Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

[Giggsyking]

Well. Safe to say the athletics poll is full of shit and oppo wankers.

It is not even a question. Even the caf which is expected to be more toward SJR is turning out to be Qatar most popular. There were posters pushing the narrative of how popular SJR is according to true polls "national newspaper". Whenever you bring up the overwhelming majority of Qatar preference amongst united fans online, they will say (teenagers, bots, trolls, oppo fans).

It is one thing to criticise the Qatar bid and everyone has his own reason to do. But lying about how popular this bid is and who is supporting it is not right.

 

[troylocker]

No, you’re claiming anyone who wants Qatar ownership has no morals. If that’s your stance, then yes it’s better to just shut up.

I said low moral standards. I stand by that. It wound you up at least.

What would you think about being bought by less glamorous dictators like Kim Jong-Un, Assad, Putin, Berdimuhammedow, Win Myint etc.
Where do you draw the moral line? Genocide?
Why isn't oppression, discrimination and dictatorship in it self enough for you to say no to their money?

 

[romufc]

The information is all out there, I am not a finically expert, so you definitely don’t want to hear me regurgitate what others have said. If you’re interested then you’ll seek it out.

We don’t know about SJR’s bid. That’s the issue, we really have very limited information about the structure of the financing. It’s why I’m continually saying both sides need properly scrutinising.

Barca‘s loans for the stadium had nothing to do with the levers or financial problems they are in. That information is all out there online. Would I be in favour of Spotify Old Trafford, rather than state owned - yes.

Respectfully, as a fan who will be in the Stretford end on Thursday, the issue is not about hospitality, it’s about where that was put in the stadium. If the stadium increases to 85k and and extra hospitality seats go into the south stand, who gives a feck?

Oh okay, so now your not an expert but in the previous post you were going on about how the Glazers loan is not the same type as what INEOS will take out?

Let me show you... the Glazers loan is a 2.78% interest loan. So are you implying that INEOS will get a 1% loan ?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...-uniteds-finances-and-how-large-their-debt-is

 

[adexkola]

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.

What?

Well get in line

Or better yet, sell me yours. I have a slightly used Kenwood Juicer. Runs on solar, so no dependency on oil

 

[Yoro99]

Wow 63% Qatar. I didn’t expect it to be so much in favour of Qatar

 

[Giggsyking]

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.

Ineos will leave the Glazers debt on the club. That is clear from their PR journalist tweets Adam Crafton.

 

[Jacob]

I want to publicly say that I voted Qatar in an anonymous poll. Thanks.

 

[JPRouve]

Silencing people from critizicing the regime by putting critical voices in jail, enforcing discriminating laws towards LGBT people and women, carrying out lifetime sentences for "blasphemi", don't allow free elections, giving their more than 2 000 000 immigrant workers bad working conditions and robbing them of basic human rights. etc.
You know, those sort of crimes.

You don't see this as crimes against human rights?

Unless you know more than HRW or Amnesty International the first one isn't a daily occurrence, it's not even a monthly occurrence. The second one isn't a crime it shouldn't be a thing but discriminating laws against all sorts of people are a thing enforced everywhere and these are mainly based on cultures, it's a good thing to criticize people for it but it's not a good thing to act as if it was unique. The point about blasphemy is interesting for me, the vast majority of the population is religious, agree with and want these laws. The point about free elections is not one that I read much about so maybe the 2021 general elections weren't free. And where do you get your info that the entirety of 2m of migrant workers have bad working conditions and are robbed, it most definitely easily happens and isn't curtailed enough but lets not make up figures, in fact NGOs state that the regime has introduced laws to prevent that, they also believe that it's not enough but let's not act as if nothing was done and that it was organized by the Emir.

What you are doing is the one thing that does my head in because not even NGOs do that. Qatar is a monarchy that is culturally conservative and with a religious population. It's important to look at where they started from and whether there is an evoluation and according to pretty much all NGOs and in particular HRW and Amnesty Internation Qatar and the regime move in the direction that we want, which by the way isn't the direction that the locals necessarily want.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Even if I look at it in purely football terms - wouldn't it be far more satisfying to getting to the top properly without financial doping? I'd be far more proud of our success. Turning on the infinite money cheat is like save scumming in football manager... Sure you took a league 2 side to the CL within 4 years, but how many times did you reload the game to do so? It just doesn't feel the same.

United is a club that quite simply - doesn't need ME owners. We need our debt cleared. We need investment into the infrastructure (which doesn't need to happen asap, it can happen over time). Aside from that? Let the clubs money stay within the club. We can run as a self sustaining club.

Why are people so hung up on the phrase financial doping? In the last 4 years we've spent north of £600m. If we are taken over by the Qataris and they spend £600m in the next 4 years and we go on and start dominating domestic as well as European football did we get there by financial doping, or because we're much better run as a club? One thing doesn't directly lead to another.

 

[Verminator]

If you own Tesco and buy the shop, you make Tesco pay the debt which would be peanuts for the parent.
You allow the shop to grow whilst the parent services a tiny debt for their status.

Why though?
Why do Tesco want to buy a shop and lose a load of money?
Bearing in mind Jim doesn't own 20% of all football clubs.

He isn't a charity.

 

[Andersonson]

I'd rather have the Glazers than Qatar.

 

[Yoro99]

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.

isn’t that what it says in the Qatari statement? I think that’s why people are talking about it.

 

[Verminator]

What?

Well get in line

Or better yet, sell me yours. I have a slightly used Kenwood Juicer. Runs on solar, so no dependency on oil

I live in Manchester. You can shove your solar.

 

[Drawfull]

I said low moral standards. I stand by that. It wound you up at least.

What would you think about being bought by less glamorous dictators like Kim Jong-Un, Assad, Putin, Berdimuhammedow, Win Myint etc.
Where do you draw the moral line? Genocide?
Why isn't oppression, discrimination and dictatorship in it self enough for you to say no to their money?

Gurbanguly Mälikgulyýewiç Berdimuhamedow

It'd take forever to print out his bid details.

 

[Verminator]

Wow 63% Qatar. I didn’t expect it to be so unanimous

Without telling me you don't know what unanimous means.......

 

[dove]

I said low moral standards. I stand by that. It wound you up at least.

What would you think about being bought by less glamorous dictators like Kim Jong-Un, Assad, Putin, Berdimuhammedow, Win Myint etc.
Where do you draw the moral line? Genocide?
Why isn't oppression, discrimination and dictatorship in it self enough for you to say no to their money?

Who are you to tell people they have low moral standards? Just because some people think Qatar would be better for the CLUB it means they have low standards? Nobody is ignoring the glaring issues of the regime but some of you really need to get off your high horses.

 

[mu4c_20le]

isn’t that what it says in the Qatari statement? I think that’s why people are talking about it.

Both Qatar and INEOS bids will clear our debt. Assume both will be financed by banks, the sheikhs aren't exactly going to show up with truckloads of cash innit?

 

[KirkDuyt]

@KirkDuyt

Mancheeseter United. It would be glorious.

 

[Tiber]

Both Qatar and INEOS bids will clear our debt. Assume both will be financed by banks, the sheikhs aren't exactly going to show up with truckloads of cash innit?

Why would the Qatar bid be financed by a bank?

 

[Red the Bear]

Prefer ratcliff but Qatar should be the least bad outcome from all the oil state links.

 

[pocco]

No it doesn’t. You can support ownership from a Qatari who wants the best for Man Utd as a club and still oppose the human rights issue that exists in the country he’s from. To make a binding conclusion of a person’s morals based on them supporting a Qatari takeover is ridiculous.

I don't know if I agree. How can you give Qatar your money and support, whilst they do things to people in their own country that goes against the fabric of our society and beliefs? At best, you'd have to be an 'out of sight, out of mind' person and be so desperate to have the best team and players in the world to get over this issue. You say it's 'the best for Man Utd', but that's because all you're thinking about is money, Mbappe, Bellingham, CL Trophies etc etc. It's not the best for the image of Man Utd, or the female supporters of Man Utd, or the Women's football team, or the LGBTQ supporters/staff. It's not best for them, is it? Football is about more than a balance sheet.

 

[Yoro99]

Without telling me you don't know what unanimous means.......

hahahaha my bad… just edited it

 

[Yoro99]

Both Qatar and INEOS bids will clear our debt. Assume both will be financed by banks, the sheikhs aren't exactly going to show up with truckloads of cash innit?

Why would you assume that? When the Qatari statement said it will be a debt free takeover?

and cmonnnn about the “cash init”

 

[DJ_21]

I'd rather have the Glazers than Qatar.

If only there was other options… guess the glazers are gonna sell to the highest bidders?

 

[NLunited]

There are clearly very real issues and I don't think anyone would deny that, however they are the same issues that have existed in every country/state at some stage of its history. The Middle Eastern states are in their relative infancy compared to areas that many posters on here would deem as 'acceptable' (IE, those with a more Westernised culture), however its no coincidence that the biggest strides that Qatar and other ME states made towards becoming more inclusive and multicultural were taken when working closely with Europe (predominantly Britain) in the 60s and moving from total Sharia law to a more European judiciary model.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and whilst it will clearly take time you would expect that things like hosting a World Cup and becoming more entrenched in Westernised culture in business like this proposal would only accelerate any potential change. As some posters have already pointed out, whilst their PSG ownership hasnt been a roaring success they have definitely put more focus on the womans game and LGBTQ+ rights that just wouldnt have been considered in the not too distant past. The WC was also a chance to embrace other cultures and it certainly seems like the tournament overall was pretty successful in that respect.

Honestly, I'm not downplaying some of the real concerns that people have over the Qatar bid by any means, but as I've posted already in another thread on here this is a very difficult topic to take a firm stand on either way as there are pros and cons on both sides, and I don't think its easy to say that anyone personal preference either way is in some way 'wrong' or 'lesser' than another because they have an opposing point of view, its just not that straightforward.

It is not our job to help Qatar embrace more progressive values, but we have to protect our brand, women and lgtb+ fanbase.

They want us as a status symbol and sports washing tool, we don‘t want them except some are tempted by their money.

The other issues are ffp rules they will run afoul of, as every team they own did, and the impact on how the club is run. That could be disastrous.

It is not difficult to take a stand, you either do or you don‘t. How much do you care about women rights and your gay brothers and sisters?

Keep Qatar far, far away from our club.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Why would you assume that? When the Qatari statement said it will be a debt free takeover?

Because the debt has nothing to do with us. You and many people here are sticking your noses in debt that's not ours.

 

[MetoTTT]

Qatar for a debt free club, renewed OT and facilities. Many reservations. Hope they'll respect the identity of the club, put competent people to manage the whole thing and no galacticos overload circus.

 

[Revan]

Ineos will leave the Glazers debt on the club. That is clear from their PR journalist tweets Adam Crafton.

The fact that they are buying only the Glazers share, likely means that they won’t put their own money in the club. That is further evidenced by them not clearing the debt.

Thing is, Glazers own only around 70% of the club. Now if the new owner would own 100% of the club, it would make sense for them to put their own money in clearing the debt, stadium and infrastructure upgrade etc. for example, if they pay the debt of 600m or whatever it is, they lose 600m but the club’s value increases by 600m so their finances do not change. By a similar argument, if they invest 1B in the new stadium, you would expect that the club’s value increases by 1B.

Now the issue is when they own only 70% of the club. They invest 1B in the new stadium and the club’s value increases by 1B, but they own only 70% of that, so they actually lost 300M. In other words, they bought 700M for 1B, not a very good business.

Qatar saying that they are bidding for 100% of the club and clarifying that they will clear the debt, while Ineos clarifying that they are bidding for 69% of the club and won’t clear the debt is a reason on itself why Qatari would be much mote beneficial for us. Worst case they pay the debt (but do not put further money in the club) is better than the best case of Ineos (not clearing the debt and not putting their own money in the club).

 

[romufc]

I'm aware of the criticisms. But the other poster mentioned INEOS's poor running of footall clubs, so I pointed out the problem with that argument. The only difference is that on the one hand you have Nice, bought for 100m euros (?) and run as a stand alone business with their own money vs PSG who have spent ridiculous amounts of money and have these money bag owners. Yet they're hardly tearing shit up are they, and have a very questionable recruitment/decision making policy to go with high expenditure. Let's not pretend they've not been a laughing stock on here for years.

Who in their right mind (not Ratcliffe, apparently) believed that Nice would compete with PSG without investment? Some of their moves have been good, but haven't worked out ie. giving Patrick Vieira a change, hiring Lille's ligue 1 winning Galtier and now hiring the Lens DoF who comes with a good reputation. Ratcliffe said that buying Nice was a learning curve, and that's just what it's proven to be. But there have been some shrewd moves in there.

Right, PSG are not tearing anything but let me also give you some context.

PSG got bought in 2011.
PSG finishes 5 years before, 13th, 6th, 16th, 15th, 9th
PSG finishes post 2011 4th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st.

PSG in CL before take over
group stages 200/01, 04/05
PSG in CL post take over
12/13-15/16 - Quarter's

I think you will see that there was a substantial difference.

So one has shown clear signs of progress but you rather an owner who took a club for experience and think he has learnt it all?

 

[Salwan]

The moral standards of the majority of our internet fanbase is mindblowingly low. Yes, you need to hear it.
Not just the moral bit. The longterm effects of being owned by and an absolute monarchy, with a terrible human rights record, goes far beyond getting financially doped out of our depts.
It's like pissing yourselves to get warm if freezing a bit.

agreed. I am in a small state of shock since Friday. I really didn't expect this from our fanbase.

 

[Yoro99]

Because the debt has nothing to do with us. You and many people here are sticking your noses in debt that's not ours.

what debt? The INEOS one? If so I never said it’s to do with us.

I just made a point on a comment above where the poster said he doesn’t understand why people are talking about the Qatari bid being debt free..

 

[Zlatattack]

Yes. Otherwise why is Qatari money needed?

not to you specifically but I don’t get the POV that United makes enough money to sustain itself but some would rather unlimited funds.

As crap as Glazers have been they have spent loads of money of playing staff and we are witnessing how choosing the right manager has been the true catalyst for turning around the clubs fortunes.

IMO this makes the club no better than City or PSG from the point Qatar owns the club. All arguments about past history or revenues are really just cover for wanting a financial cheat code. Nothing inherently wrong with but I wish people would just own it without the weird cover stories

The club makes a lot of money, but with the current owners, we're £1.6 billion worse off than we would have been if they didn't own us. That's money that could have been spent on facilities, stadium, players etc.

Rich owners would mean the club could spend money on facilities etc, and not have to pay huge interest to return the money, it could be paid back slowly at very favourable terms. I don't think that's the same as fake sponsorships to generate revenue and dodgy image rights deals to hide money to players/agents etc. If we wanted to pay Ronaldo half a million a week, we could so without doing any dodgy deals, we have the financial capacity to do that, but because we're also repaying huge glazer loans, loans taken out to buy the club, not improve it, it means we're not able to pay for megastars and mega facilities at the same time. Just not having the debt burden would mean we could probably do both off the back of our own business.

If a non state owned actor can provide that, that's great.

 

[troylocker]

Are you trying to align them to British values?
Assange
Section 28 recently, banning same sex marriage by CofE
Cambridge Analytics and Russia report
Leaving ECHR, strike laws

I know I'm stretching and being facetious, but we are not a Utopia.

I guess it's hard to get around that British/Western values is what you are and should be measured by in case of buying and taking control over a mastodont like Manchester United in the heart of Europe.
This is exactly why church and state should never be mixed. Conservative religious organizations are what they've allways been: discriminating. They are luckiliy not in a position to put people in jail or issue death penalties though.

I'm not commenting on the rest, but you are right that we are not Utopia and there is still a lot of progress to be made.

 

[Revan]

What kind of debt do you think is different? Debt costs money.

When Jim (70) pops his clogs, we will be owned by a petrochemical company in debt to investment banks.

He is being used as a figurehead, in much the same way as Jassim.

I am much more in favor of Qatar but I do not think this is correct. Jim and Ineos are almost the same thing, he owns around 70% of it, it is not a public company with many shareholders. Just him, and two others (who combined own around 30-35% of it). Of course, his successors (I assume his wife/kids) might not share the passion for United. The company’s finances are very healthily though, no doubt there.

 

[Dan_F]

Oh okay, so now your not an expert but in the previous post you were going on about how the Glazers loan is not the same type as what INEOS will take out?

Let me show you... the Glazers loan is a 2.78% interest loan. So are you implying that INEOS will get a 1% loan ?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...-uniteds-finances-and-how-large-their-debt-is

Sorry? I never said I was an expert. You’ve linked a 10 year old Bleacher report article, consider me shown. Nothing at all has changed in the last 10 years I’m sure. We are paying back at effectively 4.8% in 2022.

The idea is that the stadium increases revenue so much that it pays for itself over a period of 30 odd years. This what almost every other business has to do to grow.

If you want to discuss the debt the Glazers have put on us, I seriously don’t know where to start because there is such limited detail from Ineos. Very much a different issue to the stadium.

 

[Kylar Stern]

It is not our job to help Qatar embrace more progressive values, but we have to protect our brand, women and lgtb+ fanbase.

They want us as a status symbol and sports washing tool, we don‘t want them except some are tempted by their money.

The other issues are ffp rules they will run afoul of, as every team they own did, and the impact on how the club is run. That could be disastrous.

It is not difficult to take a stand, you either do or you don‘t. How much do you care about women rights and your gay brothers and sisters?

Keep Qatar far, far away from our club.

Our brand is Manchester United Football Club, the most successful English team and famous across the world for the trophies we win, the football we play, and the players we attract. On purely sporting matters, which bid seems more likely to you to provide a platform to continue that brand?

Not sure what your other comments are about as supporting a Qatar owned football team doesn't suggest anything about my views on women or LBGTQ+ rights, or those of the owner for that matter. There's also nothing to say they will (or even need to) breach FFP rules, or go balls deep with the (alleged) large scale accountancy fraud that City have been accused of partaking in as there is no need for some rapid acceleration of Manchester United as a brand, were already there - we just need to ensure that debt is removed and money is spent in areas its sorely needed like infrastructure (which doesnt breach FFP rules, it actually helps with them!) whilst the club takes care of itself with on pitch matters.

This is exactly what my post was about - its not a good look for anyone to demonise the section of the fanbase that is open to a Qatar takeover, in the same way you cant demonise those who would rather it didnt happen. personal views are personal views and my view is that the Qatar bid is at this moment in time the one that looks to offer the best chance of success for the club long term, based on the information that we currently have.

 

[Revan]

Because a long term, low interest debt for a stadium is very manageable for a club like ours. The increased revenue alone goes a long way to paying it off.

Ineos make profit of 2 billion a year. If you owed £200k mortgage to a bank and earned 15k a year, you’re going to have serious problems paying it off. If you owe the same amount and earn £70k a year, you have no problems paying it off, even with low interest rates.

There are no low-interest rates in today’s world. The fed have put the interest rates at 4.75% (and will hike it to at least 5% but more likely 5.5%). No US bank is gonna give loans with lower interest rates than that, so expect at around 6%. For 20 years, a 5B loan is essentially around 8.6B, or 430M for year. Ineos profits ate usually around 1-1.5B/year so they will need to spend 30-40% of their yearly profits on this debt.

It is not undoable but also not insignificant.

 

[Dan_F]

There are no low-interest rates in today’s world. The fed have put the interest rates at 4.75% (and will hike it to at least 5% but more likely 5.5%). No US bank is gonna give loans with lower interest rates than that, so expect at around 6%. For 20 years, a 5B loan is essentially around 8.6B, or 430M for year. Ineos profits ate usually around 1-1.5B/year so they will need to spend 30-40% of their yearly profits on this debt.

It is not undoable but also not insignificant.

I’m talking about the stadium debt. The Ineos loan isn’t really a concern as the debt is not held against the club.

 

[Verminator]

The fact that they are buying only the Glazers share, likely means that they won’t put their own money in the club. That is further evidenced by them not clearing the debt.

Thing is, Glazers own only around 70% of the club. Now if the new owner would own 100% of the club, it would make sense for them to put their own money in clearing the debt, stadium and infrastructure upgrade etc. for example, if they pay the debt of 600m or whatever it is, they lose 600m but the club’s value increases by 600m so their finances do not change. By a similar argument, if they invest 1B in the new stadium, you would expect that the club’s value increases by 1B.

Now the issue is when they own only 70% of the club. They invest 1B in the new stadium and the club’s value increases by 1B, but they own only 70% of that, so they actually lost 300M. In other words, they bought 700M for 1B, not a very good business.

Qatar saying that they are bidding for 100% of the club and clarifying that they will clear the debt, while Ineos clarifying that they are bidding for 69% of the club and won’t clear the debt is a reason on itself why Qatari would be much mote beneficial for us. Worst case they pay the debt (but do not put further money in the club) is better than the best case of Ineos (not clearing the debt and not putting their own money in the club).

Good post.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ted-out-of-hand-ineos-boehly-roman-abramovich

In the Chelsea sale (which was rejected by Raine, who are handling this sale as well), Jim wanted the full club and promised to invest £1.75 billion over 10 years.

His approach to us is glaringly different.

 

[romufc]

Sorry? I never said I was an expert. You’ve linked a 10 year old Bleacher report article, consider me shown. Nothing at all has changed in the last 10 years I’m sure. We are paying back at effectively 4.8% in 2022.

The idea is that the stadium increases revenue so much that it pays for itself over a period of 30 odd years. This what almost every other business has to do to grow.

If you want to discuss the debt the Glazers have put on us, I seriously don’t know where to start because there is such limited detail from Ineos. Very much a different issue to the stadium.

The reason I showed you a 10 year old report is because that is when the long term loan was agreed.

I hope you understand what long term means. They dont change the interest every year in a long term loan

Also, your words "
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. "

I am asking you what is the different kind of debt the Glazers had to Ineos, you said it not me.