We're owned by cnuts currently anyway
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
It's a nothing story, that group write letters all the time, no one gives a shit, they go straight in the shredder.
from a legal standpoint the size of the club is not relevant.
The french authorities do not give a damn about PSG, the city of Paris barely care about PSG to the point where it's been a constant battle between QSI and the city of Paris to get anything regarding the Parc des Princes. The city of Paris don't need, has never needed and will never need PSG when it comes to its image, in fact historically the opposite is true with the city of Paris not liking the fact that PSG used its name and symbols while not actually being a club from the 75(Paris) but from Saint-Germain-en-Laye and has used the fame of Paris to its advantage.
Also Ligue 1 isn't dead or at least no more than it was in before 2012.
Until they get drawn in the same CL group.
I'm sure the league was alive and kicking when Lyon won 7 in a row back in the day
I'm not a fan of Qatari ownership and personally believe that state backing is the complete death of football (see: City), but I'm at least getting a bit of entertainment out of the panic that us being potentially acquired is causing. The sheer fecking hypocrisy of some of these people.
A part of me wants to see it happen just to prove the point of how utterly unbalanced this kind of thing is for the game. It doesn't level the playing field, it doesn't make things more competitive, and it certainly doesn't help the football pyramid.
A part of me wants to see it happen just to prove the point of how utterly unbalanced this kind of thing is for the game. It doesn't level the playing field, it doesn't make things more competitive, and it certainly doesn't help the football pyramid.
Right but they should learn from previous errors and take steps to mitigate them going forward at least.
It's a bit like the Glazer situation when they bought us - a proper body should look at that and make legislation against aggressively leveraged deals. Ultimately the integrity of the sport is in the drain if they continually allow unethical and unfair things to happen. Having the same rich state own two big clubs just magnifies the lack of integrity that was shown at the Red Bull level (PSG being big in the modern standpoint from the attrition of all the Qatar investment).
In this particular case what is the error to learn from? Do we have a single case of malpractice when it comes to clubs being owned by the same entity?
It's a conflict of interest and that damages the integrity of the sport.
It is good.
A positive thing about middle eastern influences in english football would be if they would take notes from our part of the world when it comes to freedom of speech and human rights and change it to the better. Would be the best form of "sportwashing".
How? What happened that supports that point?
But they can’t adjust rules just to get the result they want for this one case.
You can’t make it up as you go along.
Simple example is cups exist. You may think you have all angles covered as a EL team owner only to have your second club who isn’t a threat at all for Europe in the Championship go on a cup run and receive an EL spot.
They have warned Atalanta in the past to sell shares in another club (I forget who) if they wanted to compete in a competition both qualified for. UEFA simply doesn’t outright ban teams and clubs even if they fall fowl
I don't think I should be explaining how two clubs with one owner can open up conflict of interest and potential for anti-competive behaviour. Nothing needs to happen for them to act retrospectively. That would be too reactive.
My point is, having one state own two big European clubs is dicey, that is something that shouldn't really need explaining. Unless there is a deal or commitment we are unaware of whereby Qatar have promised to reduce their interest in PSG to a minority stake.
Generally it is normal to introduce legislation to adapt to the changing dynamics of the environment. That's how regulation tends to work everywhere.
I think the problem is UEFA is 1) Corrupt and 2) incompetent.
My views are just about integrity of the sport and why I personally don't enjoy the idea of one state owning two big clubs. It opens up all sorts of possibilities of anticompetitive behaviour and I don't think we should apply the premise of "it hasn't happened or been proven yet so lets crack on". This is aside from Manchester United, it's just my view on the football landscape.
Yeah that's why this is very different to other ones
Sounds like this 'letter' probably had a Paris postage stamp on it, doesn't it?
They're the ones to suffer the most if Qatar buys us. New shiny toy and all that.
They're the ones to suffer the most if Qatar buys us. New shiny toy and all that.
Yes.These pesky human rights companies who just want to run other people’s faces in if.
Yeah much as I want the Qatari's to take over it's only right there is scrutiny. Whether we will actually get more information who these private individuals are though remains to be seen.
Not a single mention of this when Ratcliffe was buying us while owning Nice, we could easily meet in the Europa league. The size of clubs should have nothing to do with it.
No. It has a stamp from a human rights charity on. The most likely to suffer are the vulnerable people in Qatar.
Oh they are definitely worried about being pushed to the side there is no doubt about that
Is it a human rights charity?
what other club does Ratcliffe own besides Nice
Amnesty International maybe
No but you have to explain how that fits with the part that I quoted in your initial post which is that they need to learn from their errors, what error are we talking about, has something actually happened? And I should add that two clubs with two owners that know each others can open up conflict of interest and potentional for anti-competitive behaviours. Two clubs with the same sponsors can open conflict of interest and potential for anti-competitive behaviours. Two clubs with the same lender can open up conflict of interest and potential for anti-competitive behaviours.
If we follow the logic of not only suspecting but preemptively punishing anti-competitive behaviours then what do we do about lenders and sponsors?
Ah yes, because a football club located in Manchester is responsible for the people of Qatar.
They want to "ensure integrity across competitions", how does that effect vulnerable people in Qatar
It's nothing to do with saving people. Purely trying to make sure PSG are the only golden child.
Why do you think multiple human rights charities have spoken out about this?
So you think a non profit organisation dedicated to helping protect vulnerable people are secretly trying to help PSG?They want to "ensure integrity across competitions", how does that effect vulnerable people in Qatar
It's nothing to do with saving people. Purely trying to make sure PSG are the only golden child.
Fair enough, not much I’m going to say that will change your mind.
Because they need to earn their wages?
Strangely quiet day
I'm literally reading the tweet and their reasonings.
If they said "We don't want Qatar being owners of United because of poor human rights" then fair enough.
They're complaining about it making football unfair
since when has being fair ever been an issue? and why now because it's us? read between the lines.The error of allowing multiple clubs which risk playing in the same major competition to have the same owner. That is an error because it puts the integrity of the sport into question, and it's going to be under the microscope much more if it's done at scale (i.e. if Qatar sustains ownership of PSG and also Manchester United).
All of your examples are plausible but having the same owner for two clubs is taking that questionable integrity to an entirely new level, and an entirely new scale when its the clubs we are referring to. You're reverting to whataboutism which I do understand, the game is far from perfect, but it doesn't really vindicate any logic toward this monumental move being ethical.
Yeah, that’s it. It’s the charities who are greedy. You’ve nailed it.
Wild
How was that an error? What has happened since that lead you to that conclusion?
And I'm not reverting to whataboutism, you talked about hypothetical integrity issues and I went with the same issue.
Do you see how mental your line of reasoning is? Because of your football club, you’re calling into question a London based human rights charity that has been campaigning on this very issue for years and suggesting they support PSG.I'm literally reading the tweet and their reasonings.
If they said "We don't want Qatar being owners of United because of poor human rights" then fair enough.
They're complaining about it making football unfair
Does that not make you pause and question your own beliefs? If your line of reasoning is “maybe the human rights charities are secretly in cahoots with a Paris based football club” then reevaluate your thinking.
- Status