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

Which owners would you prefer?

  • Qatar

    Votes: 961 62.8%
  • Ineos

    Votes: 570 37.2%

  • Total voters
    1,531
  • Poll closed .
Whats your view on Saudi Arabia pumping millions upon millions into the club over the years?
I don't like it.
For me the Saudi regime is way worse than the Qatari.

There's a difference between being bought for 6000M and 100% owned/controlled by a state and being sponsored for around 10M (please insert correct number if I'm wrong) by a 63% stateowned Telecom company though, but no, not a fan of either.
 
They will definitely be transferred to the club. No business takes over debt and doesn’t pass it on to the consumer in one way or another. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

Yeah I know pass on a 5 billion quid debt to an asset that didn't make any profit in 2022 but a loss of 115 million makes sound business sense that, use your head think of it in terms of business why would you use all your liquidity to buy something when instead you can borrow it and use existing revenues of 50 billion to pay for something before you post profits and pay less tax per year and still comfortably own said asset which option would you take?

Pretty sure because of the sums involved people think it's all cash from the wealth funds of these sovereign states, City's owners borrowed 650 million USD just 2 years ago, if you think the Qatari bid won't have an element of debt attached to it somewhere I have a bridge to sell you.
 
There’s been like an 8 point swing toward Qatar since it went private :lol:

Yep, it was closer to 55/45 i think earlier. IDK why people just don't say what they really want on an anonymous internet forum.
 
I'd need to see Ineos plan for how they will finance the takeover and what they will do with the infrastructure. It's unlikely to be a good deal for the football side of things but it's only fair that we wait and see.

I need to hear Ratcliffe talk about he is going to invest in stadium redevelopment,will keep saying it he can get my attention by not focusing on ROI and being all about spending like Abramovich did at Chelsea
 
A lot more INEOS votes than I would've expected given the way the debates have been going in the various threads. Are people voting for them simply because they don't want Qatar ?
It is roughly 2/3 for Qatar which is quite a lot. The last US president with at least 64% of the vote is Monroe in 1820.
 
Unfortunately it also feels like nearly half of the Qatar votes are because they fear INEOS will put more debt on the club ala Glazers

Yeah and not necessarily push the boat out in order to make us the best in class everywhere
 
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?
Sounds a lot like like Britain 150 years ago and some States in the US currently!
 
It is roughly 2/3 for Qatar which is quite a lot. The last US president with at least 64% of the vote is Monroe in 1820.

We may need to institute an electoral college system to see who wins these polls to make your analogy work.
 
You see the bolded parts that's the issue that I have. A supposedly good and reflected post ends up being labelled as fighting the despots causes? I simply shared informations that comes from HRW and Amnesty International reports and articles, are they fighting the despots cause or are we supposed to not read them?

You know it's possible to disagree with someone, to observe things that you disagree with, to have different values and still be fair. It's also possible to think that a particular society doesn't align with your views and also recognize that you have no right to impose yours on them. So I will criticize religious societies and discrimination when I feel like it and I will also acknowledge other people's own freedom.
You see it's possible, like you say, to disagree with someone and give them credit for good posts. Even though I disagree and think you are wrong when you, in my view, fight to make the faults and crimes of the Qatari royal family smaller than they are, I respect your opinion and your argumentation.
The bolded part is a difficult one, because it depends on what the difference in views are: If we are talking about injustice in practice or discrimination of minorities I will use every opportunity to impose my views on whoever accepts this.
If we were talking about religion or life philosophy I would agree, but this is not about that.
 
Funny how the argument against PSG and City (state ownership and evil oil money) is not an issue anymore
 
If the Qatar investor group do take over, I can imagine every win will be met with "United paid for that win" in the RAWK forum.

Would be quite amusing based on that alone to wind them up.
 
We may need to institute an electoral college system to see who wins these polls to make your analogy work.
I was talking for popular vote. In any case, 64% is pretty overwhelming majority.
 
Sounds a lot like like Britain 150 years ago and some States in the US currently!
OK? Let's hope the gouvernments of those states or the late Queen Victoria doesn't try to buy us then
 
I was talking for popular vote. In any case, 64% is pretty overwhelming majority.

I would've expected Qatar to be at upwards of 80% given benefits of endless money, infrastructure development, and buying Mbappe
 
Why would the Qatar bid be financed by a bank?
Because billionaires don't have buckets of cash sitting around waiting to be spent, it's invested in loads of things that make more money for them than a bank loan costs them, that's one of the reasons they're billionaires and we're not
 
You see it's possible, like you say, to disagree with someone and give them credit for good posts. Even though I disagree and think you are wrong when you, in my view, fight to make the faults and crimes of the Qatari royal family smaller than they are, I respect your opinion and your argumentation.
The bolded part is a difficult one, because it depends on what the difference in views are: If we are talking about injustice in practice or discrimination of minorities I will use every opportunity to impose my views on whoever accepts this.
If we were talking about religion or life philosophy I would agree, but this is not about that.

I mentioned reports from HRW and Amnesty International. If that's me minimizing crimes of the Qatari royal families then I'm fine with that since I don't know more than they do.
 
If the Qatar investor group do take over, I can imagine every win will be met with "United paid for that win" in the RAWK forum.

Would be quite amusing based on that alone to wind them up.

It'd never stack up, though. We've always spent big. Only from 2005 - 2013 we didn't, for obvious reasons.

Whereas Chelsea and City never did until their rich owners.
 
I have been discussing with various posters on here. Some say state owned clubs should not be a thing - their opinion, have to respect.

Others who cite you cant get funded by Qatari state because of their human rights, laws, LGBTQ+ laws, need to look at themselves in the mirror.

Getting a loan from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan is the same thing.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/goldm...-bias-lawsuit-set-june-2023-trial-2022-08-22/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/15/gol...ettle-sexism-complaint-bloomberg-reports.html

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jpmo...ection-schemes-defraud-precious-metals-and-us

These big firms have all had law suits for gender bias, fraud, sexism. Why is that okay but ME state money not?
 
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?

Thank you for saying what most Qatar voters are fearing in regards to us rejecting them. I would feel very different about their bid IF I didn't fear them joining our bitter rivals
 
I have been discussing with various posters on here. Some say state owned clubs should not be a thing - their opinion, have to respect.

Others who cite you cant get funded by Qatari state because of their human rights, laws, LGBTQ+ laws, need to look at themselves in the mirror.

Getting a loan from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan is the same thing.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/goldm...-bias-lawsuit-set-june-2023-trial-2022-08-22/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/15/gol...ettle-sexism-complaint-bloomberg-reports.html

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jpmo...ection-schemes-defraud-precious-metals-and-us

These big firms have all had law suits for gender bias, fraud, sexism. Why is that okay but ME state money not?
Because those companies can and are held accountable by higher authorities. There are no higher authorities than the state.
 
I wonder how many would pick them if the only options were sell to Qataris or stay as is...

I mean I would honestly want them out pretty much whatever, but if they did stay it would likely be with a bunch of new investment... though exactly how much debt would remain is a crucial question.
 
It's just another excuse for them to blurt out obscene views.

No, of course, I understand that it would be.

But my general comment stands, even for our own fans who say our potential victories and trophies would have asterisks next to them.
 
There is a scenario where Ratcliffe could be willing to pay 200m/year over 30 years to service the debt that he contracted. The issue is how long are the terms of that loan and what happens when Ratcliffe passes away before his 100th birthday?
Has Ratcliffe said that the entire bid is financed by a loan?
 
Looking at the reported bids, statements made, and probable finances behind them (I say probable, lets be honest the Qatar bid will have the financial backing of the state behind it regardless of what is said publicly), objectively the Qatar bid is the clear winner in terms of securing the future of Manchester United football club and being able to continually compete at the level the fanbase would expect.

Based on the little we know about either bid, it certainly appears that the SJR backed bid will add more debt to the club (whether against the clubs name or his own company), and without any clear indication of how that will be serviced, along with any meaningful detail on additional spending on infrastructure or 'other', whilst the more romantic option (Manchester born businessman saves us from the Glazers), realistically it carries a level of risk and doesn't give real confidence that we will be any better off in a meaningful sense compared to where we are now - and that's before you consider his age and potential uncertainty about any succession planning.

On the other hand, a section of the fanbase will clearly have their own views on the non-football related reasons why the Qatar bid is less appealing to them on a personal level and they are also clearly valid considerations. These are far more subjective views and will vary from person to person and are too numerous to do justice to by listing them on their behalf.

For me, as things currently stand I'd vote for Qatar as the new owners (and did on the poll), based entirely on the footballing side of things. If SJR went public and gave certain assurances on the things mentioned above then I could be swayed, but I seriously doubt he would be able to; my personal view is that there will be a desire for a certain ROI for the purchase to at a minimum service the debt, and then in the longer term profit from the purchase as a business that would see only minimal change at best from the ownership model we currently have and frankly despise.

This isnt a cry for a sugar daddy or to have more money than X club as some are portraying it to be, more to ensure that as a football club we don't fall behind as the game develops into what is obviously going to be an increasingly financially driven competition that started in anger with Chelsea, before City and Newcastle joined the race, and likely down the line further giants of the game succumb to.

Most measured post I have seen in this thread as looks at the negative aspects of both bids.

I agree he's not giving enough assurances on how stadium and training facilities redevelopment will be funded. That's my big problem with his bid along with fear he is more of a British Glazer than Abramovich.

Then there is us leaving Qatar on the market for scousers to pick up which is utter nightmare. Surely all of you state ownership haters are worried about them going there instead.