Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

[glazed]

The reason we couldn’t challenge under the Glazers is Woodward. Simple as that, we’ve matched City’s transfer outlay. There’s nothing City have done that we couldn’t have done under the Glazers, they have fecked it majorly. All they had to do was appoint competent people in football positions and we would have won a lot in the last 10 years.

This completely misses the point. You can prioritise commerce and marketing or you can prioritise football but not both. Signing Ronaldo sums this up. Woodward did the job he was put there to do quite brilliantly - it just wasn't the job we'd have liked him to do. To dismiss him as incompetent is to misunderstand the Glazers' agenda.

 

[Red in STL]

He’s probably referring to the fact that Alfie Haaland is a dead stubborn ex-Man City player with a deep hatred for particularily Roy Keane and in general all things Man United, and hia son is photographed in several City-outfits during his kidhood.

Exactly and he was, if I recall correctly, his agent as well

 

[spwd]

Can we have a recount? Wasn't this before the 7th Glazer appeared?

 

[Dan_F]

This completely misses the point. You can prioritise commerce and marketing or you can prioritise football but not both. Signing Ronaldo sums this up. Woodward did the job he was put there to do quite brilliantly - it just wasn't the job we'd have liked him to do. To dismiss him as incompetent is to misunderstand the Glazers' agenda.

You think the Glazers wanted to spend billions on transfers, miss out on Europe constantly and end up not being able to take out dividends? Woodward didn’t even do a good job from a commercial point of view, the club completely stagnated under him.

I’m not saying the Glazers aren’t culpable, because of course they have the overall authority and sign off on everything, but I don’t think for a second they were telling Woodward to sign Ronaldo because he’s good for marketing. In fact, it’s widely reported that the Ronaldo deal was down to Woodward personally.

 

[Dan_F]

As I recall the discussion at the time, Ole wanted Haaland but for whatever we either weren't able, or willing, to spend what it would have taken to bring him in when he was there for the bringing. The rest is history and of course he's lifting multiple trophies for a squad that's deeper at every position than ours is. I can't think of a single regular starter for us who would walk into their starting XI.

I can see I'm not making my points very well. United's squad is incredibly thin and some of that does have to do with poor judgment, and some of that has to do with bad luck, and some of that has to do with missing out on top players who other clubs outbid us for. It would not be fair to suggest, which I am not, that a lack of spending explains everything that has gone wrong for us over the last decade (signing "big name" managers like Van Gaal and Mourinho and then a club legend had a lot to do with it), but we have missed out on top players because partly because we are no longer seen as a proper footballing enterprise committed to success on the pitch above all else. Instead, we are seen as a branding operation that brings in top names like Sanchez, Ronaldo and Pogba off of whose names merchandise can be hawked and social media clicked. "Good business" by the Glazers no doubt-- who on a purely business level have been wildly successful -- but the quality of our performances on the pitch have suffered as a result of subordinating pitch performance to spreadsheet performance. It is the maniacal pursuit of generating revenue, which the Glazers have mastered and Sir Jim seeks to capitalize on, that have been our doom. There is nothing about Sir Jim's resume that suggests in any way a significant departure from how the Glazers have run the club over the last decade that concerns me. Nice's captain has flogged Sir Jim for not having a clue how to run a football club and that concerns me as well.

It's not enough to hope that Sir Jim runs the club better than the Glazers have. The point is that there in fact is no reason to believe he will run it any differently than how the club has been run. The club will continue to be, above all, a cash how for the new ownership structure of the club, which will still have the Glazers leeching off it, which is great for them but not so great for rubes like us who only want to see trophies lifted. The future has yet to be written, but based on the past and based on what we know right now, there is no reason to believe that Sir Jim will run the club differently than how the Glazers have run it, with bankers and other yes men, we can hope for the best...but we should expect more of the same for years to come.

I think you really overestimate the Glazers financial acumen since Fergie left. The last decade has been really poor commercially, we’ve barely grown the profits at all. In fact, the Glazers have absolutely got themselves into a mess due to under performance, overspend and revenue flatlining. Hence needing to sell the club or get investment.

I don’t think that simply hoping Ineos do better is any different to hoping Qatar do better. Jassim has no experience relevant to running United. Even if you think Nice are doing badly (I think they’re performing level with how they have historically), you cannot deny Ineos have a lot of sporting experience. And nothing about their involvement in cycling, football, F1, sailing, suggest they are penny pinching - I don’t really understand why this said?

As long as Jim puts a football structure in place, I’m not worried. I don’t see us having another Woodward type figure in charge.

 

[Withnail]

This completely misses the point. You can prioritise commerce and marketing or you can prioritise football but not both. Signing Ronaldo sums this up. Woodward did the job he was put there to do quite brilliantly - it just wasn't the job we'd have liked him to do. To dismiss him as incompetent is to misunderstand the Glazers' agenda.

That's absolute nonsense. You could have had Woodward in charge of the commercial side and a DOF in charge of the football decisions. It's quite a bizarre contention. He was definitely incompetent from a football perspective and shouldn't have been involved on that side of the house at all.

 

[Edwards6]

You think the Glazers wanted to spend billions on transfers, miss out on Europe constantly and end up not being able to take out dividends? Woodward didn’t even do a good job from a commercial point of view, the club completely stagnated under him.

I’m not saying the Glazers aren’t culpable, because of course they have the overall authority and sign off on everything, but I don’t think for a second they were telling Woodward to sign Ronaldo because he’s good for marketing. In fact, it’s widely reported that the Ronaldo deal was down to Woodward personally.

The Glazers never spent anything. Woodward just had to make sure the club was making enough money to pay for their debt and dividends, that was obviously the priority over being successful which is why Woodward kept his job so long

 

[Dan_F]

The Glazers never spent anything. Woodward just had to make sure the club was making enough money to pay for their debt and dividends, that was obviously the priority over being successful which is why Woodward kept his job so long

Obviously I was talking about them spending the club’s money. They would have been able to take more dividends had the club been more successful on the pitch and in the transfer market, obviously they knew that, they just didn’t have a clue how to do it.

 

[glazed]

You think the Glazers wanted to spend billions on transfers, miss out on Europe constantly and end up not being able to take out dividends? Woodward didn’t even do a good job from a commercial point of view, the club completely stagnated under him.

I’m not saying the Glazers aren’t culpable, because of course they have the overall authority and sign off on everything, but I don’t think for a second they were telling Woodward to sign Ronaldo because he’s good for marketing. In fact, it’s widely reported that the Ronaldo deal was down to Woodward personally.

The point is you have a football person in charge or a money person in charge. A money person does things completely differently. A money person does not try to compete with Manchester City because it's not worth it. A money person judges signings on metrics other than how well they fit into a team. A money person tries to scrape top four like Wenger did every year for a decade while their new stadium was being built. That's the financial sweet spot.

Now a long term capital investment money man might behave differently. But that's not what the Glazers wanted. They were here to drain the club then sell it when that business model failed. Which is where we got to.

That's absolute nonsense. You could have had Woodward in charge of the commercial side and a DOF in charge of the football decisions.

I'm afraid you're the one misunderstanding. You can't have two people in charge and two competing philosophies. Woodward was briilliant at his job. It just wasn't the job you would like him to be brilliant at. That is down to the Glazers. This is why Klopp refused to come. He met Woodward and saw we weren't a serious football club at the time.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

The point is you have a football person in charge or a money person in charge. A money person does things completely differently. A money person does not try to compete with Manchester City because it's not worth it. A money person judges signings on metrics other than how well they fit into a team. A money person tries to scrape top four like Wenger did every year for a decade while their new stadium was being built. That's the financial sweet spot.

Now a long term capital investment money man might behave differently. But that's not what the Glazers wanted. They were here to drain the club then sell it when that business model failed. Which is where we got to.



I'm afraid you're the one misunderstanding. You can't have two people in charge and two competing philosophies. Woodward was briilliant at his job. It just wasn't the job you would like him to be brilliant at. That is down to the Glazers. This is why Klopp refused to come. He met Woodward and saw we weren't a serious football club at the time.

Woodward cost us a lot more money than he earned us over the years. He wasn't brilliant at his job by any standard or metric.

 

[Dan_F]

The point is you have a football person in charge or a money person in charge. A money person does things completely differently. A money person does not try to compete with Manchester City because it's not worth it. A money person judges signings on metrics other than how well they fit into a team. A money person tries to scrape top four like Wenger did every year for a decade while their new stadium was being built. That's the financial sweet spot.

Now a long term capital investment money man might behave differently. But that's not what the Glazers wanted. They were here to drain the club then sell it when that business model failed. Which is where we got to.

Sorry but that’s just not true. Man City have Soriano as CEO. He is not a football guy. They have Txiki Begiristain as the sporting director or whatever job title you want to give it. It is completely normal to have two differing roles focused on their speciality, but working towards a common vision.

Richard Arnold is not making decisions on players, he’s put a structure in place where Murtough does that. We had Woodward trying to do everything and believing he could. He could have focused on the finance and delegated football matters but he didn’t, because he’s clearly a narcissist.

Remember, the Glazers would have made more money with more success, and they absolutely knew that, they’re just fecking clueless about how to do that.

 

[lex talionis]

I think you really overestimate the Glazers financial acumen since Fergie left. The last decade has been really poor commercially, we’ve barely grown the profits at all. In fact, the Glazers have absolutely got themselves into a mess due to under performance, overspend and revenue flatlining. Hence needing to sell the club or get investment.

I don’t think that simply hoping Ineos do better is any different to hoping Qatar do better. Jassim has no experience relevant to running United. Even if you think Nice are doing badly (I think they’re performing level with how they have historically), you cannot deny Ineos have a lot of sporting experience. And nothing about their involvement in cycling, football, F1, sailing, suggest they are penny pinching - I don’t really understand why this said?

As long as Jim puts a football structure in place, I’m not worried. I don’t see us having another Woodward type figure in charge.

Not a bad defense in support of Sir Jim, but even if we stipulate that he’s been brilliant in managing his cycling and sailing enterprises, there is no question that his management of Nice is cause for grave concern. As a matter of further concern, he would be keeping on the Glazers, who have done more harm than good for the club, and by all reported accounts, which may be false but they’re all we’ve got, he would still have the enormous debt to service and he has no financial capacity to renovate Old Trafford or Carrington.

The future is hard to predict accurately, but the Sir Jim bid at best promises nothing more than a continuation of the status quo.

 

[Dan_F]

Not a bad defense in support of Sir Jim, but even if we stipulate that he’s been brilliant in managing his cycling and sailing enterprises, there is no question that his management of Nice is cause for grave concern. As a matter of further concern, he would be keeping on the Glazers, who have done more harm than good for the club, and by all reported accounts, which may be false but they’re all we’ve got, he would still have the enormous debt to service and he has no financial capacity to renovate Old Trafford or Carrington.

The future is hard to predict accurately, but the Sir Jim bid at best promises nothing more than a continuation of the status quo.

“keeping” the Glazers? In what sense?

https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders.html?symb=Man Utd&subView=institutional

How many of those names do you associate with United? The Glazers won’t have any voting rights and won’t be anywhere near the club. Added to that is reports of staggering the buyout so Ineos will eventually buy out all Glazer shares.

If you want to be gravely concerned about Nice being a mid table club, I’ll leave you to it. I’m seriously done explaining why it’s become far harder to do with a club like Nice, what Qatar did with PSG in a non FFP era.

 

[colombianmancunian]

This completely misses the point. You can prioritise commerce and marketing or you can prioritise football but not both. Signing Ronaldo sums this up. Woodward did the job he was put there to do quite brilliantly - it just wasn't the job we'd have liked him to do. To dismiss him as incompetent is to misunderstand the Glazers' agenda.

Real Madrid shows otherwise.

 

[glazed]

Real Madrid shows otherwise.

They were bankrolled by government for years. And owned not by Glazers trying to squeeze every penny of short term profit but by the fans. Football is very much the priority.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ens-millions-illegal-state-subsidies-brussels
https://www.goal.com/en/news/who-is-the-owner-of-real-madrid/blt2e4a5f23972c99e2

 

[sglowrider]

1) Takeover Special: On INEOS w/ ClientEarth:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...pisode/NjQ4M2NiZGU4YTk3MWIwMDExNzc2NTU3?ep=14



2) Greenwashing Files: INEOS

 

[FriedClams]

Stunned at the results of this poll.

 

[Enigma_87]

Real Madrid shows otherwise.

Real and Barca are state owned as you can get. They were bailed out numerous times and Real itself is based on being run by a dictator in the past.

 

[croadyman]

Stunned at the results of this poll.

Why if you can't beat them join them. The way I see it they should have stopped these takeovers back in summer of 2003

 

[Bastian]

My current position is neither. Gruesome thought that the Glazers continue at the helm, but they can't afford to stay on without major investment so it is a question of who invests and what the angle is. INEOS are high up on the list of toxic companies, and Ratcliffe is just the name on the package - it's not like he's paying out of his own pocket. So it is a group of investors, of which only one is known. And what's the succession plan?
We know even less about Jassim, but the carrot there is wiping the debt and building what needs building. We'd be less tainted than City who would win feck all without cheating, as we've been held back by sheer incompetence, but we'd be tainted nonetheless. It would definitely feel more hollow, because it would be.

How many bidders were there again - apart from that Finnish clown? Is it conceivable that one of those minority stake options could actually be beneficial?

 

[croadyman]

I completely understand people who cannot stomach Qatari ownership,yes I don't like many of their laws and human rights. However I am also intrigued to see what they could do in terms of investment whether that's stadium,infrastructure or training ground.

 

[Denis79]

Stunned at the results of this poll.

I think even more will accept Qatar after City's season.

 

[MancunianAngels]

I completely understand people who cannot stomach Qatari ownership,yes I don't like many of their laws and human rights. However I am also intrigued to see what they could do in terms of investment whether that's stadium,infrastructure or training ground.

For many, the first part of your post makes the second part irrelevant.

They will quickly make people forget about a few things by improving the ground, signing some players and winning a trophy. That's why they do it in the first place.

 

[Rood]

My current position is neither. Gruesome thought that the Glazers continue at the helm, but they can't afford to stay on without major investment so it is a question of who invests and what the angle is. INEOS are high up on the list of toxic companies, and Ratcliffe is just the name on the package - it's not like he's paying out of his own pocket. So it is a group of investors, of which only one is known. And what's the succession plan?
We know even less about Jassim, but the carrot there is wiping the debt and building what needs building. We'd be less tainted than City who would win feck all without cheating, as we've been held back by sheer incompetence, but we'd be tainted nonetheless. It would definitely feel more hollow, because it would be.

How many bidders were there again - apart from that Finnish clown? Is it conceivable that one of those minority stake options could actually be beneficial?

No one else has officially announced that they bid, although there was media speculation about other bids

The minority stake options seem the worst case scenario as they leave the Glazers in charge and if you start looking into the dodgy background of vulture capitalists like the Elliott Group then anyone with moral questions is likely to have a heart attack

I would question the whole angle of constantly comparing the Jassim bid to City and saying any future success would be tainted.
Firstly because it's not officially a state bid (whereas City/PSG undeniably are), secondly because we are not a tinpot club like City (or Chelsea or PSG) were before their oil lottery win. They had to break the rules and spend unsustainably to get to this point - we already spend vast amounts on the squad, there is actually no need for us to spend anymore than we have over the past decade. The idea that the Qataris turn up and start throwing money at Mbappe et al is just speculation - some fans might be excited at that kind of muppetry but I certainly dont want to see us doing that.

I totally understand that you find it difficult to back any of the options on the table, especially when there are no many unknowns - I initially preferred the INEOS bid (British owner from Manchester, supported the club etc) but as things have developed Ive felt the Qatari bid would be the best for the club (clear debts, get rid of the Glazers, infrastucture) but Id take either over the Glazers staying with new investment.

 

[stevoc]

I completely understand people who cannot stomach Qatari ownership,yes I don't like many of their laws and human rights. However I am also intrigued to see what they could do in terms of investment whether that's stadium,infrastructure or training ground.

That nicely sums up why so many have voted for Qatar.

 

[stevoc]

1) Takeover Special: On INEOS w/ ClientEarth:
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...pisode/NjQ4M2NiZGU4YTk3MWIwMDExNzc2NTU3?ep=14



2) Greenwashing Files: INEOS

And between INEOS and Qatar which one would you say does more damage to the environment every year?

 

[Dan_F]

No one else has officially announced that they bid, although there was media speculation about other bids

The minority stake options seem the worst case scenario as they leave the Glazers in charge and if you start looking into the dodgy background of vulture capitalists like the Elliott Group then anyone with moral questions is likely to have a heart attack

I would question the whole angle of constantly comparing the Jassim bid to City and saying any future success would be tainted.
Firstly because it's not officially a state bid (whereas City/PSG undeniably are), secondly because we are not a tinpot club like City (or Chelsea or PSG) were before their oil lottery win. They had to break the rules and spend unsustainably to get to this point - we already spend vast amounts on the squad, there is actually no need for us to spend anymore than we have over the past decade. The idea that the Qataris turn up and start throwing money at Mbappe et al is just speculation - some fans might be excited at that kind of muppetry but I certainly dont want to see us doing that.

I totally understand that you find it difficult to back any of the options on the table, especially when there are no many unknowns - I initially preferred the INEOS bid (British owner from Manchester, supported the club etc) but as things have developed Ive felt the Qatari bid would be the best for the club (clear debts, get rid of the Glazers, infrastucture) but Id take either over the Glazers staying with new investment.

Man City are owned by one person and his private investment group that was set up for that purpose. This person is a member of the royal family and chairman of their national bank.

You really need to stop lying to yourself and just accept it’s a state bid

 

[Wumminator]

I completely understand people who cannot stomach Qatari ownership,yes I don't like many of their laws and human rights. However I am also intrigued to see what they could do in terms of investment whether that's stadium,infrastructure or training ground.

absolutely brilliant post.

 

[croadyman]

Man City are owned by one person and his private investment group that was set up for that purpose. This person is a member of the royal family and chairman of their national bank.

You really need to stop lying to yourself and just accept it’s a state bid

Oh yeah I have accepted that from the start

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Real and Barca are state owned as you can get. They were bailed out numerous times and Real itself is based on being run by a dictator in the past.

There is not a word in this sentence that is correct.

 

[Enigma_87]

There is not a word in this sentence that is correct.

Elaborate.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/04...EU top court has,FC Barcelona and Real Madrid.

Both Barca and Real have received financial aid on numerous times from the state.

Real in Franco’s regime have been pushed on and on and it’s not like a big secret.

 

[Rood]

Man City are owned by one person and his private investment group that was set up for that purpose. This person is a member of the royal family and chairman of their national bank.

You really need to stop lying to yourself and just accept it’s a state bid

I know you prefer rumour, speculation and downright lies to the truth, but let me educate you with some facts:

Sheikh Mansour:
- Current Deputy PM of UAE
- Current chairman of the national bank
- Current Vice Chair of the sovereign wealth fund
- Brother of the Ruler of Abu Dhabi

Sheikh Jassim:
- Never held any political role
- Never held any role in the national bank (QNB)
- Never held any role in the SWF (QIA)
- Not in the immediate family of the Emir of Qatar

I expect you'll try to muddy the waters by bringing HBJ into it, but note that unlike Mansour it's been over a decade since he had any state role

Now if you can't see the difference then there is no hope for any reasonable discussion with you

More importantly it's makes little difference to the main point I was making about 'hollow' success

 

[Garnacho's Shoelaces]

But in what world should we have challenged a team that have been coached by Pep for years. Our squad is a mess, I don’t need to list all the problem, it simply can’t be fixed in one season. Pep finished fourth in his first season by comparison.

The reason we couldn’t challenge under the Glazers is Woodward. Simple as that, we’ve matched City’s transfer outlay. There’s nothing City have done that we couldn’t have done under the Glazers, they have fecked it majorly. All they had to do was appoint competent people in football positions and we would have won a lot in the last 10 years.

Not true. City have been paying managers and players through tax evasion schemes in the UAE for fabricated consultancy work. We cannot compete when their outlay is known to be at least double what has been declared.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Elaborate.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/04/eu-s-top-court-rules-spanish-fooball-clubs-received-illegal-state-aid#:~:text=The EU top court has,FC Barcelona and Real Madrid.

Both Barca and Real have received financial aid on numerous times from the state.

Real in Franco’s regime have been pushed on and on and it’s not like a big secret.

1. Getting State aids isnot being state owned; it is reprehensible and they have been punished for it, but you are conflating 2 distinct things
2. The Franco stuff has been pushed as a narrative through ignorance and Barça fans agenda; they were a great team, they were in Madrid and represented what Franco wanted of Spain, so he used the club as a PR tool, but that's about it; it's wildly exaggerated and inaccurate to say anything else, and hurtful for Real Madrid fans

 

[roonster09]

I know you prefer rumour, speculation and downright lies to the truth, but let me educate you with some facts:

Sheikh Mansour:
- Current Deputy PM of UAE
- Current chairman of the national bank
- Current Vice Chair of the sovereign wealth fund
- Brother of the Ruler of Abu Dhabi

Sheikh Jassim:
- Never held any political role
- Never held any role in the national bank
- Never held any role in the SWF
- Not in the immediate family of the Emir of Qatar

I expect you'll try to muddy the waters by bringing HBJ into it, but note that unlike Mansour it's been over a decade since he had any state role

Now if you can't see the difference then there is no hope for any reasonable discussion with you

More importantly it's makes little difference to the main point I was making

Is this SJ's bid alone or a bid by bunch of billionaires creating some sort of consortium?

I'm asking as I'm not sure if Manutd will be owned by SJ or 92 foundation.

 

[sglowrider]

And between INEOS and Qatar which one would you say does more damage to the environment every year?

If you want to boil things down to binary choices then it defeats the purpose of any discussion. That's why you find all sorts of rationalisation... on both sides.

Both sides are bad choices. It's pointless trying to elevate one over the other.

 

[Teja]

For many, the first part of your post makes the second part irrelevant.

Why be paternalistic about it? Will you change your opinion about the Qatari government because they own United? I won't. That's all I care about.

For the idiots that are that easy to influence, you can get them one way or the other, you don't have to spend 6bn on a fooball club to do it.

 

[Rood]

Is this SJ's bid alone or a bid by bunch of billionaires creating some sort of consortium?

I'm asking as I'm not sure if Manutd will be owned by SJ or 92 foundation.

It's the 92 Foundation headed by Sheikh Jassim

There is probably others involved - it's either his family money or some kind of consortium, possibly both

 

[Big Andy]

Stunned at the results of this poll.

I originally voted Qatar as I was under the impression (naively) that this would be completely separate from state funding and that Jim was going to keep the Glazers involved, but looking into in in more detail it clearly is some kind of shadow deal, especially now the PSG fella is involved somehow. I also think that Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS bid would be less "murky" going forwards as well, so if i could, I'd change my vote.

 

[roonster09]

It's the 92 Foundation headed by Sheikh Jassim

There is probably others involved - it's either his family money or some kind of consortium, possibly both

Thank you.