They left because they were roundly criticised by every other group.That article says they left of their own volition.
Without getting too philosophical, the reality that we're talking about here is the closeness of the link between football club and owner i.e. does a football club automatically imbibe all the key points of its ownership or can you still distinguish between the two entities thus support one but not the other? I believe it's the latter, therefore the realities you're alluding to are irrelevant.They left because they were roundly criticised by every other group.
And it might be a matter of personal perception, but that doesn't mean reality doesn't have a massive influence over perception. What's your perception of Lance Armstrong? OJ Simpson? Man City?
It's not about what the club imbibes or otherwise. It's about what owning the club says about the power and acceptance that the owner of the club has despite his views. This is just another slap in the face to LGBT people of seeing oppressive nations embraced and accepted because they can throw money around.Without getting too philosophical, the reality that we're talking about here is the closeness of the link between football club and owner i.e. does a football club automatically imbibe all the key points of its ownership or can you still distinguish between the two entities thus support one but not the other? I believe it's the latter, therefore the realities you're alluding to are irrelevant.
Another way of looking at it is that United's brand and global credibility would be affixed to the credibility of the nation of Qatar. If they happen to crack down on dissent internally during an uprising whilst owning United (or the like), it would be our reputation that would get dragged through the mud. But hey, its a small price to pay if we can get Mbappe.My personal opinion is that being owned by state-backed means we might see the sport to be involved with some political in the future and I just wish we can stay away from it. And then I also hope they aren’t planning to do what PSG did by signings superstars that don’t fit as one team. On top of that, if there is some future massive issue with Qatar, there is likely chance that it will be very difficult of Man United to ever be sold again.
However, the most important for me is about planning and vision. Qatar shows a clear planning and vision of what they want to do with man united that can benefit the club for example the idea of developing the stadium. On contrary other candidates who want to buy man united have no clear planning and vision. That’s why I think Qatar is the most suitable buyers and it’s not even closed when you compare to others.
I'm fine with it because Ratcliffe isn't making enough waves with his statements. Sounds all too safe and not ambitious like the Qatar bid.I'm surprised that the majority in here is fine with it.
Doubt it will cost more we are just gonna be successful but not in the right moral way for many which inevitably will lead to people walking away from club.Well, I've had a think. While I care about human rights and the sort, my football escapism is just far more important. So I'll throw up some whatabouterry about eating meat and driving cars to create a false equavelence fallacy to excuse my silent compliance with blood-soaked regime.
A lot of people will feel it's out of their hands. And maybe it is. These are powerful forces beyond our control. But we as individuals have choices in how we act and what we do.
State ownership will cost us far more than anything the Glazers ever did.
So its a NO from me, Clive.
Bantering opposition fans and a sense of glory is just more important.I dont know how you can have no reservations about the club being owned by murderous scumbags
And the biggest tragedy is that once this beautiful women has married the cruel sugar daddy, there is no possibility of divorce. They have you for life.Correct. Man Utd doesn’t even NEED financial doping, that’s what’s so sad about it.
Like watching a beautiful woman whore herself out to a repulsive, cruel sugar daddy but then realising that she’s already incredibly wealthy in her own right and doesn’t even need to be doing it.
It’ll be a sad, sad day not just for Man Utd, but for football if this happens.
Different feelings on different subjects should maybe include things like naming rights for the stadium rather than whether LGBT should be persecuted for just being themselves.Not sure why anyone is bringing a countries views on the LGBT side of things into this conversation. That’s in their country. There’s a massive issue with abortion in America and I’ve not seen that mentioned once given that we have American owners. There is always going to different feelings and views regarding many subjects across different countries.
This is a football business deal. Those issues are not going to be involved with the club just because of where the potential new owners are from. Isn’t that a bit like not heating your home or cooking your food using the gas that comes from there for the same reasons.
Maybe some things are more important to people than United winning trophies that would be tainted anyway.So for those who wanted Glazers out but no want Sir Jim. Is it a case to say you really didn’t care about United being in debt and leeched.
What is more important than football when referring to a football club?Maybe some things are more important to people than United winning trophies that would be tainted anyway.
That is probably the best question in the thread.What is more important than football when referring to a football club?
This is where I think I differ, why would you not care about human rights? Especially when the money you pump into your football club goes to a country that oppresses those rights?If you care so much about human rights,
What money exactly? You are assuming that they will take huge dividends that will be reinvested into oppressing people. It's a false narrative.This is where I think I differ, why would you not care about human rights? Especially when the money you pump into your football club goes to a country that oppresses those rights?
My money I consistently spend on getting tickets and United pies.What money exactly? You are assuming that they will take huge dividends that will be reinvested into oppressing people. It's a false narrative.
If anything, we take money from oppressive countries and advance a club that is much loved by lots of people, Muslims included.
Which you would've spent anyhow. That money ultimately goes to reinvesting in the club, the stadium, transfers etc.My money I consistently spend on getting tickets and United pies.
I don’t want my money in any way going to a regime that has blood on its hands or oppresses vulnerable minorities. it is not money I will spend anyhow as I will simply stop going if Qatar take over.Which you would've spent anyhow. That money ultimately goes to reinvesting in the club, the stadium, transfers etc.
I don't have a problem with that at all. I'm just saying that your money doesn't necessarily go to them if they reinvest everything into the club, unlike the Glazers.I don’t want my money in any way going to a regime that has blood on its hands or oppresses vulnerable minorities. it is not money I will spend anyhow as I will simply stop going if Qatar take over.
That money will go to the club though. It is highly unlikely that Qatar will take money out of United, and very likely that they will put their own money to pay the debt, build a new stadium (or improve OT), and probably invest in the squad.My money I consistently spend on getting tickets and United pies.
This line of argumentation is known as a false equivalence - most likely a desperate attempt at playing a race or islamophobia card.I watched this interview…. Absolutely useless concerns….These guys have nothing to do with their time and come and make these useless statements….
We don’t want an owner from a country that doesn’t respect LGBT community….but we are ok to have funding and owner from two countries that are directly responsible for killing of 1000’s of innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries….
Like I said, the media bias against Middle East is next level….freaking west, think everyone else is wrong and unethical when their sheer base is build on killing and looting millions of people across multiple countries
Of course it's a problem, regardless of what goes on anywhere else. Where opinions differ is what the appropriate solution to that problem is.Not sure why anyone is bringing a countries views on the LGBT side of things into this conversation. That’s in their country. There’s a massive issue with abortion in America and I’ve not seen that mentioned once given that we have American owners. There is always going to different feelings and views regarding many subjects across different countries.
This is a football business deal. Those issues are not going to be involved with the club just because of where the potential new owners are from. Isn’t that a bit like not heating your home or cooking your food using the gas that comes from there for the same reasons.
The money will go back to the club helping to rebuild Man Utd. In fact, the new owner pledges billions of his own money to rebuild the club after it was let to rot by Glazers.This is where I think I differ, why would you not care about human rights? Especially when the money you pump into your football club goes to a country that oppresses those rights?
I don't see how it's hypocritical or displaying bias to judge the government of a country given their record on human rights, specifically their treatment of women, migrant workers and the LGBT community. What flaws do you have that even come close to making that statement true?What is this nonsense about human rights issue…
It’s their culture and you don’t have to adopt their practices for god sake…
In USA, they banned abortion across 13 states…I hear no problem from media given SJR bid is supported by US banks….
Every investor individual or regime comes with a baggage and no one is without some scars, but the sheer bias against middleeast
Is so apparent….
West believes that their view of the world is the only correct view and everyone else is wrong….
I am no Middle East fan, but seriously I am not the one to judge them…. I have my flaws like everyone else. Hypocrisy here is next level…
It’s not a state offer, it’s an individual offer.We're not, the people of Qatar are though.
If we were lauding offers from governor's of states which banned abortion then you'd have a point. We aren't so you don't. I don't want the US or UK government to own Man Utd either.
And sorry, but homophobia is wrong. In any culture and any country. There's no debate about that. Not judging homophobic behaviour is not some enlightened tolerance, it's self-serving cowardice.
It’s not Qatar state who is bidding. So now you should not have a problem. Thank you very much!This line of argumentation is known as a false equivalence - most likely a desperate attempt at playing a race or islamophobia card.
Stop it.
The Glazers don'trepresent the US government nor are they their emissaries.
The argument is not about middle east owners, but about state ownership. I'd it were some random rich guy from Qatar, it wouldn't be a problem.
No nation state should own our football club. Currently, none does. So stop muddying the waters with intellectual dishonesty.
Uk slavery was banned.. not so long ago?!?It’s not a state offer, it’s an individual offer.
Now you will say everything is connected but so is the case for any regime….
And plz don’t forget in UK slavery was perfectly justified not too long ago, in US we all know how blacks and red indians were treated not so long ago…
Reg
It’s not Qatar state who is bidding. So now you should not have a problem. Thank you very much!
Again with the intellectual dishonestyIt’s not a state offer, it’s an individual offer.
Now you will say everything is connected but so is the case for any regime….
And plz don’t forget in UK slavery was perfectly justified not too long ago, in US we all know how blacks and red indians were treated not so long ago…
Reg
It’s not Qatar state who is bidding. So now you should not have a problem. Thank you very much!
You can't seriously think this is an independent businessman. As I said before anyone who believes that, and very few do, are either naive or being disingenuous:It’s not a state offer, it’s an individual offer.
Now you will say everything is connected but so is the case for any regime….
And plz don’t forget in UK slavery was perfectly justified not too long ago, in US we all know how blacks and red indians were treated not so long ago…
Reg
It’s not Qatar state who is bidding. So now you should not have a problem. Thank you very much!
Bro if you love eating animals you literally spend your money to help kill them.This is where I think I differ, why would you not care about human rights? Especially when the money you pump into your football club goes to a country that oppresses those rights?
It's pathetic to care about human rights? Your post is pathetic mate.Bro if you love eating animals you literally spend your money to help kill them.
I mean what is this. Get a grip and look after your family if you have one.
These narratives are beyond pathetic now.
Fake outrage is pathetic made. Don’t bother all this with me.It's pathetic to care about human rights? Your post is pathetic mate.
That's how I am viewing it.Whoever buys the club, it looks like the Glazers are on their way out. That’s some reprieve surely
