What are you on about?
I was merely correcting the poster I was responding to about the extent of PSG financial doping, when did I ever said anything about cheating Jassim? Find someone else to argue about the point if you are interested.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
I was merely correcting the poster I was responding to about the extent of PSG financial doping, when did I ever said anything about cheating Jassim? Find someone else to argue about the point if you are interested.
The idea that someone who is concerned about well documented issues is basing it on some degree of racism is pretty insulting Sultan.
It's a really dangerous way of shutting discussion down.
Equally worrying is a dismissal of what goes on as "unscrupulous".
If you're OK with it then so be it. Don't try and pretend it's not happening or that anyone who isn't has ulterior motives based on zero evidence.
On your dismissal of the use of the word slavery. A quote from Anti-Slavery International.
“The evidence uncovered by the Guardian is clear proof of the use of systematic forced labour in Qatar,” said Aidan McQuade, director of Anti-Slavery International, which was founded in 1839. “In fact, these working conditions and the astonishing number of deaths of vulnerable workers go beyond forced labour to the slavery of old where human beings were treated as objects. There is no longer a risk that the World Cup might be built on forced labour. It is already happening.”
And in case you think is not widespread.
"Qatar has the highest ratio of migrant workers to domestic population in the world: more than 90% of the workforce are immigrants and the country is expected to recruit up to 1.5 million more labourers to build the stadiums, roads, ports and hotels needed for the tournament. Nepalese account for about 40% of migrant labourers in Qatar. More than 100,000 Nepalese left for the emirate last year.
The murky system of recruitment brokers in Asia and labour contractors in Qatar leaves them vulnerable to exploitation. The supreme committee has insisted that decent labour standards will be set for all World Cup contracts, but underneath it a complex web of project managers, construction firms and labour suppliers, employment contractors and recruitment agents operate."
And your defence is Qatar doesn't force inward migration?
The structure in Qatar means that a lot of wealth is tied to the autocratic regime, that's not tar and brush, it's the socio political structure of the country. As the articled posted by 2cents says, this socio political structure is almost indistinguishable from the economic structure.
Yes we have racists in the world but let's not resort to 'tar and brush' when people have legitimate concerns.
If it turns out our buyers are with us on these many concerns then great. That will be a huge relief for me personally.
All these back-and-forth bashing are tiresome. And yet football was originally supposed to be a form of escapism.
Why do you think Human Rights campaigners and LGBT+ charities are only admonishing one bid then?
Because Qatar is subject for more scrutiny due to the WC whereas Ineos flies under the radar.
For all the sportswashing comments, Qatar and it's neighbours have more eyes on them than before due to their advances and purchases in sports.
Also because a lot of human rights groups focus on governments. As its seen as their remit. We let corporations and companies away with far too much because of the love of the freemarket.
Anti-fracking campaigners admonish the other. The truth is neither of these bidders are saints and we can only hope they turn out to be good owners.
Would you mind explaining that one to me?
So, did the Reuters clickbait or what? Apparently now it's not true or what? I can't keep up with all of it.
I don’t think that’s correct. He promised to invest a certain figure into the club (think it was £1 billion). He’s then rushed that investment stockpiling a lot of young players and he tried to get around FFP rules by putting them on long contracts. This is because the cost of a players contract is amortised in the Profit and Loss account. So the longer the contract the less per year the amortisation cost is. Whilst it may be good for FFP it’s a disaster decision if things don’t go right. Much like United he’s going to end up with a significant amount of players who aren’t good enough for Chelsea but they can’t sell them because their salaries are too high and contract length is too long.
Just speculation, but given the way that the share price will diametrically either rise or collapse depending on which party moves forward, with United being listed on the New York Stock Exchange, I would guess that the Stock Exchange would be advised first if there was any significant agreement.
I assume there are hefty penalties, including sharing a cell with the Donald in some Hi Max prison, if the share price is manipulated in any way without full regulatory disclosure.
If SJ are the chosen party, then they’ve probably been “told off” if they have leaked information due to the NYSE rules and regulations on disclosure. That might in part explain the backtracking on some of the tweets /information that has been, in some way, leaked.
My hunch would be that the NYSE is where the information will be released first in conjunction with a formal press release. Obviously having no knowledge of how this actually works, but you would think that this stuff would be released during non trading hours, possibly immediately before trading.
At this stage if a firm exclusivity/agreement is reached it would be surprising if one journalist broke the story independently?
I assume there are hefty penalties, including sharing a cell with the Donald in some Hi Max prison, if the share price is manipulated in any way without full regulatory disclosure.
If SJ are the chosen party, then they’ve probably been “told off” if they have leaked information due to the NYSE rules and regulations on disclosure. That might in part explain the backtracking on some of the tweets /information that has been, in some way, leaked.
My hunch would be that the NYSE is where the information will be released first in conjunction with a formal press release. Obviously having no knowledge of how this actually works, but you would think that this stuff would be released during non trading hours, possibly immediately before trading.
At this stage if a firm exclusivity/agreement is reached it would be surprising if one journalist broke the story independently?
Last edited:
They didn't clickbait. They had information which they published.
British sports journalists have different sources, which didn't corroborate the Reuters report.
They already do anyway
And what does that have to do with INEOS?
A judgement call (cheats) has been made prior to a crime happening has been made on the Qataris in this thread from the very beginning. These assumptions of bias happen in real life with certain nationalities and colours which are being ignored.
The UK based sports journalists have been desperate to 'either side' this story like they do with transfers they have no real inside information on but want to report on every few days because of column inches they need to fill or Twitter interactions they need to drive up
"Bid preferred but might not be"
"Considered favourites, but that may change"
"Glazers looking to stay.... or leave"
"Bid of around $6bn... but maybe less"
Essentially an American Reuters journalist has got some actual inside information about the Qatari's pressing the Glazers for a period of exclusivity - presumably because they feel negotiations are advanced enough for that to be granted - and the UK based football hacks are pissed because it shows them up.
"Well my sources haven't said that" when their 'sources' have fed them "These things may happen or may not" nonsense stories for months.
The difference we see here is what happens when a real reporter had information and when dozens of reporters are under pressure for months to appear like they do.
"Bid preferred but might not be"
"Considered favourites, but that may change"
"Glazers looking to stay.... or leave"
"Bid of around $6bn... but maybe less"
Essentially an American Reuters journalist has got some actual inside information about the Qatari's pressing the Glazers for a period of exclusivity - presumably because they feel negotiations are advanced enough for that to be granted - and the UK based football hacks are pissed because it shows them up.
"Well my sources haven't said that" when their 'sources' have fed them "These things may happen or may not" nonsense stories for months.
The difference we see here is what happens when a real reporter had information and when dozens of reporters are under pressure for months to appear like they do.
The more "respected" British papers like the Times or Telegraph are going to keep pedaling SJR as the frontrunner until they have no choice but to concede defeat because pretty sure they are getting their news from his camp.
Same reason I wouldn't necessarily trust any news coming from Qatar or Mike Keegan.
But Reuters has no dog in this fight so I would take what they say with more credibility than the others. Doesn't mean they can't be wrong but I would believe them more than either of the 2 camps' mouthpieces.
As has been explained over and over the structure of Qatar where financial might sees lots of transgressions of human rights and international labour norms, there are valid reasons for concern; because of structure, patterns and precedent and that is what concerns are based on, not skin colour or religious beliefs.
You'd be silly to presume what has gone before with similar structure won't happen again and thus have no concerns.
Have you honestly no concerns?
You chose not to quote some of mine.
Intense and detailed negotiations will have been going on for weeks, maybe months.
British journalists: I know nothing therefore I'll report "both bidders are in the dark"
British journalists: I know nothing therefore I'll report "both bidders are in the dark"
Well what you have written is possibly closer to truth than many would care to admit , but I'll cut them some slack .
It's just not their area of expertise we are talking about sale of billion dollar Enterprise here they are just out depth reporting on it they have covered it similarly to player's transfer which is quite unfortunate to be honest .
Last edited:
It's been said before, but I'd be inclined to believe something like Reuters (whatever like they're peddling) over some hack sports journalist from a UK tabloid.
This isn't a transfer (although I'm sure that clown Romano has a photoshop of Jim/Jassim ready to go), this is a takeover of a multi-billion pound asset. The Reuters article was written by the editor in charge of US mergers and acquisitions, and I'd imagine they have a better scope on things of his nature than journalists who write articles for clicks.
This isn't a transfer (although I'm sure that clown Romano has a photoshop of Jim/Jassim ready to go), this is a takeover of a multi-billion pound asset. The Reuters article was written by the editor in charge of US mergers and acquisitions, and I'd imagine they have a better scope on things of his nature than journalists who write articles for clicks.
JP Morgan are lending Ineos money for this.
Discussing PSG, City, and human rights violations is most likely to throw mud at Jassim because he is a Qatari and being born in that country it is assumed he is guilty by association. Please don't think I am accusing anyone of bigotry or casual racism. I have no idea what people hold in their hearts. I would not stoop that low. I will stand on a platform and shout with you all if Jassim turns out to be a cheat or has any connections in policymaking in Qatar. Let us wait and see what happens and see how the next few years progress prior to sending an advance guilty verdict.
The spotlight on the club is going to be huge from many angles is the very reason why I am against a Qatari winning the bidding
The spotlight on the club is going to be huge from many angles is the very reason why I am against a Qatari winning the bidding
I don't think that's the reasonSo after the excitement of yesterday, the thread is back to in-fighting about who is the most moral poster? I'm assuming it turned out to be nonsense and we're in for a few more months of waiting then?
Not unnoticed just ignored as it doesn't feed into the narrative.Love how the post by @2cents has gone unnoticed by the demands for proof
These constant calls for proof are a nonsense anyway. No one on Redcafe will have access to Qatari state information or the financial information of Jassim and his foundation which didn't exist until recently.
As if the Qatari state would let one of or a group of their very wealthy citizens buy a football club that could compete directly with the state owned and funded PSG.
Last edited:
There is a theory in finance (1984) which looks at cultural behaviours within the frame of financial dosclosure. Its anticedents stem from Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory. The theory of disclosure posits that their are cultural norms in how organisations, from different cultures behave. So i'm not sure it would be bigotry or casual racism, if within appropriate research, a generalisation is made. However, the theory isn't widely used, in part, because it's been difficult to replicate the initial results. That's not surprising because culture isn't a static notion. You're both potential right and wrong.
Surely the point is not whether it's clear that the SJ bid is a Qatar bid, but rather whether it's clear that it isn't? And your post seems to answer both of those questions in the negative.
Last edited:
Are we sold yet?
Are we sold yet?
...
x100
Are we sold yet?
...
x100
Unconscious biases assumptions and stereotypes have played a part in this thread and during the WC thread. Biases we have about certain people outside of our conscious awareness do influence our attitudes and behaviour. This is not to say in the least there are genuine concerns in certain countries which need to be addressed and called out.
It's not been ignored; it's got so many faults / holes it creates more questions. Unfortunately, some will fall for it without identifying holes.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Re: FFP without a takeover or investment this year we would be massively restr
How you weigh each one is personal, if you are a staunch environmentalist you will probably see the threat in terms of 10s of millions of people, species and environment extinction, it is which soap box you want to stand on, as is whether or not you can continue to support the club beyond the takeover, because face it the most likely outcome is that a sale does go through and tight now it looks like Qatar will be our new owners.
Sports washing is a myth, how many people would be talking out Qatar's human rights issues if not for the world cup, if not for the proposed Utd takeover? about hmmm sweet FA TBH because it is not happening in their back yard, I am guilty, there is a huge amount of apathy towards anything which does not directly affect people....
Realistically if people are serious about keeping pressure on Qatar, keeping Qatar under the microscope and trying to effect change in Qatar then the utd takeover is possibly the best thing that could happen.
As for the blood on the money, you could argue that the vast majority of Qatar's wealth is clean, it is what they have done in developing the country over the last decade which is particularly distasteful in terms of abusing migrant workers, and if you want to analyse the morality of any large investment anywhere you will almost certainly find blood and worse.
I am not jumping to the defence of anybody here I am just wondering why posters are still listing the numerous human rights issues Qatar have... can we all just concede that Qatar have human rights issues and that Ineos have environmental issues.
How you weigh each one is personal, if you are a staunch environmentalist you will probably see the threat in terms of 10s of millions of people, species and environment extinction, it is which soap box you want to stand on, as is whether or not you can continue to support the club beyond the takeover, because face it the most likely outcome is that a sale does go through and tight now it looks like Qatar will be our new owners.
Sports washing is a myth, how many people would be talking out Qatar's human rights issues if not for the world cup, if not for the proposed Utd takeover? about hmmm sweet FA TBH because it is not happening in their back yard, I am guilty, there is a huge amount of apathy towards anything which does not directly affect people....
Realistically if people are serious about keeping pressure on Qatar, keeping Qatar under the microscope and trying to effect change in Qatar then the utd takeover is possibly the best thing that could happen.
As for the blood on the money, you could argue that the vast majority of Qatar's wealth is clean, it is what they have done in developing the country over the last decade which is particularly distasteful in terms of abusing migrant workers, and if you want to analyse the morality of any large investment anywhere you will almost certainly find blood and worse.
A glass-half-full or empty. You've simply taken the latter stand. Which I suppose is your prerogative.
But is that what an exclusive means? Do you think they all share the same source?
Do you remember calling out FT reliability when they did an article on the takeover? The FT?!
It’s ok having a bias but let’s not start seeing things that aren’t there to cover for that bias
Last edited:
The second puppet
No, because it's widely reported its SJs bid. The broader context is that the Al Thani house in the 1990s had 20000 members, there are some that have 13 kids (e.g SJs dad). That implies that each generation will grow 5.5 times more. So, SJs kids will be so far away from the centre of power, will there be any room for them to take advantage of the "State-private" inititive. I'm not sure given that growth that the "state-private" model is sustainable for all Al Thani house members and all investments. Qatar will need reform just to manage the ruling power.
I'm not a fan. Jassim has kind eyes and chubby cheeks. This man has wild eyes and an offensively manicured beard.
- Status