Club Sale | It’s done!

Status
Not open for further replies.

mctrials23

Full Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
1,285
Why….. why are the human rights charities so against this move? There’s something not quite right here.
Because most organisations like this, whether they do good work or not are largely PR outfits. Any opportunity to comment on a large issue related to their field in any way will be taken. Its basically free publicity that they wouldn't be able to buy.
 

JohnnyKills

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
7,100
It's strange how the multi club issue is mentioned with respect to Qatar potentially owning us, but not INEOS. Surely it's the same thing? Or if not immediately, I would imagine their goal with Nice is to have them in the CL regularly within a few years, so would it not be the same issue then?
I guess there's more chance of PSG reaching the CL than Nice.

Plus, the NGOs know Uefa won't care about the rights issues so they're trying to get the move blocked on a technicality.

It's a bit like tipping off the authorities that Al Capone is cheating on his taxes, because you know they'll turn a blind eye to all the murdery stuff.
 

aj_united

On Trial
Newbie
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
48
We can all accept that the majority, if not all, of these multi-billionaires are pretty much as bad as each other, but I do find it strange that people want a Chelsea season ticket holder to buy/own our club.

There certainly is the possibility that a Middle Eastern buyer will use the club for 'sports washing', but just because the fans will be pleased that new owners will try and help the club return to former glories, instead of abusing them for money/profit, it doesn’t mean that we all can’t still speak out against the negative things these countries do.

Not owing the banks £500m+, redevelopment/rebuilds of the stadium, surrounding areas, training facilities, youth system etc. are what I’m interested in. Unfortunately, only the world’s richest can provide us with that.

“Better the devil you know” springs to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oates

Fahad Jawaid

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
1,193
Harrods, The Shard, Heathrow (some 20 percent I think), Canary Wharf and several hotels etc. Their asset portfolio in UK alone is worth hundreds of billions.
I was astonished to read it somewhere that they own more in UK than the Queen lets try to digest that for a second, so Its alright for them to invest and buy things in UK and have more property than the Queen itself, but not let them buy a football club because of moral brigade yeah right sounds about right.
 

pacifictheme

Full Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
7,782
Don't really want state ownership from the middle east, would rather keep the glazers. Not sure an ideal owner exists anymore really though.

Realistically we were small enough to be bought by someone more palatable when the glazers got us. No chance now.

If we end up being state owned, which sadly looks likely, I just hope they don't flood us with money for the playing squad. Just fix the stadium, give the teams world class facilities, and don't take money out. We are rich enough to compete anyway, we don't need them to feck about like the city owners have.

Level of investment in the playing squad has rarely been the issue in the last ten years, managerial and player choices have.
 

Nori-

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
1,210
It's hilarious watching the moral police throw their toys out of the pram as they sit in their sweat shop made Adidas tops, typing on their Chinese factory made iPhone, telling us we should demand better :lol:

Anyway, it's the start of an exciting new era, Im sure the Qataris will do the best for the club.

We deserve this after the last decade of misery.
 

Globule

signature/tagline creator extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
4,760
I was astonished to read it somewhere that they own more in UK than the Queen lets try to digest that for a second, so Its alright for them to invest and buy things in UK and have more property than the Queen itself, but not let them buy a football club because of moral brigade yeah right sounds about right.
To be fair, I own more in the UK than the Queen now.
 

Telsim

Full Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
4,972
Ratcliffe offering 4bn USD, backed by the forces of darkness. The savior of the club.

I hope the Qatari blow him out of the water.
 

Loon

:lol:
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
9,227
Location
No-Mark
This definitely doesn't reflect what I've been seeing online. Pretty sure that the majority would prefer Qatar to Ratcliffe.
Why though? Is it the prospect of an unlimited bottomless pit spending on multiple defenders like City, etc?

I'm sure Ratcliffe would clear the debt, sort the stadium, and the facilities we need doing just as well.
 

horsechoker

The Caf's Roy Keane.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
52,668
Location
The stable
It's hilarious watching the moral police throw their toys out of the pram as they sit in their sweat shop made Adidas tops, typing on their Chinese factory made iPhone, telling us we should demand better :lol:

Anyway, it's the start of an exciting new era, Im sure the Qataris will do the best for the club.

We deserve this after the last decade of misery.
I don't think people are wrong to question it or feel uncomfortable with it but United have been happy to accept sponsors from suspect sources. Remember we were sponsored by Aeroflot until recently even after the initial Crimea invasion
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,762
As I remember it United couldn't match Batistuta's wages because of the wage structure at United. Who was the Real player?
My point is that the best club in the EPL by far couldn't match the salary of a player whose team flirted from mid table to relegation zone. That's how silly the Serie A was at the time. Regarding your question I am referring to Hagi.
 

Nori-

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
1,210
I don't think people are wrong to question it or feel uncomfortable with it but United have been happy to accept sponsors from suspect sources. Remember we were sponsored by Aeroflot until recently even after the initial Crimea invasion
I agree, I just don't like the hypocrisy with the selective outrage and good spot with Aeroflot, I didn't think of that.
 

kps88

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
22,513
This definitely doesn't reflect what I've been seeing online. Pretty sure that the majority would prefer Qatar to Ratcliffe.
Depends who you ask really. If you are just going by general fans the world over, you're probably right. If you asked local fans or even took a poll on here you might get very different answers. The article mentioned they surveyed Athletic subscribers so that also suggests a particular type of fan.
 

Moston Red

Formerly Giggs1973
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
3,982
Location
Manchester
I don’t really want an oil/gas state buying the club but would rather that than another US “franchise”.
 

Lyng

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
5,210
Location
Denmark
This definitely doesn't reflect what I've been seeing online. Pretty sure that the majority would prefer Qatar to Ratcliffe.
It was behind a paywall so only subscribers to the Athletic, which is most likely somewhat of a echo chamber. Highly unlikely that poll is reflective of most United fans.
 

LARulz

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
18,217
Yeh it’s a fair comment. Why only pull it out now as unfair? The INEOS multi owners, red bull. Probably loads more.
Which is why the Jim Ratcliffe thing never made sense to me. If you are going to cry about PSG for Qatar then same crying has to be done about his other clubs

But it's a problem for them. If they block us now then they'll have to argue against the others and force sales, cos no doubt Qatar and Saudi's would fight them with that. Can't stop United's purchase due to multi club ownership but allow the clubs currently to still have same owners
 

dove

New Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
7,899
I don't think people are wrong to question it or feel uncomfortable with it but United have been happy to accept sponsors from suspect sources. Remember we were sponsored by Aeroflot until recently even after the initial Crimea invasion
Well, apparently taking money from suspect sources is fine, probably a lot of people wouldn't mind them owning a minority stake at the club too. All the morals etc. seem to come into affect only when we are talking about them being the owners which is a bit odd but whatever.
 

LARulz

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
18,217
How many people were asked? Because I suspect it wasn’t many.
Other than being behind a paywall, it would have only asked people who claimed to be it I am sure. You would have easily got some rival supporters or non United supporters preferring SJR over Middle East investment
 

Remember the geese

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
7,176
Location
Northampton
Why though? Is it the prospect of an unlimited bottomless pit spending on multiple defenders like City, etc?

I'm sure Radcliffe would clear the debt, sort the stadium, and the facilities we need doing just as well.
Yeah, pretty much what you've said in your first paragraph. I think there is a lack of understanding in regards to Ratcliffe's bid and talk of Goldman Sachs involvement makes fans feel uneasy. Especially after what we've been through with the Glazers. When push comes to shove, the majority want who they deem to be the richest and most powerful.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,350
It's hilarious watching the moral police throw their toys out of the pram as they sit in their sweat shop made Adidas tops, typing on their Chinese factory made iPhone, telling us we should demand better :lol:

Anyway, it's the start of an exciting new era, Im sure the Qataris will do the best for the club.

We deserve this after the last decade of misery.
And do you remember the outrage when those things came to light? Adidas now have armies of people checking the factories. People did demand better, and got it.

We should do exactly the same thing with Qatar, except as we saw with the World Cup they bury their head in the sand and tell everybody to feck off. It will be a sad day in the club's history if they buy us.
 

horsechoker

The Caf's Roy Keane.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
52,668
Location
The stable
Well, apparently taking money from suspect sources is fine, probably a lot of people wouldn't mind them owning a minority stake at the club too. All the morals etc. seem to come into affect only when we are talking about them being the owners which is a bit odd but whatever.
I think it's because these deals aren't questioned in the media until it comes to actual ownership. I don't think this means though people can't be against the idea. I'm not completely comfortable with getting into bed with a nation-state as these sorts of deals can go wrong if nations have a falling out.
 

Loon

:lol:
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
9,227
Location
No-Mark
Yeah, pretty much what you've said in your first paragraph. I think there is a lack of understanding in regards to Ratcliffe's bid and talk of Goldman Sachs involvement makes fans feel uneasy. Especially after what we've been through with the Glazers. When push comes to shove, the majority want who they deem to be the richest and most powerful.
Right. I imagine some are also gleefully hoping to watch the noisy neighbours shut up.
 

Remember the geese

Full Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
7,176
Location
Northampton
Depends who you ask really. If you are just going by general fans the world over, you're probably right. If you asked local fans or even took a poll on here you might get very different answers. The article mentioned they surveyed Athletic subscribers so that also suggests a particular type of fan.
Would be interesting to see. I certainly don't think it would be a landslide win for Ratcliffe if we did a poll on here.
 

BluesJr

Owns the moral low ground
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
9,052
The Athletic fan survey :lol:

Only open to subscribers, all rival fans going in and choosing Jim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.