I don't accept that. That's the difference between your opinion and mine.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Miguel Delaney writing a ‘travesty’ article on United getting bought by Qatar again…you know whilst getting paid by the part owned Saudi paper The Independent…you just can’t make it up
Anybody but Qatar buying United and we’ll be in the same boat as now or worse. The off the pitch stuff is concerning but if we’re talking about the club being successful there’s no other bid that should even be considered
Qatar by a country mile for me
Anybody but Qatar buying United and we’ll be in the same boat as now or worse. The off the pitch stuff is concerning but if we’re talking about the club being successful there’s no other bid that should even be considered
Qatar by a country mile for me
But there are some areas in life in which it's easier to make a stand than others. Or are you saying that if you can't make a stand on absolutely everything, you shouldn't make a stand on anything?
Well, he is not actively supporting or cheering for his newspaper so all the morals are not applying in this situation. Or so we were told by some people in this thread.
If only he would resign with the same disgust he has for United being owned by Qatar
Just on top of my head:
- Facilitating the biggest Ponzi scheme in history (Madoff) by letting him run it for decades through their accounts and pretend no employee knew
- Facilitating Epstein's sex trafficking on his private island by apparently letting him use accounts at the bank to pay off those involved. I say allegedly because they were sued by the local DA that mysteriously lost her job after the lawsuit emerged
- Admittng to market manipulations several times (more recently in the energy, currency and metal sector)
- Involvement in financial crisis, which ironically landed them government bailout money
Add to that to tens of times they had to settle on other issues including racial and sexual discrimination. Funding slavery trade is just the cherry on the cake. Despite frauding everyone and their dog for years no key personnel gets held accountable. Both the CEO of JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs have overseen several lawsuits (the latter even paying a huge fine for their direct contribution to the 2008 Financial Crisis) and paid billions of fines yet the companies can continue with their modus operandi.
Last edited:
The Thani bid is fronted as being a bid by a businessman not by Qatar so isn't it fair we treat the bid as such? Does Thani abuse women? Kill workers who build stadiums and abuse human rights?
It's all well and good stating as fact that it's Qatar but simply put nobody knows, regardless of their thoughts on this.
It's all well and good stating as fact that it's Qatar but simply put nobody knows, regardless of their thoughts on this.
I have to take your word for it. I don't have any personal experience from being in Qatar, so couldn't comment on that. Just that Qatar aims to emulate Dubai by all accounts and general safety is perhaps the biggest perk in Dubai. The irony is that all of those wrong people seem to behave (other than flash the result of their ill-gotten gains), probably because they don't want to risk losing their safety from prosecution, but of course a bunch of people with their mindsets it could kick off at some point.
In which case I'll leave you to believe that. For me though that would be naïve and exhausting to ensure everything I did was pure.
Not everything is black and white and sometimes you have to pick your battles on where you want to make a stand I agree. For me the fans have no actual say in who buys the club, only the Glazers do. So taking a stand here would be meaningless, past the club losing your support if you did walk away should the Qatari's takeover. That isn't going to be a big enough factor for them to pull out though in reality.
At the end of the day it's a sports team that I've supported all my life, and if they are run in the way I've stated in other posts by Qatari ownership then I can happily live with that and still support the team. If like I also said the club itself was being run immorally it's a completely different story, but no one is expecting that to happen. If people would walk away on moral grounds when the club is being run well and funded properly it's their choice, but for me that isn't a point of view that is grounded in the reality of modern society and who owns what.
I didn’t clarify anything? Intense!
Ratcliffe might have connections with ME and he might be just as bad as the people from Qatar who have bid for United but he isn't a state with unlimited money and he doesn't control religious laws which allow people to be stoned to death, which allow LGBTQ to be treated worse than animals, etc.
It seems this thread is very serious business.
Don’t joke.
If it was a genuinely private bidder then I would support this bid but I just don't buy it for a second, how is the chairman of a bank with revenues of $2bn making so much that he can make a $4.5bn offer with more money to clear the debts and invest in the infrastructure with no strings attached? If they're not being honest about where the money is coming from (and I don't believe they are being honest) then how can we trust that we won't end up in the same trouble for circumventing the rules that City are potentially in?
City is better run I agree but they bought success using their sugar daddy's money, PSG is a circus where the players have more power than the manager and they also bought success.
This is the thing, our thoughts and beliefs mean little as we just don't know.
I don't see us falling foul like City because FFP doesn't control infrastructure spend etc only transfer and we as a club generate more than enough without owners input.
There's no smoke without fire, but I agree that the links to terrorism might not be true, would you take the risk of being linked with people who have links to terrorism or would you avoid taking such a risk because you aren't completely sure about the links to terrorists?
Erm I didn;t say they have been producing, I am saying they are getting to that point.
There are 2 things here. 1. Academy in producing talent and 2. Pathway.
I fully agree and I am proud of United in that, I love the pathway for players coming through at United. But even then, Apart from Rashford, there is no one who has been a regular.
Diallo does not count as we bought him for a fee that could get up to 30m, he is not a United academy product.
Sancho, is a City product, they playing in the PL.
They have had players like Brahim Diaz, Eric Garcia.
Liam Delap is on loan in the championship, Cole Palmer is a decent player.
Clearly you have no idea which is why you are asking if a City player can play PL level but... Iheanacho, Harrison, Ellis Simms, Gavin Baznu, Edozie, Lavia.
They also have Rico Lewis breaking through who is their Garnacho
United have had a history of top quality youth, City started 10 years ago and are producing more PL level quality than we are.
Who are the PL level quality United youth from our academy in the last 5 years?
City isn't better run, as evidently shown by having to be dodgy AF to get there.
None of what they have "achieved" is legitimate.
Indeed. And it’s that period where the tradition, heritage and culture associated with the club principally stems from. It’s that period which made Manchester United the household name that it is.
And now so many are willing (gleeful even) to have that name associated with state ownership. Incredible stuff!
Can you post article of any lgbt being stoned to death in Qatar ?
Yeah, there are many bad things about Qatari without needing to make things up.
There is one single person who was executed there in the last 20 years. Although apparently, there are 21 people currently sentenced to death, 20 of them for homicides, and 1 for drug traficking, so as far as I am aware, no LGBTQ+ has been sentenced to death, let alone stoned to death.
This idea of beheading gays in stadiums or stoning them to death, is in simple terms, completely false.
Good to see the "stay on topic" and "keep it civil and constructive" requests have worked well. Quite difficult to actually discuss the takeover here
Clearly they're better run in the sense that they used the same amount of money as United did to struggle to top four to build a dynasty instead.
The source of the money is irrelevant for how well the football operation is structured. PSG and Chelsea have money but they don't come close to how well City have been run.
Legitimate or not is a different argument entirely.
They settle for kidnapping and torture.
I'm tired Robbie
The business man in question is named Al Thani (the same name as the Royal family of Qatar)
Said business man apparently has a worth of 1.2bn dollars too. That's about a 5th of what the Glazers are asking for and that's assuming he would be willing to put in every single last penny he has in the world too.
Please do some research.
There is one thing saying the countries laws and human rights are outdated and there is another thing making things up.
I dont know why people love making things up.
In respects to LGBTQ+, I might be be wrong but werent gay marriages only just legalised in UK in 2014? I am pretty certain you will see an improvement in this in ME in the coming years.
Why is it that we cannot allow countries to grow and change? Why do we need to supress them?
Alot of countries have their own laws and beliefs, why do people in the West think their way is the right way all the time?
There are several thousand Al Thanis in Qatar so name alone doesn't mean much. Due to lack of financial transparency it's not easy to measure Al Thani members' net worth so reports of that is probably misleading. That being said, the State will probably take over the club eventually.
My friend, I am British. I am western so it’s no surprise that I hold western values and judge against them. It has nothing to do with being ignorant, and everything to do with my upbringing and life to this point but thanks all the same for the insult.
The reason I referred to ‘Islamic leadership’ is because they are. It’s a fact. Islam is the official religion of Qatar, practised by 65% of the population, and much of the country’s laws are based on sharia law although admittedly civil law is increasingly introduced in the country. I didn’t assert whether I feel that is good, bad or indifferent, just a fact. The fact that our own UK government does not practise sharia law, and that Islam is not the main religion of the UK is a fundamental difference which makes the too non comparable. One is a semi-constitutional hereditary monarchy, the other a parliamentary democracy. Again, very different leadership models.
Also a major difference in this discussion is the UK state isn’t bidding for Manchester United, whereas the Qatari state is!
In my career I have worked with and made friendships with Indians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Kashmiris, and Syrians to name just a few, a mix of Christian, Hindu and Muslim folk and have had no problems relating to religion or race with any of them so the inference that I am somehow Islamophobic is not accurate or welcome.
My uneasiness about the Qatar bid is varied, not simply some moral grandstand. I don’t like the idea of state ownership full stop - it is an unfair advantage that other clubs cannot match. I would be unhappy about it whatever the state involved. I think it devalues the competition and cheapens any victories we might get. There is also a question of hypocrisy- having spent years mocking and deriding City and PSG - and to a lesser extent Chelsea for their financial doping I find it hard to forget all that and welcome the same for United. It’s just my opinion, I share it with the discussion but at no point have I forced it on anyone.
What I do object to is the false glorification of the Qatari bid as the only one that has any value to the club and no downsides, or the inaccurate demonisation of Ratcliffe and his bid for the club.
This thread has been a good indicator of where people's priorities lie and also a good indicator of why we're so fecked as a society.
"Yeah, sure, they killed a few (thousand) guys, use slave labour, abuse the LGBT community, abuse women and abuse the environment but none of that matters because I want my football team to be the richest football team."
"Yeah, sure, they killed a few (thousand) guys, use slave labour, abuse the LGBT community, abuse women and abuse the environment but none of that matters because I want my football team to be the richest football team."
That’s a ridiculous statement and even more narrow minded then the people that are saying it.
this is gonna suck
Literally nobody said that. Hilarious when people invent some nonsense in their heads and then get angry about it
His daddy is apparently the richest man in Qatar and the right hand man for the previous Emir. Its fair to assume that whatever money he is worth, he's going to be able to afford to spend a lot more when he borrows against his inheritance.
How are they being suppressed? Middle Eastern states already own City, Newcastle and PSG while Qatar just hosted the World Cup. You also ignore that they if they make these improvements you're talking about then they would never buy United, the reason they can do it is because they're an undemocratic state where the royals can do as they like including spending money that could be used to pay migrant workers, improve their working conditions or make general developments to the state on buying a football team on another continent.
Being gay in Qatar is currently a criminal offence, that changed in the UK 56 years ago (plus nobody on here wants the UK government or royal family to buy us) so the idea that attitudes will change dramatically in the coming years is optimistic. Do you think imprisoning people for being gay is "the right way"? I want Qatar to develop while retaining some of their own values but states generally shouldn't be buying football clubs and a club as historic and as big as United shouldn't be desperate to become a political tool.
Why? What exactly do you think is going to happen if Sheikh Jassim takes over?
I have no idea what your first paragraph of waffle has to do with the logic (or lack thereof) of prefering relegation and bankrupty on the club. Although I do agree that a club is more than winning and trophies, in fact what MUFC represents goes far beyond any owner which is why I find such extreme reaction to any possible owner utterly bizzare.
It's not like the current US owners are some kind of bastions of the heritage of Manchester United - Malcolm Glazer never once visited Manchester in his whole life, yet you think they are preferable?
Well said.
I am fine with Qatar or other bidders besides hedge fund based bids. Need Glazers/leverage gone is my priority.
I do find it comical that 'gender issues' at JP Morgan, etc.. are being compared to the treatment of LGBQT community and women in Qatar as a positive for a Qatari purchase of United.
I do find it comical that 'gender issues' at JP Morgan, etc.. are being compared to the treatment of LGBQT community and women in Qatar as a positive for a Qatari purchase of United.
Obama entered office opposed to gay marriage. Funny enough, the first US president to take office who was pro gay marriage was Trump. Times change.
who said that exactly?
- Status