1) FYI...but I'd also prefer relegation to League Two instead of Qatar taking over.
Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private
- Thread starter Zlatattack
- Start date
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.
No and for the purposes of this, I don't care. That's my short answer based on my life experience so far.
Or should I say, especially the fecking Netherlands
Qatar.
I think INEOS would be a slightly better version of the Glazers, which is OK, but Qatar will transform the club and surrounding area as a whole. Quite a few concerns around INEOS' running of their other clubs too.
It's far from ideal but as Neville said, the horse has bolted...
I think INEOS would be a slightly better version of the Glazers, which is OK, but Qatar will transform the club and surrounding area as a whole. Quite a few concerns around INEOS' running of their other clubs too.
It's far from ideal but as Neville said, the horse has bolted...
What are the crimes that the regime of Qatar is carrying out every day?
Well. Safe to say the athletics poll is full of shit and oppo wankers.
Was it dictatorial of me calling people out for making what I think is a bad moral choice? Better to just shut up then?
I'm just stating my opinions here and if it makes just one of you think about it twice, I'm happy.
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.
To what point though? moaning down the pub while they lift the premier league trophy year after year as we watch on?
Just how much outrage is there really? the ONLY thing we ever hear is about them financially cheating, and that took a hacker to start it off.
We won't be debt free for long though, that's the point. If we want a new modern training ground, a new stadium or overhauling Old Trafford, all that is going to cost big money.
We will be clearing our current debt just to saddle it with more long term. I'd rather have an owner that will take that money on the chin and let us concentrate on the pitch.
From everything I've seen about Ratcliffe, he's a bit of a tight ass and will try to skimp where possible.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Not even a contest - Qatar all the way.
Isn't there concerns about how the Qatari's run PSG? Their fans were going crazy not long ago because of how they operated and that their owners let Leonardo get away with handling their business terribly.
To be fair I think there are concerns how both Qatari's and INEOS run their clubs.
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?
You can speak for yourself dw.
Okay, what have the glazers done, can you englighten me? I am a dumb guy, explain it, what loans they took out at what interest rate?
What kind of debt is it? What kind of debt is Jim planning on putting on us?
If you ask match going fans, they will not want extra hospitality, just go have a look at the recent changes made to the stretford end.
I mean Barca get loans because they sold of their naming rights, commercial revenues etc... are you saying we should do the same?
Nah that's just your insecurity showing again.
It's all very well listing all the problems, whilst deliberately ignoring all the benefits.
Ho ho ho
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 had to be some white text on that one.
It is a long list though:
Money, money, money, money.........nothing else.
Maybe I'm being ignorant about (Middle East) state owning our club and all the moral issues about it but with Qatar ownership we'd have club transformed in many ways. With Ineos from everything I read that wouldn't be the case. Voted Qatar though I definitely have reservations.
Mbappe?
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.
You just have to read some of the responses. It’s not hard mate.
Seriously, I wouldn't be thrilled if the only way Mbappe came was for the cash/our new-found ability to pay the cash.
Given a black and white choice as presented here, I'd prefer INEOS but if Qatar do win and get the go ahead then I voted fine, with massive reservations.
I know a lot of posters seem much more blasé or unconcerned about the negatives of the whole sorry shitshow, but I'm properly conflicted.
I would take whichever one runs the club better. I don't want us to be spending like Chelsea. I want us to live off our revenues and I want them to invest in the stadium and the facilities and prioritise on field activities.
I basically want something more akin to Citys owners than Chelseas but Chelsea have always been short term-ist.
I basically want something more akin to Citys owners than Chelseas but Chelsea have always been short term-ist.
Yep, and INEOS are perfect.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jan/20/manchester-united-fans-nice-jim-ratcliffe-psg
Does it, in your opinion, say anything about their morals?
I just want OT renovated.
It's just people expressing their stance. Obviously the two sides will have major disagreements on certain points.
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?
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.
At this moment in time I put Qatar just because I can't see Ineos having the financial capability to buy the club without it being financed by loans against the club (Like the Glazers).
If Sir Jim has the capability to buy the club cash and give a cash injection to improve the stadium / squad etc then I'd pick him but it's unlikely.
If Sir Jim has the capability to buy the club cash and give a cash injection to improve the stadium / squad etc then I'd pick him but it's unlikely.
Without getting too much into the various ethics of either ownership bid which are well discussed already but do impact my thinking my main thoughts are;
- A fear of becoming a plaything like PSG that isn’t particularly well managed - undoing all the good work ten Hag has done. It finally seems we’ve got the right manager and long may that continue.
Not sure why and may be completely irrational but in my mind I’d see an Ineos/Ratcliffe bid leading to a more sensibly run club. Imagine back a few months, Ronaldo being a cnut, can easily see the wrong owner backing Ronaldo over ten Hag and lose the manager That’s not an owner I’d want. And that’s not a Middle East vs West or anything like that, can get one with a consortium - look at Boehly and Chelsea
- The debt - this is incredibly concerning about the Ineos bid and positive about any Qatari one. It is normal for a lot of these sizeable purchases to have an element of debt but what we know or are led to believe the Ineos bid won’t clear debt, but won’t add to the debt on United. But where will it be added?
- Investment - for many that means Mbappes and Bellinghams at whatever cost. But not sure our FFP position (due to seasons of spend and poor return on players sales) allows for that so becomes a bit irrelevant to me.
But where the Qatari bid has the edge is clearly on an ability to improve Old Trafford, the training facilities. Hard to see how Ineos bid does that without impacting on playing side or without debt (however we’ll funded against naming rights etc)
Which when I balance it up like that on the whole the Qatari bid does seem the one. But I just can’t get past being a mismanaged plaything of a wealthy individual and for me personally the negative ethics surrounding a Qatari bid are something I can’t look past so I’d have to favour the Ineos bid
Not that it matters. I don’t have a day. And more importantly, there’s no way the Ineos bid can pay more than the Qatari one when it comes down to it and Glazers want themost money. In a complete sale, I don’t see anything other than a Qatari sale and see that as the most likely, followed by Glazer part sale with Ineos ownership third of the three options we currently know of.
- A fear of becoming a plaything like PSG that isn’t particularly well managed - undoing all the good work ten Hag has done. It finally seems we’ve got the right manager and long may that continue.
Not sure why and may be completely irrational but in my mind I’d see an Ineos/Ratcliffe bid leading to a more sensibly run club. Imagine back a few months, Ronaldo being a cnut, can easily see the wrong owner backing Ronaldo over ten Hag and lose the manager That’s not an owner I’d want. And that’s not a Middle East vs West or anything like that, can get one with a consortium - look at Boehly and Chelsea
- The debt - this is incredibly concerning about the Ineos bid and positive about any Qatari one. It is normal for a lot of these sizeable purchases to have an element of debt but what we know or are led to believe the Ineos bid won’t clear debt, but won’t add to the debt on United. But where will it be added?
- Investment - for many that means Mbappes and Bellinghams at whatever cost. But not sure our FFP position (due to seasons of spend and poor return on players sales) allows for that so becomes a bit irrelevant to me.
But where the Qatari bid has the edge is clearly on an ability to improve Old Trafford, the training facilities. Hard to see how Ineos bid does that without impacting on playing side or without debt (however we’ll funded against naming rights etc)
Which when I balance it up like that on the whole the Qatari bid does seem the one. But I just can’t get past being a mismanaged plaything of a wealthy individual and for me personally the negative ethics surrounding a Qatari bid are something I can’t look past so I’d have to favour the Ineos bid
Not that it matters. I don’t have a day. And more importantly, there’s no way the Ineos bid can pay more than the Qatari one when it comes down to it and Glazers want themost money. In a complete sale, I don’t see anything other than a Qatari sale and see that as the most likely, followed by Glazer part sale with Ineos ownership third of the three options we currently know of.
Liverpool and Arsenal fans would take Qatari money in a heartbeat. United just has a certain section of self-righteous fans who always seem to want to take the moral high ground and appear better than fans of other clubs. It's why Moyes and Ole were tolerated far longer than they should have been, because 'Manchester United don't sack managers' apparently.
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.
That is where we are at under the Glazers.
If you invest 500k into a shop that needs 60k upgrade, and you borrow most of that, what do you do with the profits from the shop? How do you pay the interest and pay down the debt?
Why did you buy the shop?
What??? You can’t see how a company with 60bn in revenue and 2bn profits wouldn’t be able to buy the club without loaning against a smaller 100 times smaller than the parent company?
Seeing what you want to see.
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.
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.