Club Sale | It’s done!

[BuzzKillington]

“The Qataris are certified scum”

What exactly have Qatar done? Who do they invade, bomb, occupy?

They “allegedly” extensively fund and have close links with the Nusra Front, a group considered terrorists by most of the world. Members of which regularly defect/switch between the three groups ISIL/Al Qaeda/Nusra Front, taking weapons and cash with them. Their food and weapons are bought with the same money which will be used to buy us our shiny new toys in the summer.

Good lads the Qataris, can’t wait to welcome them.

 

[Abdullah7]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

45k votes
62% Qatar

Love it

 

[Prodigy24]

I don't know what to think about this anymore.

The Glazers, the absolute parasites, need to go. I was hoping for Sir Ratcliffe before, but it seems like he's not rich around, asking banks for loans etc. We don't want to end up being in the same position as we are now, while clubs like City, Chelsea and soon Newcastle buying everything available.

The Qataris on the other hand are loaded, but I don't want my club to become another sportswashing project, and with all the criticism that country already has, it would look bad for United. Or well, that depends on who you're asking. Then I have some other personal issues, like them changing too much around the club. Like the crest for example. If they'd remove the devil from the logo for religious purposes or whatever. Might be a stupid thing to mention but it's a thought that came to my mind.

Will be an interesting couple of weeks nonetheless.

 

[Tarrou]

I have no idea about Nice's finances but if you are trying to cleverly suggest Ineos shareholders wouldn't mind him giving away billions of their money to United for nothing you're bonkers.

its only him and two other guys, so it’s certainly possible that they just wanna have some fun with sports teams in their old age

they are all billionaires obviously

 

[mazhar13]

Can’t wait until this guy gets banned.

Every Journo out there including non sport sources are reporting Qatar interest and because he denied that story days ago he’s stuck in his stance the daft cnut

Only The Telegraph via Tom Morgan and Sam Wallace reported a bid from the Qatari state. Bloomberg, The Times, and Mike Keegan all reported a bid coming from a group of Qatari investors. None of them (including Ben Jacobs) have excluded the royal family's involvement in this bid, however, and both The Times and Bloomberg reported links between the group of investors and the royal family in some form.

 

[cyberman]

Can’t wait until this guy gets banned.

Every Journo out there including non sport sources are reporting Qatar interest and because he denied that story days ago he’s stuck in his stance the daft cnut

Ben worked in Qatar for several years for the owner of PSG (or the fund I forget) to the point he is friendly with the owners children.
The man is a great source in this

 

[Rampant Red Rodriguez]

They “allegedly” extensively fund and have close links with the Nusra Front, a group considered terrorists by most of the world.

USA, UK send weapons and money to israel and Yemen. They murdered millions of people in Afghanistan and in Iraq are directly responsible for the violence between Sunni and shia people. Said countries are built on the blood of slaves, have been compensating former slave owners backed by the bank of England since 1807. Then there's the whole history of colonial rule in India and Africa.


Does any of the above affect your ideas about being a part of the country?. And Jim Ratcliffe pays no tax in the UK because he resides in Monaco. He is far from a good option himself mate so get a grip.

 

[Abdullah7]

They “allegedly” extensively fund and have close links with the Nusra Front, a group considered terrorists by most of the world. Members of which regularly defect/switch between the three groups ISIL/Al Qaeda/Nusra Front, taking weapons and cash with them. Their food and weapons are bought with the same money which will be used to buy us our shiny new toys in the summer.

Good lads the Qataris, can’t wait to welcome them.

These are a serious and unfounded allegations about the State of Qatar, which were included in the article published by The Times newspaper are based on misleading allegations and distortion of facts, not to mention their bias.

The biggest evidence of this is that it was not published in any media, as other media outlets obtained the same misleading information, but decided not to publish it after confirming its lack of credibility

Where you get your information, Andrew Norfolk, has a long record of promoting Islamophobia. This article is only his latest attempt. In addition, the newspaper was challenged by a parliamentary committee in Britain over his anti-Islam articles. It is alarming that a journalist with such a biased record is allowed to continue publishing his articles in The Times, especially in such times of great divisions in the world.

 

[Rozay]

Can’t wait until this guy gets banned.

Every Journo out there including non sport sources are reporting Qatar interest and because he denied that story days ago he’s stuck in his stance the daft cnut

Thought this was the kind of censorship that makes everyone hate these ‘regimes’.

Don’t get all this ‘ban’ business. If you see a tweet and don’t believe it, then don’t believe it.

 

[croadyman]

That's a bit misogynistic. How about "Here comes negative Archibald again"?

Yeah good point ok let's make it negative Neil which is ironically my name

 

[croadyman]

I need someone to give me hope this is going to happen. I can't shake the feeling it will fall through and the club will end up with another group of leeches or the same will remain.

Yeah until it's all been approved I will be worried

 

[Drifter]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

45k votes
62% Qatar

Seriously, using Twitter to gauge opinion.

 

[NLunited]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

45k votes
62% Qatar

Wow. Just throw your gay brothers and sisters and women under the bus for a few billions.

 

[Scholesgoals]

These are a serious and unfounded allegations about the State of Qatar, which were included in the article published by The Times newspaper are based on misleading allegations and distortion of facts, not to mention their bias.

The biggest evidence of this is that it was not published in any media, as other media outlets obtained the same misleading information, but decided not to publish it after confirming its lack of credibility

Where you get your information, Andrew Norfolk, has a long record of promoting Islamophobia. This article is only his latest attempt. In addition, the newspaper was challenged by a parliamentary committee in Britain over his anti-Islam articles. It is alarming that a journalist with such a biased record is allowed to continue publishing his articles in The Times, especially in such times of great divisions in the world.

It's probably easier to just quote the law in Qatar. It's been a few years since I've been in Doha so can't confirm the current situation and whether things have improved since then, I wonder if someone local to the region could confirm the below for me but this is the law as I understand it.

On Homosexuality

Penal Code 2004, Article 281
Article 281 criminalises sexual intercourse ‘without compulsion, duress or ruse’ with a female with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment. The provision is gender-neutral as to the other party so is applicable to same-sex intimacy between women.
Penal Code 2004, Article 285
Article 285 criminalises sexual intercourse ‘without compulsion, duress or ruse’ with a male with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment. The provision is gender-neutral as to the other party so is applicable to same-sex intimacy between men.
Penal Code 2004, Article 296
Article 296 criminalises ‘leading, instigating or seducing a male in any way to commit sodomy’ and ‘inducing or seducing a male or female in any way to commit illegal or immoral actions’ with a penalty of between one and three years’ imprisonment. The term ‘immoral actions’ is undefined.
Sharia Law
In addition to the Penal Code provisions outlined here, Qatar operates Sharia courts in which it is technically possible for men who engage in same-sex intimacy to be sentenced to death.

On the rights of Women

Women must get permission from male “guardians” – fathers, brothers, uncles and husbands – to exercise many basic rights. They cannot be primary carers of their children, even if they are divorced or the children’s father has died. If the child has no male relative to act as guardian, the government takes on this role. When a woman is married, guardianship transfers from her father to her husband. The Family Law provides that she can be deemed “disobedient” if she does not obtain her husband’s permission before working, traveling, or if she leaves her home or refuses to have sex with him, without a “legitimate” reason. While the law gives men the ability to divorce unilaterally and without needing to inform their wife of their intention to divorce, women can only get a divorce by applying to the courts on limited grounds

Despite Qatar’s strong regional reputation for its healthcare service, women also face discrimination in their access to health care. Qatari law requires that in cases of abortion for fetal abnormalities, a woman needs the consent of the father, limiting a woman’s autonomy. Women also reported that they need a husband’s consent for some other forms of reproductive health care relating to fertility but the legal basis for these requirements is unclear. Women said they are required to show proof of marriage to access some sexual and reproductive health care.

On Migrant Workers

Qatar's law does not allow for foreign workers to form or join trade unions. An exit visa system prevents workers from leaving the country without the sponsor's permission. Employer consent is required to change jobs, leave the country, get a driver's license, rent a home or open a bank account.

Of course it's not just Qatar that has issues with the above, but the majority of developed countries have at least legalised homosexuality and allowed women to have full autonomy (although interestingly Switzerland didn't give the vote to women until the 70s!) Even so, the difference between the law and reality is often vastly different, particularly for LGBT rights.

 

[AlPistacho]

They “allegedly” extensively fund and have close links with the Nusra Front, a group considered terrorists by most of the world. Members of which regularly defect/switch between the three groups ISIL/Al Qaeda/Nusra Front, taking weapons and cash with them. Their food and weapons are bought with the same money which will be used to buy us our shiny new toys in the summer.

Good lads the Qataris, can’t wait to welcome them.

Are you aware of the groups funded by the west across various parts of the world, allegedly ?

 

[RedDevil@84]

Wow. Just throw your gay brothers and sisters and women under the bus for a few billions.

 

[Mr. Robot]

It's probably easier to just quote the law in Qatar. It's been a few years since I've been in Doha so can't confirm the current situation and whether things have improved since then, I wonder if someone local to the region could confirm the below for me but this is the law as I understand it.

On Homosexuality

Penal Code 2004, Article 281
Article 281 criminalises sexual intercourse ‘without compulsion, duress or ruse’ with a female with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment. The provision is gender-neutral as to the other party so is applicable to same-sex intimacy between women.
Penal Code 2004, Article 285
Article 285 criminalises sexual intercourse ‘without compulsion, duress or ruse’ with a male with a penalty of up to seven years’ imprisonment. The provision is gender-neutral as to the other party so is applicable to same-sex intimacy between men.
Penal Code 2004, Article 296
Article 296 criminalises ‘leading, instigating or seducing a male in any way to commit sodomy’ and ‘inducing or seducing a male or female in any way to commit illegal or immoral actions’ with a penalty of between one and three years’ imprisonment. The term ‘immoral actions’ is undefined.
Sharia Law
In addition to the Penal Code provisions outlined here, Qatar operates Sharia courts in which it is technically possible for men who engage in same-sex intimacy to be sentenced to death.

On the rights of Women

Women must get permission from male “guardians” – fathers, brothers, uncles and husbands – to exercise many basic rights. They cannot be primary carers of their children, even if they are divorced or the children’s father has died. If the child has no male relative to act as guardian, the government takes on this role. When a woman is married, guardianship transfers from her father to her husband. The Family Law provides that she can be deemed “disobedient” if she does not obtain her husband’s permission before working, traveling, or if she leaves her home or refuses to have sex with him, without a “legitimate” reason. While the law gives men the ability to divorce unilaterally and without needing to inform their wife of their intention to divorce, women can only get a divorce by applying to the courts on limited grounds

Despite Qatar’s strong regional reputation for its healthcare service, women also face discrimination in their access to health care. Qatari law requires that in cases of abortion for fetal abnormalities, a woman needs the consent of the father, limiting a woman’s autonomy. Women also reported that they need a husband’s consent for some other forms of reproductive health care relating to fertility but the legal basis for these requirements is unclear. Women said they are required to show proof of marriage to access some sexual and reproductive health care.

On Migrant Workers

Qatar's law does not allow for foreign workers to form or join trade unions. An exit visa system prevents workers from leaving the country without the sponsor's permission. Employer consent is required to change jobs, leave the country, get a driver's license, rent a home or open a bank account.

Of course it's not just Qatar that has issues with the above, but the majority of developed countries have at least legalised homosexuality and allowed women to have full autonomy (although interestingly Switzerland didn't give the vote to women until the 70s!) Even so, the difference between the law and reality is often vastly different, particularly for LGBT rights.

It’s the dark ages. Disgusting. Women are people too - and they carry children for 9+ months, but then can’t parent them even if their husband dies?

Religion and oil are the worst things to ever happen to our beautiful planet. And only men start wars.

Sick of it all to be honest.

 

[Berbaclass]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Tarrou]

Are you aware of the groups funded by the west across various parts of the world, allegedly ?

Everyone is. But what is your point here?

Only ME states are trying to buy us.

 

[OleGunnar20]

Feels dirty but innevitable this. Ah well, there were never going to be any 'Good Guys' at our valuation.

I'd still prefer Jim personally.

 

[Woodzy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Qatari’s trying to get the fans onside already it seems. Sticking solely to the football side, those are the things we want to hear let’s be honest.

 

[Chief123]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It still feels like a dream! I feel like it’s just not humanly possible to detach ourselves from the Glazers!

 

[stevoc]

Mike Keegans report already said they would.

But even if they don't that's ok. Clearing the debt and being a more stable Football Club should come before fixing or rebuilding the stadium.

Yeah I'm not saying they have to, I was just trying to gauge what Qatar owning United would look like based on their investment in PSG. If the Glazers debt was cleared as part of the sale then I think United could/should afford to fund the Stadium redevelopment.

Successive managers complained about the training facilities, but, after 10 years, they decided to do something about it and new facility is due to open later this year.

They are planning to leave the Parc des Princes and move to the national stadium instead.

Cheers, Carrington isn't that old so it probably won't be that much of a priority as opposed to the stadium for the new owners.

True but I reckon whoever comes in will be looking to get the fans on side with a few grand gestures I.e signings and stadium upgrade/new build, at least you’d like to think they would.

It's always a possibility.

 

[Chief123]

They already own city.

Dubai is not Abu Dhabi.

 

[stevoc]

“The Qataris are certified scum”

What exactly have Qatar done? Who do they invade, bomb, occupy?

Would the ''and the rest of those self appointed leaders'' bit not lead you to interpret it as them referring to the ruling dictators of those countries?

 

[stevoc]

If you looked into how Jim plans to buy us you wouldn’t. With Qatar we will have ownership with a strong desire to win and we won’t be saddled with more debt repayments or people who want their money back (JP Morgan, Goldman).

I'm not sure you have if you think Jim would be using United profits to service repayments on a £4-5 billion debt. United just wouldn't make enough for it to be possible.

 

[troylocker]

If we’re bought by a totalitarian dictatorship without respect for human rights, I’m out. No thank you.

 

[Rocksy]

Where you get your information, Andrew Norfolk, has a long record of promoting Islamophobia. .

He’s most well-known for reporting on grooming gangs. Was that “Islamophobic”?

 

[Attila]

How come they weren’t in for Chelsea?

 

[Berbaclass]

How come they weren’t in for Chelsea?

They want a club with history

 

[UDontMessWith24]

“The Qataris are certified scum”

What exactly have Qatar done? Who do they invade, bomb, occupy?

The invaders, bombers and occupiers helped found the state of Qatar if that helps.

 

[NLunited]

Qatari’s trying to get the fans onside already it seems. Sticking solely to the football side, those are the things we want to hear let’s be honest.

Obviously they are going to make lots of changes, you can tell from their wording.

The last thing you want now are lots of change. We finally have a manager with a handle on things.

You can say goodbye to Ten Hag, they will install a Barcelona type manager. Xavi was there for four years and they sponsored Barça for many years.

 

[Reyoji-Utd]

Is it the Qatar Royal direct investment or its from one of their family members or a group of rich persons from there?

Really if its one of their Royal members or group of rich persons from there then it shouldnt be a big objection really.

We cant say for one that its not good for them to take over us because of their law, traditions, cultures, human right issues...ect. when they are not directly involve in the decision of their country just like some of the billionairs from the wester capitalist part that has in some way related to the killing when they wag the war on the Middle East and other areas of the world in the their decision to support the party in elections or donations for candidates.

One can say that one way or another, not many are innocent in this world if we really dig into all the means and decision we decide in our daily life.

 

[Tarrou]

Obviously they are going to make lots of changes, you can tell from their wording.

The last thing you want now are lots of change. We finally have a manager with a handle on things.

You can say goodbye to Ten Hag, they will install a Barcelona type manager. Xavi was there for four years and they sponsored Barça for many years.

so because Xavi was there they’ll sack ETH? what kind of logic is that?

Did they do that to PSG as well?

 

[Garethw]

Wow. Just throw your gay brothers and sisters and women under the bus for a few billions.

Do you refuse to buy fuel for your vehicle? Do you refuse to take a taxi/bus/coach etc?

If the answer to this question is no then you too are throwing your gay brothers, sisters and women under the bus.

Obviously they are going to make lots of changes, you can tell from their wording.

The last thing you want now are lots of change. We finally have a manager with a handle on things.

You can say goodbye to Ten Hag, they will install a Barcelona type manager. Xavi was there for four years and they sponsored Barça for many years.

They would only get rid of him if he was failing. Just like any owner. Stop talking bollocks.

 

[Alonzo]

Qatari’s trying to get the fans onside already it seems. Sticking solely to the football side, those are the things we want to hear let’s be honest.

That is the point though - you can’t just “stick to football”. Were you one of the ones telling Marcus Rashford to “just stick to football”?
The point is - if you and anyone else just say “i care more about my team winning, than my team being owned by a state responsible for human rights abuses” then that ends the argument. There is no other justification.

 

[Red_Heisenberg]

It’s the dark ages. Disgusting. Women are people too - and they carry children for 9+ months, but then can’t parent them even if their husband dies?

Religion and oil are the worst things to ever happen to our beautiful planet. And only men start wars.

Sick of it all to be honest.

Indira Ghandi and Margaret Thatcher enter the thread.

 

[peridigm]

It still feels like a dream! I feel like it’s just not humanly possible to detach ourselves from the Glazers!

This place when they introduce the new DOF.

Spoiler

 

[NLunited]

Do you refuse to buy fuel for your vehicle? Do you refuse to take a taxi/bus/coach etc?

If the answer to this question is no then you too are throwing your gay brothers, sisters and women under the bus.

They would only get rid of him if he was failing. Just like any owner. Stop talking bollocks.

How is driving a car equivalent to allowing an evil regime to buy United? They are not just homophobic, they criminalized it. Women are oppressed there. Stop making silly excuses.

A run of two or three bad results and they have cover to fire Ten Hag. They will install their chosen manager.

But that doesn‘t matter really. What matters are women rights and LGTB rights. And not to forget: slave labour.

 

[HarryP]

That is the point though - you can’t just “stick to football”. Were you one of the ones telling Marcus Rashford to “just stick to football”?
The point is - if you and anyone else just say “i care more about my team winning, than my team being owned by a state responsible for human rights abuses” then that ends the argument. There is no other justification.

The British state has been responsible for many human rights abuses. Recent history (Northern Ireland) and present day (Windrush scandal).