I love how people always put the Lausanne stuff without context.
The club have been operated under a US timezone for far top long.
Relative of the same family. Someone pointed out this was individual funding, United would be state funded. Either way, they started off with big transfer spending before FFP fecked them and it spiralled. But point is - just because Abu Dhabi has ran Man City well (well...), It doesn't mean this random guy will run United well. Qatar doesn't really run PSG well, they are a circus in an entirely uncompetitive league but also with an impossible project. A member from the same family though flopped horribly with Malaga. It's all the same goals, same empty promises. Take them all with a pinch of salt. The only thing we know from the outside is it looks like Qatar have been pretty amateurish and inept during this negotiating process, while Ratcliffe has been flexible and smart to get the deal done (if it does get done). If they have this supposed funds to transform us, commit all this funding to the stadium, squad, city, infrastructure etc.... Then how come they can't even submit a more favourable offer than Ratcliffe & Ineos? It's a simple question. They have more money, allegedly, yet after 3 rounds of bidding they weren't close, and have then submitted 2 bids long after the final round of bidding after which Ineos apparently started discussing finer details.
Ownership improving smaller clubs in a sustainable and non sugar daddy fashion takes time, experience, and is a bumpy ride. It's not instant, and it will come with mistakes.
In fairness, they've only been in control of Nice since 2019. Yes, looks like they've made a few errors. But they seem to have learnt from it.
I am saying that looking at Newcastle and City and assuming because different countries did something, it doesn't mean it would go well on the pitch here. Because PSG isn't a good example for sure, and Malaga though perhaps not state backed (but still wealthy individual planning to be a sugar daddy) completely imploded, filled with false promises. Some people on here want Qatar because they think they'll do as good a job as Abu Dhabi has at City and ignore all the ethical issues. I'm saying that is complete BS because it is completely different people. Nobody knows how they'll do.
Yeah of course it is that's why it would be allowed. Let's not pretend like it isn't the state though. We are all adults here. Well, most of us, can't say for sure judging by the state of some other posts in here (not you, just others...)
Yes I think there are levels to ethical issues. Obviously. I also think a state just shouldn't be allowed to own a club, let alone a regime with a history of human rights violations.
Keep your head in the sand if you think that this random guy (totally unconnected and in no way family with the rulers... oh wait) suddenly has multi billions of wealth where he wants to spend it all on United and that it isn't actually funded by the state..
Well the head of the royal family is apparently only worth about 2bln, while the collective wealth of the family which he is part of is worth $335bln.
That’s a pipedream. United fans will never be happy with whom ever owns the club. Jassim or SJR will be turned in a few years. The division never goes away.
The reality is 2/3 of people are weak.
We did. Until the Qatari promised renovations and big transfers.
Yes exactly, it is so damn pathetic.
