Club Sale | It’s done!

[RedDevil@84]

This is such a stupid post. You’ve answered your own question with your last point, nobody is unaware of how shady governments can be, the criticism is specifically being levied at the Qatari’s though as they’re the ones currently attempting to purchase the club.

I think you haven't undertood the point. His point is that UK/US are already ok with what the likes of Qatar and Saudis do. UK supplies arms to Saudis and US does the same to Saudis and Qatar. So it is unlikely that the countries will go on the offensive against Qatar.
Russia was easy because Putin was fighting with everyone already. So the Chelsea comparison is moot.

Edit: I was just explaining the point by the way. I don't have any strong idea on what the future might bring in UK-Qatari relations.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

It’s apples and oranges and it’s a ridiculous comparison to make.

Dodging the questions confirms it thank you.

 

[mu4c_20le]

You don't even understand the point I'm making and you have the audacity to call me stupid. GFY.

It was basic level whataboutism, and hate to break it to you, but this type of reply simply won't hold up in a court of law.

 

[Redfan94]

You don't even understand the point I'm making and you have the audacity to call me stupid. GFY.

I said the post was stupid, not you.

Your reading comprehension is about as useful as your defence of the Qatari bid.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

It was basic level whataboutism, and hate to break it to you, but this type of reply simply won't hold up in a court of law.

Pointing out the hypocrisy in sanctimonious selective outrage is not whataboutism.

 

[Conor]

Where was the massive outrage when Qataris bought the
Shard, Canary Wharf and the Shell Centre redevelopment on London's South Bank? No I thought so!!

Who gives a flying feck about any of those things on this forum? I thought so!!

 

[UDontMessWith24]

I said the post was stupid, not you.

Your reading comprehension is about as useful as your defence of the Qatari bid.

If you've read my posts and drew the conclusion that I'm defending anything, you should not even say the words reading comprehension.

 

[Tarrou]

Quality? He lost me at the point where he said QIB was predominately owned by the state. There is zero evidence that is true, it's appalling work

I thought QIA was a major shareholder?

 

[Redfan94]

I think you haven't undertood the point. His point is that UK/US are already ok with what the likes of Qatar and Saudis do. UK supplies arms to Saudis and US does the same to Saudis and Qatar. So it is unlikely that the countries will go on the offensive against Qatar.
Russia was easy because Putin was fighting with everyone already. So the Chelsea comparison is moot.

Edit: I was just explaining the point by the way. I don't have any strong idea on what the future might bring in UK-Qatari relations.

‘Why are you only aware of corruption as it pertains to Qataris owning United?’

The last line of his post seems to be framing it in a way that he’s asking “Your government does XY & Z so why are you criticising Qatar”, no?

 

[JagUTD]

I think if the UK Government, Royal Family, US Government or the known financiers of the many wars waged by these nations were looking to buy United, opposition would be almost universal.

If companies like Lockheed were looking to buy United, again, opposition would be strong.

If Hunter Biden, who we can assume doesn't have the required funds, suddenly claimed he did and then tried to buy United, opposition would be universal. Same with Prince Harry or anyone else you might want to name

It's not difficult to understand why and with that in mind, it's quite easy to see why many of us are against Qatar and those closely linked to the State buying United. Why this keeps being used as a "gotcha" is laughable. Please stop.

Business people from these nations, or any other who may have some links to government are not the same. At a certain level you become so big, so influential that it's inevitable you will have links with your own and many other governments. It does not mean you have any input on policy, make or change any laws or have the power to enforce anything. And if this was clearly the case with the Qatari individual, people might be more inclined to support such a bid.

It's not though.

So please stop the comparisons. If and when the UK or US make bids, then we can have this discussion. And I for one will be on your side. Until then, we are comparing a shady clandestine bid from the State of Qatar with a bit of a dodgy business man named Jim. They're not the same.

 

[Rado_N]

Dodging the questions confirms it thank you.

You think you’re being clever but the basic point remains that the comparison you’re attempting to draw is stupid.

The UK and US governments are riddled with cnuts and have pretty shite records on several levels, no arguments there. But to try and suggest that criticism of Qatar makes people hypocrites is ridiculous for a number of reasons, the main one being that Qatar is the only one trying to buy United and therefore directly associating themselves to the club.

As I said to you initially, when the US or UK governments try to buy the club you’ll have a point, but until then you don’t and telling people to go feck themselves isn’t great either for what it’s worth.

 

[Redfan94]

Pointing out the hypocrisy in sanctimonious selective outrage is not whataboutism.

It’s not selective outrage when it pertains to a specific set of circumstances, I.E Manchester United being bought by a brutal autocracy.

 

[Member 101269]

I thought QIA was a major shareholder?

I'm sure you're aware of the difference between predominate and major... 16%

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Who gives a flying feck about any of those things on this forum? I thought so!!

Nobody is saying you shouldn't be outrage if that's how you feel, but there posters in this thread that are postulating some kind of moral superiority to those who will continue to support United under Qatari ownership, which is why they are being called out on their selective outrage.

 

[Tarrou]

I'm sure you're aware of the difference between predominate and major... 16%

okay so you don’t count 16% as state ownership?

 

[Redfan94]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't be outrage if that's how you feel, but there posters in this thread that are postulating some kind of moral superiority to those who will continue to support United under Qatari ownership, which is why they are being called out on their selective outrage.

Nobodies criticised anyone for continuing to support United, I myself will continue to support United.

I’m not going to roll over and pretend that Jim Ratcliffe and Ineos wouldn’t be a morally better option to buy the club though, nor am I willing to overlook the backward politics of the state of Qatar, because they’ve promised unlimited funds.

 

[Cassidy]

okay so you don’t count 16% as state ownership?

16% != predominate ownership

 

[red thru&thru]

So please stop the comparisons. If and when the UK or US make bids, then we can have this discussion. And I for one will be on your side. Until then, we are comparing a shady clandestine bid from the State of Qatar with a bit of a dodgy business man named Jim. They're not the same.

You're absolutely correct, people need to stop these comparisons. It is not comparable.

However, I'm sure people will also like those oppose to the Qatar bid, to then be oppose to ALL things Qatar. Anything that Qatar invests in, people should not purchase. Whether that be gas, visit to Sainsbury's, etc, etc.

 

[Shez]

The way Xavi has been banging on about us it certainly sounds like if Barca doesn’t work out he’d quite fancy the job

Not bald. Do not want

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

I wish I could find it now, but there was a tweet posted quoting a football finance specialist who stated the proposals would be poured over and presented to the Glazers before any decision was made.

I thought that was this week, in that they weed out the weaker bids, and have 2-3 preferred bids for the Glazers to choose from. Then sadly it's up those scumbags to decide the clubs fate.

Perhaps a tad optimistic, but I'd personally expect to hear alot more about which way it's going by the weekend.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

It’s not selective outrage when it pertains to a specific set of circumstances, I.E Manchester United being bought by a brutal autocracy.

It is when other posters are claiming a moral high ground over those that, without condoning the violation of human rights, are of the stance that it's out of our hands and will continue to support the club. If you say you'll never watch United under Qatari ownership that's your decision and nobody can tell you you're wrong, but it works the same the other way. Someone claiming moral superiority over those that would continue to support United is either ignorant or a hypocrite because they live their life in the intertwinement between oil states and the West. In both GB and the US, people VOTED for borderline war criminals with no problem at all. FFS Obama won a Nobel peace prize a decade after he signed off on a drone campaign that killed countless civilians. You can't condone one and not the other, and claim a moral high ground.

 

[Tarrou]

I'm sure you're aware of the difference between predominate and major... 16%

ah I see what you mean, I misread your first post

They are the biggest shareholder though at 16% right?

 

[saivet]

Xavi has approved of him, so all good

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Gee Male]

Nobody is saying you shouldn't be outrage if that's how you feel, but there posters in this thread that are postulating some kind of moral superiority to those who will continue to support United under Qatari ownership, which is why they are being called out on their selective outrage.

Selective outrage? In fairness, I haven't supported The Shard since it went into Qatari ownership either.

Your stupid point is stupid.

Same shit being regurgitated over and over again here. This is a depressing time for the club just as it looked as though we were making progress on the field and off. The whole thing is just sad.

 

[RedDevil@84]

I think if the UK Government, Royal Family, US Government or the known financiers of the many wars waged by these nations were looking to buy United, opposition would be almost universal.

If companies like Lockheed were looking to buy United, again, opposition would be strong.

If Hunter Biden, who we can assume doesn't have the required funds, suddenly claimed he did and then tried to buy United, opposition would be universal. Same with Prince Harry or anyone else you might want to name

It's not difficult to understand why and with that in mind, it's quite easy to see why many of us are against Qatar and those closely linked to the State buying United. Why this keeps being used as a "gotcha" is laughable. Please stop.

Business people from these nations, or any other who may have some links to government are not the same. At a certain level you become so big, so influential that it's inevitable you will have links with your own and many other governments. It does not mean you have any input on policy, make or change any laws or have the power to enforce anything. And if this was clearly the case with the Qatari individual, people might be more inclined to support such a bid.

It's not though.

So please stop the comparisons. If and when the UK or US make bids, then we can have this discussion. And I for one will be on your side. Until then, we are comparing a shady clandestine bid from the State of Qatar with a bit of a dodgy business man named Jim. They're not the same.

There is another angle to it.
Qatar state and investment authority already invests in multiple businesses around the world. Many people use the products and businesses on a regular basis. Many govts., including the UK and US facilitate these businesses and welcome the money. So for people like me, this is just another business investment they are in. So if the Qatari deal is the better deal than Jim, in terms of investments and debts, then Qatar it is for me.

Blocking only the United deal on moral reasons, while other investments are ok, sounds a bit hypocritical for me. But I do understand if others don't feel the same.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Nobodies criticised anyone for continuing to support United, I myself will continue to support United.

I’m not going to roll over and pretend that Jim Ratcliffe and Ineos wouldn’t be a morally better option to buy the club though, nor am I willing to overlook the backward politics of the state of Qatar, because they’ve promised unlimited funds.

That has been going on in this thread, although most share a more balanced view such as yours.

 

[red thru&thru]

There is another angle to it.
Qatar state and investment authority already invests in multiple businesses around the world. Many people use the products and businesses on a regular basis. Many govts., including the UK and US facilitate these businesses and welcome the money. So for people like me, this is just another business investment they are in. So if the Qatari deal is the better deal than Jim, in terms of investments and debts, then Qatar it is for me.

Blocking only the United deal on moral reasons, while other investments are ok, sounds a bit hypocritical for me. But I do understand if others don't feel the same.

This.

 

[RORY65]

16% != predominate ownership

The Cambridge dictionary defines predominate as meaning "to be the largest in number or the most important". Are the main shareholders in QBI not therefore the predominant shareholders?

 

[Redfan94]

It is when other posters are claiming a moral high ground over those that, without condoning the violation of human rights, are of the stance that it's out of our hands and will continue to support the club. If you say you'll never watch United under Qatari ownership that's your decision and nobody can tell you you're wrong, but it works the same the other way. Someone claiming moral superiority over those that would continue to support United is either ignorant or a hypocrite because they live their life in the intertwinement between oil states and the West. In both GB and the US, people VOTED for borderline war criminals with no problem at all. FFS Obama won a Nobel peace prize a decade after he signed off on a drone campaign that killed countless civilians. You can't condone one and not the other, and claim a moral high ground.

And you know the position of everyone that you’ve replied to’s political alignment, to yourself take a moral high ground, yeah?

 

[Kinsella]

Who gives a flying feck about any of those things on this forum? I thought so!!

I’m still seething about Mohamed Al-Fayed buying Harrod’s tbf.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Selective outrage? In fairness, I haven't supported The Shard since it went into Qatari ownership either.

Your stupid point is stupid.

Same shit being regurgitated over and over again here. This is a depressing time for the club just as it looked as though we were making progress on the field and off. The whole thing is just sad.

So you should be rather alarmed that you don't get it Maybe read up on the history of the Middle East. There is material out there for all levels of readers in case you were concerned,

 

[UDontMessWith24]

And you know the position of everyone that you’ve replied to’s political alignment, to yourself take a moral high ground, yeah?

I'm not taking a moral high ground I'm simply pointing out the imaginary ones.

 

[mu4c_20le]

That has been going on in this thread, although most share a more balanced view such as yours.

I see more people being hounded for supposedly taking a moral high ground by simply listing their reasons why they oppose a Qatar bid.

 

[Chief123]

Stock price is already down another 3% this morning in the first 30 minutes of trading.

From a technical analysis of the trading price, what I would caveat it with is the fact the price is at a major resistance zone as it is revisiting the all time high price on the chart. This is a natural area for traders to sell off.

 

[Plant0x84]

Quality? He lost me at the point where he said QIB was predominately owned by the state. There is zero evidence that is true, it's appalling work

QIA is the largest share holder in QIB. I think it’s about 17%. Slightly gobblefunked the language but it’s a perfectly cromulent claim. It’s would be ridiculous and extremely naive to assert that the state doesn’t have a controlling hand in QIB.

 

[Member 101269]

The Cambridge dictionary defines predominate as meaning "to be the largest in number or the most important". Are the main shareholders in QBI not therefore the predominant shareholders?

Predominately: Most or mainly.

I'm not sure why you're applying a definition from the field of language.

 

[stevoc]

SJR 2-3b? still regurgitating the positive spin? 18b euro turnover the rest lose is pointless. one year over 2b surplus.. usual 0.6b -1.5b surplus. how on earth you get 3b is a joke


plus qatar has loads of gas, i'm pretty sure they have the third large

Positive spin? When I said he can't afford to buy United without borrowing. Did you actually read my post?

I don't know what Ineos make every year. They were rough estimates based on what I've seen which obviously varies. £1b £2b £3b who cares, it's largely irrelevant to my point.

 

[Loon]

I thought that was this week, in that they weed out the weaker bids, and have 2-3 preferred bids for the Glazers to choose from. Then sadly it's up those scumbags to decide the clubs fate.

Perhaps a tad optimistic, but I'd personally expect to hear alot more about which way it's going by the weekend.

I know they're gobshites and will likely take the biggest offer going (if they go), but I think they'll take a bit longer than a week over a multi-Billion pound deal I would have thought.

 

[BarstoolProphet]

I see more people being hounded for supposedly taking a moral high ground by simply listing their reasons why they oppose a Qatar bid.

Examples?

 

[RORY65]

Predominately: Most or mainly.

I'm not sure why you're applying a definition from the field of language.

They have the most shares of any shareholder. The issue you've pointed out with a half hour video is the interpretation of a word that they've used perfectly validly and you're questioning why I'm applying a definition from the field of language?.