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 .

Levi1

Full Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
747
Location
NYC
I wonder how many would pick them if the only options were sell to Qataris or stay as is...
Hmm. Frankly, and I know I'll get stick for this, but if we could set aside valid concerns based on the past, then if existing ownership could raise enough external capital to a) pay back the debt ($800 million?), b) stop taking dividends out ($20 million annually), and c) fund OT renovations ($1 Billion?), that would remove the concerns about state-ownership and also remove the concerns about a new financially-motivated owner, such as a PE firm or Ineos. Total new capital required of about $2 Billion seems doable given the difference between how the shares are valued on the stock exchange and the bids coming in. The new capital would have to be given real shares - none of this dual class stuff any more - so they collapse the dual class share structure. Hmm just thinking about it now, doesnt seem so bad. What do you guys think? *runs for cover*
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,414
Loose definition of "held accountable", seeing all they get are slaps on the wrist
And that's a problem which is corrected at governance level. Because, as mentioned above, they are the ones with the power to imprison/fine etc.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,850
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Hmm. Frankly, and I know I'll get stick for this, but if we could set aside valid concerns based on the past, then if existing ownership could raise enough external capital to a) pay back the debt ($800 million?), b) stop taking dividends out ($20 million annually), and c) fund OT renovations ($1 Billion?), that would remove the concerns about state-ownership and also remove the concerns about a new financially-motivated owner, such as a PE firm or Ineos. Total new capital required of about $2 Billion seems doable given the difference between how the shares are valued on the stock exchange and the bids coming in. The new capital would have to be given real shares - none of this dual class stuff any more - so they collapse the dual class share structure. Hmm just thinking about it now, doesnt seem so bad. What do you guys think? *runs for cover*
Big if there... Too much bad blood for this to happen

Plus they won't fund OT renovations out of the goodness of their heart
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,437
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
If SJR dies Ineos would look to keep running the club or sell it, what good is an asset they paid a lot of money for becoming worthless no sane business would do that.



Of course there is what if the British government falls out of favour with Qatar and there are sanctions put on them like the Russia situation, I bet if you asked a Chelsea fan 5 years ago whether they were scared about Roman leaving in this way they'd have laughed it off.
If the British government falls out with Qatar then I'm afraid a football club will be the least of things you'll be worried about
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
12,843
Because those companies can and are held accountable by higher authorities. There are no higher authorities than the state.
Right, so you can be sexist as long as you pay a fine for it? You can be a fraud but its find cause you pay a fine?

It makes it right because they are "held accountable" by paying a fine.

So you would be okay with all the human rights, gay laws of ME if they pay a fine?
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,824
Location
Hollywood CA
Has Ratcliffe said that the entire bid is financed by a loan?
I don't think so, but his press statement left a lot to be desired compared to the Qatari one, especially as it didn't specifically reference debt relief, infrastructure development or the like, nor did it say anything about buying the club outright, which is why the Qatari position gained a bit of momentum - because some fans interpreted Ratcliffe's release as uninspiring.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,414
Right, so you can be sexist as long as you pay a fine for it? You can be a fraud but its find cause you pay a fine?

It makes it right because they are "held accountable" by paying a fine.

So you would be okay with all the human rights, gay laws of ME if they pay a fine?
These are all nonsense.

If a company is sexist or commits fraud in a functioning society people will be punished. That acts as a deterrent. The fact this system fails sometimes is due to a failure at regulatory level. The simple answer to that problem is that I wouldn't want the US or UK state to own Man Utd either.

There is no possibility of a deterrent for a state.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,850
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
And that's a problem which is corrected at governance level. Because, as mentioned above, they are the ones with the power to imprison/fine etc.
In theory

Really, they don't get corrected.

You could argue one is marginally worse than the other, but they seem to be adjacent in terms of "awfulness".
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,368
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.
Precisely,have said it many times IF Qatar wasn't sniffing around buying a rival club then absolutely I would vote for INEOS but will admit fear of them going elsewhere is pushing me to vote for them.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
23,040
Location
Somewhere out there
Why though?
Why do Tesco want to buy a shop and lose a load of money?
Bearing in mind Jim doesn't own 20% of all football clubs.

He isn't a charity.
Because football/sports is entertaining, a fun thing to spend your silly sums of money on, certainly more fun than taking it to the grave. Just ask Ballmer, Jack Walker or Roman.
 
Last edited:

Water Melon

Guest
I don't think so, but his press statement left a lot to be desired compared to the Qatari one, especially as it didn't specifically reference debt relief, infrastructure development or the like, nor did it say anything about buying the club outright, which is why the Qatari position gained a bit of momentum - because some fans interpreted Ratcliffe's release as uninspiring.
Spot on. And my take is that if Ratcliffe did not mention those, he won't probably do them. The whole No New Debt is worrying too.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
35,368
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.
Oh yeah I massively oppose their human rights but their plans for club are exciting
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,437
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
I don't think so, but his press statement left a lot to be desired compared to the Qatari one, especially as it didn't specifically reference debt relief, infrastructure development or the like, nor did it say anything about buying the club outright, which is why the Qatari position gained a bit of momentum - because some fans interpreted Ratcliffe's release as uninspiring.
I'm not surprised TBH, he's not trying to win a PR battle because that means nothing to the people he's trying to buy from
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,414
In theory

Really, they don't get corrected.

You could argue one is marginally worse than the other, but they seem to be adjacent in terms of "awfulness".
They don't, but again that is a problem at state level which needs to be corrected there. The problem is the system which allows it to happen.

It's also something of a fallacy to compare any company (at least, any modern company) with a country which regularly imprisons people. They are fundamentally different.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
12,843
These are all nonsense.

If a company is sexist or commits fraud in a functioning society people will be punished. That acts as a deterrent. The fact this system fails sometimes is due to a failure at regulatory level. The simple answer to that problem is that I wouldn't want the US or UK state to own Man Utd either.

There is no possibility of a deterrent for a state.

Oh okay, the company can exploit the legal loopholes from governments and be sexist and commit fraud because you think they are punished right?
 

Mainoldo

New Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
22,965
I'm not surprised TBH, he's not trying to win a PR battle because that means nothing to the people he's trying to buy from
Hes’s not winning the money one either though. So he’s not winning much expect the heart strings of being a true Manc.
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,824
Location
Hollywood CA
Oh okay, the company can exploit the legal loopholes from governments and be sexist and commit fraud because you think they are punished right?
There are legal mechanisms within the states these companies are based in to take a look at these situations. A nation state, particularly an autocratic one, doesn't have such constraints.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,414
Oh okay, the company can exploit the legal loopholes from governments and be sexist and commit fraud because you think they are punished right?
There are legal mechanisms within the states these companies are based in to take a look at these situations. A nation state, particularly an autocratic one, doesn't have such constraints.
That's me and Raoul who have explained this directly to you now.
 

troylocker

Evens winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
2,623
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.
The reports from HRW and Amnesty international are both quite clear that Qatar is a country full of violations towards human rights, the only use you made of the reports was highlighting the parts about possible inaccuracies in the numbers and rates I dropped. The rest of your post was about how discriminating laws against minorities were common many other places as well so that shouldn't be used against the Qatari and how laws against blasphemi are ok because the majority of people there are religious and wants these laws. Then you go on about how they are making changes, though very slowly, which is only natural for a country as conservative both politically and religiously as Qatar.

If that post wasn't designed to defend the regime and minimize the crimes of the Qatari royal family stated in my original post, then what was it?
Maybe you don't think the Qatari regime is as bad as I do, if so you have the right to own that opinion.

Can I ask what you voted?

I really can't stand dictatorships of any kind. It's cancer to development, progress and freedom.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,437
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
More a case of possibly than obviously. City haven't been found guilty of anything yet, and even if they are the punishment could just be a fine they would pay. I hope it's more than that but nothing would surprise me.
You can also argue that they'll be scrutinized even more because of City, what City appear to have done is falsify their accounts to make it appear they had more income than they had legitimately, United don't need to do that because they already have the income legitimately
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
12,843
There are legal mechanisms within the states these companies are based in to take a look at these situations. A nation state, particularly an autocratic one, doesn't have such constraints.
That's me and Raoul who have explained this directly to you now.

Okay. Aren't City being looked into for financial doping? If they are owned by a state that has no laws, why are they being investigated? Surely they can be like we are our own law, we do what we want, we dont care?
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,437
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Hes’s not winning the money one either though. So he’s not winning much expect the heart strings of being a true Manc.
Maybe he is and maybe he isn't - all that's happened so far are opening bids, there's no done deals with anyone
 

Mainoldo

New Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
22,965
Maybe he is and maybe he isn't - all that's happened so far are opening bids, there's no done deals with anyone
True true. I for one hope it’s sorted quick. I don’t like the sound of the Elliot group.
 

BuzzKillington

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2021
Messages
1,600
Location
Greater Manchester
Hmm. Frankly, and I know I'll get stick for this, but if we could set aside valid concerns based on the past, then if existing ownership could raise enough external capital to a) pay back the debt ($800 million?), b) stop taking dividends out ($20 million annually), and c) fund OT renovations ($1 Billion?), that would remove the concerns about state-ownership and also remove the concerns about a new financially-motivated owner, such as a PE firm or Ineos. Total new capital required of about $2 Billion seems doable given the difference between how the shares are valued on the stock exchange and the bids coming in. The new capital would have to be given real shares - none of this dual class stuff any more - so they collapse the dual class share structure. Hmm just thinking about it now, doesnt seem so bad. What do you guys think? *runs for cover*
I think if they floated a much larger portion of the club on the stock market and went for the 1 class of shares they’d leave themselves open to a hostile takeover like they themselves did. We’d probably end up with Qatar or something even worse like Brunei in the long run anyway.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,414
Okay. Aren't City being looked into for financial doping? If they are owned by a state that has no laws, why are they being investigated? Surely they can be like we are our own law, we do what we want, we dont care?
Firstly, one look at the City CAS case should make it obvious how being a state asset makes it very easy to avoid legal scrutiny.

Secondly, City are a state asset operating in a foreign country. The PL can challenge City's owners book keeping in this country, it cannot hold it accountable for actions against it's own people in the UAE.

I am genuinely surprised I have to explain this to you.
 

711

Amadinho is the goat
Scout
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
24,400
Location
Don't sign old players and cast offs
You can also argue that they'll be scrutinized even more because of City, what City appear to have done is falsify their accounts to make it appear they had more income than they had legitimately, United don't need to do that because they already have the income legitimately
We do. And if Qatar meant no debt repayments, plus increased income from a regenerated stadium and legitimate sponsorship then we would be more than competitive with anyone, and within the rules.
 

Tiber

Full Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2014
Messages
10,308
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
Not certain that applies when you are talking about an investment of this nature from the Middle East.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
10,437
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Okay. Aren't City being looked into for financial doping? If they are owned by a state that has no laws, why are they being investigated? Surely they can be like we are our own law, we do what we want, we dont care?
At present City are being investigated by the PL to determine if they have broken PL rules, they are not (yet) being investigated for breaking the law, City maybe found guilty of breaching PL rules but not the actual law of the land
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
130,824
Location
Hollywood CA
Hmm. Frankly, and I know I'll get stick for this, but if we could set aside valid concerns based on the past, then if existing ownership could raise enough external capital to a) pay back the debt ($800 million?), b) stop taking dividends out ($20 million annually), and c) fund OT renovations ($1 Billion?), that would remove the concerns about state-ownership and also remove the concerns about a new financially-motivated owner, such as a PE firm or Ineos. Total new capital required of about $2 Billion seems doable given the difference between how the shares are valued on the stock exchange and the bids coming in. The new capital would have to be given real shares - none of this dual class stuff any more - so they collapse the dual class share structure. Hmm just thinking about it now, doesnt seem so bad. What do you guys think? *runs for cover*
Although what you describe could potentially work, most fans have long divorced themselves from the Glazers, which would make it double hard to convince the fanbase that they have a valid plan in place to address each of the above concerns. It would make it even more difficult when some small island country in the middle east is dangling a carrot of buying the club outright and throwing endless funds into transfers and infrastructure.