I don't care if he's a boyhood fan. It means absolutely nothing when it comes to running the club. It could even be a hindrance if it makes them get overly involved.
My concern is that he is only buying a controlling stake and doesn't appear to have massive investment funds available. He's smalltime compared to big rich club owners.
The reason this concerns me is that, when combined with the fact that he looks at the club as an investment (hence INEOS, who won't invest without a return on their funds), that means dividends, which means money going out of the club. If he wasn't bringing outsiders in to be able to afford his bid, I'd be backing him as it would imply he's able to afford to not take money out of the club.
I would prefer the Qatari contingent because they have something to prove, they want to compete with UAE/City, it becomes an investment battle because they won't want to lose to them and finances become less of an issue. That means likely not taking out more than they put in.
Yes, there are moral concerns, but I look at Qatar as a nation that will want good PR and that means if they own our club, the owner will have to ensure they stay on the straight and narrow and also start improving their tolerances, which is a positive thing for Qatar's human rights. Pressure to have a good international image is something ownership of our club would increase.
Also, as I've said before, there is no such thing as a moral billionaire. If Ratcliffe was Qatari instead of British you bet your arse he'd play to the morals the laws there allow him to.