Nah, you are free to make your own choice. I don't agree with it, but I will just call out those who try and put down people on the other side, or who lie to themselves about the situation. People who try to "defend Greenwood" or excuse him for example. Or people who try and pretend like it isn't a state backed bid, or that "maybe they are trying to change"... just don't lie to yourself.I voted Shekh Jassim and Greenwood. I’m a terrible terrible person and the spawn of Lucifer himself.
We have two open Brexit voters in this thread. One is pro Qatar, the other undecided.[...]
I’ve accepted there’s no morals in football and shouldn’t be held up as some moral authority. It’s unethical, dirty and governed by £££, join the party.Nah, you are free to make your own choice. I don't agree with it, but I will just call out those who try and put down people on the other side, or who lie to themselves about the situation. People who try to "defend Greenwood" or excuse him for example. Or people who try and pretend like it isn't a state backed bid, or that "maybe they are trying to change"... just don't lie to yourself.
The same money for lower % results in higher overall valuation for the club.Someone smarter than me please explain this 60%. new info I think.
Sounds like confusion as it's long been known he's offered 51% and 69% in separate deals. The media ignored the original 69% offer but recently it was stated by some journalists that his 69% offer was the leading bid.Someone smarter than me please explain this 60%. new info I think.
Am I wrong or was the Ratcliffe deal not a fixed price in 2/3 years? What would be the point in accepting that bid if they can get that price now?
Ok, I’ll do this point by point to be clear and then let’s get back on thread topic - feel free to PM me if you wanna continue…My assertion was that "more than half of the country who did vote, voted for Brexit". Is that incorrect? How did the vote go through then? A simply google search says 51.89% of voters voted to leave.
Sure, xenophobes are dickheads. My whole family is Muslim. There were people in my extended family who were murdered simply because of this fact during the wars in the 90's. I don't have a problem with someone being a foreign owner. I wouldn't even have a problem with Jassim if he was just some random investor, completely independent, and it wasn't a state backed bid. I don't have a problem with american owners, or swiss owners, or indian owners, or chinese owners. That sort of stuff literally just does not happen in the Arab states there. Of course it is a state backed bid. It's fine if other people have differing views. I don't care if someone wants that. But yes, I will call people out who bury their heads in the sand about what we would be if they bought us, who try to justify their own views by lying to themselves because it blatantly would be a state backed bid. And I'll call out people who try to claim "not wanting Qatari" is "wanting to see United fail". Which is fecking nonsense.
As for your point about MG, I don't even know where to start there fecking hell. Yeah, they don't want him because he is a young, rich black guy... nothing at all to do with the audio that is publicly available where he got away with what he did. Good talk man.
Yeah Ratcliffe is rich and has influence. He exploits some loopholes for his own wealth. Shitty billionaire things that people do. We all have to make do with some amount of "ah well he's a billionaire he will do billionaire things". There's a massive world in between tax evasion and being the ruling family that oppresses thousands and violates human rights within their country, restricts freedom of choice, etc. The argument of "well, Ratcliffe is a dickhead too" as to why you support Qatar is bullshit, because you can't compare what he did or does to what the Qatari ruling family did or does. You just can't. Own your choice of wanting the Qatari's, but don't give me bullshit about how you are justifying it because of this and that. Just be like croadyman where you openly admit you don't care about what they do off the pitch and just purely care about what they do on the pitch for the club directly. Which is the point of the original comparison to MG and Qatar. For the most part, you either care about what they do off the pitch and it's not a "win at all costs" mentality (wherever that line starts of where you start caring), or you just have a win at all costs mentality. And the question was seeing how many of the pro Qatar people didn't care about what MG did off the pitch.
Havent read the article, but your baseline assumption is total bid amount is the same for 69% or 60%. If it is, SJR just increased the EV by ~15%? (if SJR's 69% bid was with EV of 6B, then this offer is 6.9B?)The same money for lower % results in higher overall valuation for the club.
While I am pretty certain this is a classic case of media misunderstanding, the only way this makes sense is if the two Glazer gimpoids decide they fancy a bit of cash now and a bit more later. At which point it would appear to me, you can probably push for a full buy out immediately as they've shown their hand.Am I wrong or was the Ratcliffe deal not a fixed price in 2/3 years? What would be the point in accepting that bid if they can get that price now?
Unless the 2/3 years report was bullshit?
Their point is about moral in general and most specifically about your own morals. No I'm probably an hypocrite but while I have an issue with Greenwood, INEOS and some of Qatar's laws, I have a different stance when it comes to their involvement with United, I find it significantly easier to not support the owners or sponsors than to not support a player, for that reason I don't really want the player anywhere near the team.I’ve accepted there’s no morals in football and shouldn’t be held up as some moral authority. It’s unethical, dirty and governed by £££, join the party.
Glazers (or part of the family) remains on board so that they can get higher valuation later on. They still sell controlling share but remain minor stockholders with some voting option (albeit negligible).Someone smarter than me please explain this 60%. new info I think.
Aah..so SJR buys 60%, may be then two idiots can stay around with their 4-5% each?Glazers (or part of the family) remains on board so that they can get higher valuation later on. They still sell controlling share but remain minor stockholders with some voting option (albeit negligible).
to bring it in perspective - SJ bid is for full takeover of their 69% and later they will clean the nyse at market price.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s a bit all over the place! From what I remember all of the family bar two Glazers (or the family diluting the shares as one) would sell a large percentage of shares now at a higher price than Qatar was offering so Jim could afford the higher price per share since it gave him 2/3 years to space out the fee.While I am pretty certain this is a classic case of media misunderstanding, the only way this makes sense is if the two Glazer gimpoids decide they fancy a bit of cash now and a bit more later. At which point it would appear to me, you can probably push for a full buy out immediately as they've shown their hand.
They've been in talks according to reports so maybe it's a mix of the 69% and 51% offers that Ineos made, because they want more money upfront but still was a small share in the club.Someone smarter than me please explain this 60%. new info I think.
I think they got assurances that if SJ was picked asap, then the fee could be negotiated up probably to £5.7/5.8bn. I think they also met pSG CEO Nasser Al Khelafi to make sure he could sweeten over the UEFA Rules.. Nothing would surpass me with this takeover even SJR taking full control next week.Feels like a Qatar win to me. Glazers got the bid they wanted.
UEFA rules or precedents aren't an issue and won't be, there is no need to sweeten a thing.I think they got assurances that if SJ was picked asap, then the fee could be negotiated up probably to £5.7/5.8bn. I think they also met pSG CEO Nasser Al Khelafi to make sure he could sweeten over the UEFA Rules.. Nothing would surpass me with this takeover even SJR taking full control next week.
Doubt it. Newcastle's only took long because of the illegal streaming of football on Saudi Arabia.Anyone knows what is the procedures the Premiere League is going to take ?
I assume that after the new owners will be announce - the premiere league would like to do their own checks and that also could take time
It's not possible, the NFL doesn't work like that.Wouldn’t surprise me if Qatar pays them £50m per game for buccaneers to play in Doha every year or something like that.
Ok, I’ll do this point by point to be clear and then let’s get back on thread topic - feel free to PM me if you wanna continue…
1. I don’t want to make the correlation between xenophobes and Ratcliffe - it was an example of if we’re gonna that, then do it both ways - but better yet, LETS NOT DO IT.
2. I don’t want Jassim because I think Ratcliffe is ‘worse’ - I want Jassim because I passionately believe he’s best for Utd, by a long way.
3. Young black men DO get treated differently from a legal standpoint at all levels of crime - and conscious and subconscious racial bias DOES exist, MG is a black guy in a high profile case (not anymore, as all charges were dropped). Of course of the many people who don’t want him back, there will be some percentage that are consciously racist and also some that are subconsciously affected by that - it’s been studied extensively, it will be the case.
But again - that’s not my point, my point is simply, if you want to make the correlation of Jassim plus MG, then let’s either equally scrutinise Ratcliffe plus anti MG, OR LETS NOT DO THAT AT ALL.
I want what’s best for Utd, we all do, let’s get back on topic (in this thread at least) and start looking at the latest media drops.
I wish you no disrespect at all, and genuinely feel free to PM if needed mate.
SJ is Sir JimSJ and SJR initials are more confusing than I thought they’d be
Fair enough! I don't disagree with a lot of this (just my general anti state ownership stance for a multitude of reasons), but anyway. We can get back on track, whatever that means for this thread..Ok, I’ll do this point by point to be clear and then let’s get back on thread topic - feel free to PM me if you wanna continue…
1. I don’t want to make the correlation between xenophobes and Ratcliffe - it was an example of if we’re gonna that, then do it both ways - but better yet, LETS NOT DO IT.
2. I don’t want Jassim because I think Ratcliffe is ‘worse’ - I want Jassim because I passionately believe he’s best for Utd, by a long way.
3. Young black men DO get treated differently from a legal standpoint at all levels of crime - and conscious and subconscious racial bias DOES exist, MG is a black guy in a high profile case (not anymore, as all charges were dropped). Of course of the many people who don’t want him back, there will be some percentage that are consciously racist and also some that are subconsciously affected by that - it’s been studied extensively, it will be the case.
But again - that’s not my point, my point is simply, if you want to make the correlation of Jassim plus MG, then let’s either equally scrutinise Ratcliffe plus anti MG, OR LETS NOT DO THAT AT ALL.
I want what’s best for Utd, we all do, let’s get back on topic (in this thread at least) and start looking at the latest media drops.
I wish you no disrespect at all, and genuinely feel free to PM if needed mate.
If they offer all at once, no advantage. But right now, as we all understand, they haven't.It’s a bit all over the place! From what I remember all of the family bar two Glazers (or the family diluting the shares as one) would sell a large percentage of shares now at a higher price than Qatar was offering so Jim could afford the higher price per share since it gave him 2/3 years to space out the fee.
If Qatar basically matched that and is offering it all at once then what’s the advantage of Jim’s bid?
I see no reason why Jim can’t come back with a last minute offer himself.
Who is MG?SJ is Sir Jim
SJR is Sir Jim of Radcliffe
Or it might be
SJ is Sheikh Jassim
SJR is Sheikh Jassim the Red
Easy once you know how.
See that was my impression and I thought @Woziak was confused when he mentioned Ratcliffe bidding for 33% of the club.Sounds like confusion as it's long been known he's offered 51% and 69% in separate deals. The media ignored the original 69% offer but recently it was stated by some journalists that his 69% offer was the leading bid.
They're not wrong though in terms of honestly assessing how cases are conducted in court and in the 'court of public opinion' - reports get legitimized/made asymmetrically credible by a whole web of unspoken assumptions, and the stats are there and available to view in terms of cautions and prosecutions for other crimes (like minor possession) relative to recorded stops and searches, as well as there being academic studies measuring the likelihood of being stopped and searched in the first case...Please don't bring race into the MG debate.
