved under new owners, so there is 0 evidence that United will.
PSG have since the Qatar takeover, go look at their performances in league and Europe pre and post Qatari take over.
There is no way SJR competes at the top table given, I know some fans are happy with us being top 4 contenders yearly but this "lucrative" club status will only last for so long.
Okay, I suggest you do what you are telling me, go have a look at PSG's league and European performances pre and post Qatar take over, then go check on Nice performances in both pre and post take over. There is a big difference.
Well, whether you like it or not, we need investment, if SJR cannot afford to buy us, he wont be able to afford to build a new stadium and transfers. I say he cannot afford because he is only buying 50% of the club, not 100%.
I see, do you think Newcastle have been spending alot? they got into the CL after 1 year of Saudi ownership.
Just because they can afford to spend 1bn, doesn't mean its sportwashing, why do people keep using the term just because its fashionable.
100% agreed. The reaction ever since Qatar became interested has been so disappointing to me personally. Basically confirmed that the United fanbase is no different than other teams' fans.
That can't be a serious question!
Ok, Manutd is more lucrative than clubs in England yet, we have not won the PL or CL in over 10 years... Lucrative doesn't guarantee success my friend, you still need to run the club properly and invest.
Do you think players will think.... oh its Manutd yaaaaay let me go there over City, where the infrastructure is 7* compare to 4* at United?
But nice are in a far easier league, and would require far less investment than a Premier league side would to become competitive
Just shows how hypocritical our fanbase is. Complain, bitch and whine about PSG/City but arms out for our own Oiler. It's sad.
But Nice aren't a joke. PSG owners spent billions and talk a lot of crap, that's why it was so embarrassing when they bottled the league. The more you spend, the higher the expectations. Nice are just a normal club, so nobody laughs at them.
By the way, Stade Rennais are owned by Pinault, who are 4x richer than Ineos. They don't come close to PSG, either. Just because people have money, doesn't meant hey will automatically throw it on their sporting investements like some sportswashing tycoon.
You’re missing the point. I was just explaining to you why (in theory) it will be much easier to have United competing with the best clubs in Europe than it is to have Nice doing the same.
Obviously, that takes more than just throwing money at the problem. Which we’ve seen with the insane amount of money we’ve wasted under the Glazers. You seem convinced that someone who has no experience whatsoever of running a football club will do this better than someone who already has some experience. Which is an interesting assumption to make.
The French league is, nowadays, a walkover for PSG, yeah. But that's only happened since the Qatari ownership. They'd won the league twice in their history until the Qatar owners took over in 2011 - they've won it pretty much every year since and it's now a walkover, yeah. But that's only happened since the Qatari ownership. They didn't inherit a winning machine - they've turned PSG into one. Domestically, anyway.
I'm torn as who I want to win - think there's big issues and concerns with both bids and so haven't really got involved in the debate as I don't have a strong opinion. But I do think It's strange that the fact PSG have become so dominant - only after the Qatari ownership started - is almost used as a negative against them rather than a positive.
Yes, the lack of a CL is proof of an 'underachieving' on the European stage given the calibre of players their finances has been able to attract compared to other French teams - including Nice, of course. But the very fact they've transformed a team who rarely won the French league or any European competitions into such a dominant force who should be winning CL's can easily be interpreted as a positive rather than a negative.
Personally, as I said, I'm not that set on either bid. I think the Qatari owners, with their wealth, have the best chance to get us back winning major titles. But I also think there's a bigger risk that if could go majorly wrong under them as well. And then there's the bigger ethical issues on a non-sport related concern.
I think Ratcliffe's a 'safer' choice, but only in so much as I don't think he'd spend as much so less chance of it going catastrophically wrong. But I also think less chance of us competing with the money of City and Newcastle, and whoever else gets state owned, for major titles as often. I think Ratcliffe as owner would see far less change in the club, infrastructure, debt, etc, than if the Qatari's bought it. Whether than change would always be for the better, of course, is another story.
Already admitted I am a hypocrite
One who is incapable of even outbidding a competitor to even take control of the club. Quite simply, if Qatar wanted us - really wanted to take control, they would. They are either incompetent negotiators where they couldn't think of a matching structure like Ratcliffes, or just didn't want to actually spend what was required to own us. Which someone else is willing to do. Yet these people who can't actually stump up the cash are making all these promises for what they'll do with the club and infrastructure... Right...
If you want to analyse the before/after scenario with PSG you need to check how their net spend compared with their peers before/after Qatari ownership. I suspect there’s a huge difference. I also suspect that Manchester United don’t need a huge change in how our net spend compares with rivals to be successful (and couldn’t comply with FFP if we tried to increase it)
Pandora's box is already open and there's nothing we can do about it. I'd prefer no state ownership of any clubs at all, but given that it's a reality, I'd like for our club to be as competitive as possible.
If that logic makes me a hypocrite, so be it.
To be fair, it won't always be the same posters doing that. Plenty of people who've complained about City/PSG are probably the ones also against the Qatar owners. And plenty happy with the Qatar ownership maybe didn't complain about the ethical side of City and PSG owners - just the cheating the FFP rules part. But, yeah, as with everything, there'll be some hypocrites.
Personally, my biggest issue with those teams success has been that they've cheated the rules in competitive sport. I've always been aware that some teams are bigger than others, have more money than others, come from cities with big fanbases rather than towns, etc. Those advantages have always been a part of football, even more so since the PL era. So I've never grumbled that it's not fair that clubs get taken over by wealthy owners and suddenly have more money to spend and become successful. That's just how it goes. But I do care if they achieve that success by cheating. As that's not just how it goes, there's meant to be rules to prevent that.
How much has he spent at Nice? 50% of what PSG have in that time. Have they made good decisions in that time? Not really but they seem to be heading in a better direction now. Is that encouraging for his prospective purchase of us? No but he should've learnt from those mistakes and not make them again which could be good for us.
There's literally zero evidence for how Jassim would run anything. His dad think's it's a bad idea. He's a banker (like Woodward). That's the sum total knowledge. People point to PSG as an example of Qatar but that's hardly any better than Nice given the respective resources expended/time in situ. Who's to say Jassim won't make all the same mistakes SJR/Ineos have made at Nice and go through that whole learning process with us? What's to stop him being another Woodward?
The thing people seem to cling to from Qatar, is infinite money. Spending has not been our issue. We've spent loads on the squad. We've spent badly, because the Glazers are shitty businessmen and made a series of terrible decisions.
The main reason Man City are so successful is because they got Txiki Begiristain and spent years crafting the club specifically for Guardiola to take over. Yes, the illegal spending certainly helped but they could be like Chelsea now or PSG. Just spending money doesn't win you anything in the PL.
Ultimately it seems like a choice between a total unknown and someone who has some experience but with no real success. Not sure why people are so keen on the total unknown?
Yup. The biggest disparity around is the french league. They won the league after the full takeover yeah. That's helped because they signed Ibrahimovic, Thiago Silva, Verratti, Motta, Lavezzi in one window after spending over 100m the year before, pre FFP. Imagine all those going to Ajax for example and compared to the rest of the league. That's literally the "impact". It's not an impressive task at all.
Al-Thani's Red and White Army
Admitting it doesn't make it not pathetic
I know I am pathetic but want us to be successful instead of just fighting for top 4
Because no real success is very telling
What do the league positions have to do with the point I made? I’m literally pointing out the reasons why it is has been easier for Qatar to be successful with a Paris based team, in an era that didn’t have proper FFP.
We weren't run smart enough to attract them here,maybe then he would have joined us and we would be going for The Treble on Saturday
A new Jim Vs Jassim poll would be interesting - lots of new info out there since this one closed 3 months ago
I personally have changed my mind since voting here (voted INEOS) after doing extensive research into both bidders
I personally have changed my mind since voting here (voted INEOS) after doing extensive research into both bidders
Last edited:
It's proof of funds though, and ability to do that spending. Ratcliffe hasn't been able to buy a big club and do similar. Even by French league standards Nice have remained below a number of other clubs, not just PSG.
Isn't that a bit worrying for how much he's got to spend with us given who he'd be competing against here and in the CL, and the level the club expects to get to? Not to mention the infrastructure improvements needed to the ground and training facilities.
Personally, I find Ratcliffe's inability to get Nice not even the 2nd best team in France behind PSG, but not even a top 4 team, just as worrying as PSG's failure to win a CL. I mean, people keep talking about how poor the French league is in terms of PSG, so if Ratcliffe has the money to get us back where we want to be then he should have been able to spend enough of it, and competently, to get Nice there or thereabouts in France.
Yeah exactly but Utd seem blind to the issue
Excellent post.
It would if we are run correctly. Having the Glazers in the club in any form, does not give me any confidence that the new owners can run the club. When you can see how bad they have been.
Now, I am not saying Jassim will run it well but the evidence from ME owners shows that they want to win. There are 3 clubs now owned by the state and all 3 are much much better than they were before the new owners.
Newcastle and City have shown that ME owners can run a football club well by leaving the football to football people
There is one thing I do know from the ME is that they will want the best in class infrastructure and stadium, this is evidence led not assumption by the way.