You have issues. Get help!
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
It's great to see in order to save the planet, you've reduced your sportswashing to just 4 minutes.
Some newbie accused another poster of being a Glaston regen and said poster did a terrible job of denying it.
Jassim, also known as @Berbaclass has assured us all that this will be done by 4pm next Tuesday and Mbappe will be unveiled as the new CEO, manager and the ball playing goalkeeper we so desperately need.
So we have a bald @Partridge as well as a bald @Mr Pigeon ? What is it with the birds round here? Bird flu? Mange?
I had a good chuckle about it. His "sources" and then the reactions to his WUM. Better than these repeating discussions.You have issues. Get help!
Not sure about most but theres a sizeable support base wanting "all or nothing" which is a sly way of being Glazer in
The same Emir that has been reigning for 10 years and there's still an authoritarian regime?
If he really wanted to change his country's ways, why would he need to acquire a football club to do that?
Finally someone gets it right. United owned by a nation state means United’s credibility will forever be attached to the nation state’s political practices. That is simply not a road any respectable club should go down to win a few trophies, nevermind one of the crown jewels of world football.
The Qataris know exactly what they’re doing by attempting to buy United then leverage its global brand to promote the political interests of their rulers. The football will be a distant 2nd priority.
Last edited:
So our transfer priority for the summer would still be to get a striker ?
Doubt it
In the scenario mentioned he's essentially borrowing funds from the Glazers by deferring the purchase of some of their stock in return for a payout [likely in the form of dividends and significant perks] from the clubs assets. If it costs the club x a year to keep the glazers on, it's effectively servicing a debt that would not exist had he purchased their stock.
The only time it wouldn't be, is if they would stay on as shareholders with no preconditions or financial attachments, which they'd be absolutely bonkers to do as there's no guarantee they'll ever get such a premium again.
He's the Emir. He can do away with their archaic laws pretty easily if he wants. They doubled down on it during the World Cup. I'm sorry, but when you want to look past their abuses and say, "I prefer to think positive and that he really wants to change", then their sportswashing is working, and you come across as willfully ignoring the facts for the sake of your team.*
But as far as being a tool of their foreign policy, it's about soft power, which aims to use positive things and attraction (such as a football team) in order to exert influence (basically the international relations equivalent of catching more flies with honey than with shit). But then you become inextricably linked to everything that they do as a state. That's why I have a problem with ANY state ownership, not just Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.
*The same as I said about Qatar's human rights abuses in the first paragraph should also apply to Ineos' environmental abuses. Neither sportswashing nor greenwashing is good. If someone says, "I prefer to think positive, and think that Ineos really want to flip their business model and do everything they can to save the planet", then they are being greenwashed, and ignoring the facts for the sake of the team. The state ownership is what tips the scales, as to which evil I feel is lesser. Either way, I would love nothing more than for United fans to use their voice to bring attention to the abuses of whoever the new owner is, and call on them to change. We have built an incredible protest culture at the club, and I would love for it to be put to good use after the Glazers no longer have control of the club.
This is right, and it's also why I reject the notion that the soullessness of present-day Manchester City "just wouldn't happen at United".
If the Qataris were to get into a conflict with a neighboring nation, United’s name would be dragged through the mud along the way.
To answer this rhetorical question I need a couple of hours friendly discussion with you in a cozy Starbuck cafe. I pay if it’s ok for you? It takes time and understanding to even understand where we should start.The same Emir that has been reigning for 10 years and there's still an authoritarian regime?
If he really wanted to change his country's ways, why would he need to acquire a football club to do that?
Why do immigrants who come to a new country take their old countries bad and sometimes crime related customs with them? Why do some of them (not all) still prefer to follow old religious unwritten rules instead of obey new modern laws? Why do we still see honor related crimes from young people born in the western world but still following old times cruel traditions?
Changes take more then time.
Alright. Cheers. Still think that's a stretch and the scenario where Joel and Avram stay on is more of a futures situation whereby they remain as shareholders to be bought out for a guaranteed price at a later date. I guess we'll see if that bid ends up as the winning one.
Yeah I mean, that's obvious. Do you think anyone believes the US or UK govts really care. It's also a point that's been made a 1000 times around discussions such as these and the world cup debate.
But again, it's very little to do with who Manchester United fans might want to own their club.
Why when thinking about who I want to own my football club must I consider who a tory government would do business with?
There's no other area of life where my decision making is influenced by "well if Rishi Sunak does it why shouldn't I?"
I don't think it's as big as a risk to the Glazers as is being made out. The entire basis of Joel and Avram wanting to stay is their belief the clubs value will continue to rise. I would expect if they accept Ratcliffes alternative offer, they'll do so with a guaranteed minimum price around the same as what they would receive if they sold alongside the other 4.
That way it's basically risk free for them. If the clubs value doesn't change, or even drops, which is unlikely, then they get paid. But if the value rises, then they get paid and some.
The chances of them taking this offer without a guaranteed price is zero. It wouldn't make sense.
No. Obviously I meant the vast majority of United fans who don’t want Qatar, not the vast majority of the UK.
It’s fairly obvious that western countries got to where they are today off the back of bad practices and it took a long time to agree to implement standardised ways of working that are fairer. Countries like Qatar really shouldn’t have as much trouble using their vast wealth to make sure this happens quickly to conforms with these practices. Can’t you see that Qatar paying migrant workers peanuts, then spending £5 billion on a football club is pretty disgusting?
This is way off topic but the Chinese government also has a responsibility to make sure workers aren’t working in poor conditions or being paid a fair wage. People talk about companies such as Nike or Adidas, but those workers aren’t direct employees of Nike or Adidas. Western countries do have supply chain laws, but China could easily demand companies pay fairer wages in their country. The greed of the west and the greed of countries like China are equally to blame in these situations.
I'm not sure if we have witnessed any visible impact from the protests in recent years though. It should yield concrete results before we can call it an incredible protest culture.
And potentially worse. We saw with Chelsea how quickly a shift in the geopolitical situation can impact a club if the owner is at all tied to a state.
No tweets no party
I don't think it's the same situation, Russia has been at odds with the West for a long, long time. Qatar is on considerably more favourable terms with us than Russia ever were. I can't imagine it being any more of a risk than Saudi or Abu Dhabi investment.
Change doesn't happen in a family ruled state by someone magically deciding to stop following their religion. This isn't a democratically ruled country where the people decide to move past religious rule and vote someone new in, you're living in dream land(or obfuscating as you really couldn't give a shite about how they act as long as they plough money into the club).
It's achieved awareness. Say what you want about the material impact, but a big part of what I suggested was bringing awareness to the abuses of Qatar and Ineos. Bringing attention/awareness to what they're trying to distract from works to counter their sportswashing/greenwashing. Even if they don't actually change, it keeps the club from being used for those purposes.
They did indeed choose greed and now they have a taste they'll choose it again. Since the Qatari owners of PSG became a member of the UEFA executive committee, UEFA have hinted on softening their stance on multi club ownership:
We're looking at a future where most clubs have state ownership in some capacity. Why buy United when you can buy a minority share in 6 different clubs in the same league? It's not about the football for these guys, it's about getting access to the local area's infrastructure and sports washing.
The Glazers are even going glacier speed on selling as they are slow on buying players.
Those involved will obviously be steps ahead of anything we know
And they should be getting a response to their third bids soon right?
I wonder when we'll get a "Meh, I didn't want them anyway" leak from one of the parties
And they should be getting a response to their third bids soon right?
I wonder when we'll get a "Meh, I didn't want them anyway" leak from one of the parties
In extreme situations like that yes. Which is a problem I agree. If status quo (which is bad enough in Qatar don't get me wrong) is upheld however I doubt our credibility will be tarnished. Not in the long run. We have too much history for that.
I thought Brexit Jim had this in the bag?
When nothing happens yet again today, how big a posse we rounding up to angrily surround Berbaclass?
His deal with the devil was being pushed hard by the media but who really knows?I thought Brexit Jim had this in the bag?
The moral outrage on both camps in this thread is comical.
Neither bidder is perfect. There is no “right” answer. The Pope could bid and people would refuse to support the club because of the Catholic church’s cover up of sexual assault and molestation of minors. Even if if it was a consortium, there would be “dirty money” hidden somewhere among the limited partners.
Let’s choose the positive perspective. With either Qatari bid or Sir Jim, there will be a huge spotlight on their other activities, whether it be pollution of INEOS or the human rights issues in Qatar. Suddenly the owners are under a microscope. Using the United platform to demand change, that’s something we as fans can get behind. Frankly, if there was no Qatari bid, we wouldn’t be discussing this, Qatar would not be held more accountable for their policies. Non-political fans will be exposed to human rights problems in Qatar or the nasty practices of chemical companies.
I just don’t see how sportswashing or greenwashing is a “problem”. The very existence of this thread has opened people’s eyes to the issues, and that is really important. Now that those injustices are at our doorstep, we care. We didn’t before or at least not to the degree that we do now. That criticism can impact real change.
Neither bidder is perfect. There is no “right” answer. The Pope could bid and people would refuse to support the club because of the Catholic church’s cover up of sexual assault and molestation of minors. Even if if it was a consortium, there would be “dirty money” hidden somewhere among the limited partners.
Let’s choose the positive perspective. With either Qatari bid or Sir Jim, there will be a huge spotlight on their other activities, whether it be pollution of INEOS or the human rights issues in Qatar. Suddenly the owners are under a microscope. Using the United platform to demand change, that’s something we as fans can get behind. Frankly, if there was no Qatari bid, we wouldn’t be discussing this, Qatar would not be held more accountable for their policies. Non-political fans will be exposed to human rights problems in Qatar or the nasty practices of chemical companies.
I just don’t see how sportswashing or greenwashing is a “problem”. The very existence of this thread has opened people’s eyes to the issues, and that is really important. Now that those injustices are at our doorstep, we care. We didn’t before or at least not to the degree that we do now. That criticism can impact real change.
The evidence still seems to be pointing to this but people are clinging onto rumours that the Glazers are in Doha today as evidence that it's not over yet.I thought Brexit Jim had this in the bag?
[
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Just blinking media speculation. No one actually knows what the flip is going on.I thought Brexit Jim had this in the bag?
Nope. Some rather Glazers than Qatar.
Fair enough, they are known to summer in Doha after all.
Governments make laws, companies can influence them but don't make them. Qatar has a national team if it wants to use football to represent itself. You're using a false equivalence where you are suggesting that people think one is perfect and the other is evil, so you are being disengenuous. Most just see INEOS as less bad.
Another point, all the anxiety and hand wringing on how the Glazers are handling the bids with several rounds, missing deadlines, lack of clarity on who will stay and who will go….
WHAT THE feck DO YOU EXPECT?????
‘Since SAF retired, the Glazers have never once exhibited a whiff of leadership or solid management. They are two fecking goblins who are so goddamn weak minded they can’t decide on a fecking thing. THERE IS NO LEADERSHIP PEOPLE!!!!!! Anyone who actually believed they would do the right thing in a timely manner are deluding themselves.
Sit back, pop some popcorn and chill. We ain’t close to completing this deal.
WHAT THE feck DO YOU EXPECT?????
‘Since SAF retired, the Glazers have never once exhibited a whiff of leadership or solid management. They are two fecking goblins who are so goddamn weak minded they can’t decide on a fecking thing. THERE IS NO LEADERSHIP PEOPLE!!!!!! Anyone who actually believed they would do the right thing in a timely manner are deluding themselves.
Sit back, pop some popcorn and chill. We ain’t close to completing this deal.
- Status