ACTUAL POLL thread - how do you feel about potential Qatari ownership?

How do you feel about Qatari ownership


  • Total voters
    1,771

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,138
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!
@city-puma another example. I think you owe @Withnail an apology.
 

Acquire Me

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
7,513
Location
Norway
I'm absolutely disgusted with this and will have to seriously consider following another team. It's a shame, I fecking love United but some things are more important.
I really don’t get it. Well I understand why you feel like this, but I don’t get the possible reaction from your part. You can’t do anything about it. The Glazers own the club and can and will sell it to whoever spends the most money to acquire it.

United for me is somewhat a marriage. Good and bad days and all that shit. I will always love the club, the history, fan culture and the romantics this club gives. Owners are a part of the club, but the owners are far from the core of the club.

Anyways, no disrespect from my part. I understand the big picture you are having trouble with. But for me, that’s not the big picture for me being a fan.
 

Señor Sloppy

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 25, 2022
Messages
56
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.
The video you referred me to showed the representative of the Manchester United LGBT fans' group specifically speaking about a potential feeling of exclusion from being part of Manchester United due to some of the owner's practices within their home country. I questioned that assertion because it specifically relates to the fact that a sports club never automatically imbibes its owner's key characteristics, meaning that Manchester United and its ownership will always be two distinct entities. Therefore, it should be entirely possible to feel like a part of Manchester United without lining up behind the owners.

The point you're now referring to seems to be slightly a different one but also a similar stretch. It doesn't make sense to me that somebody would suddenly feel like the Qataris are any more accepted within the global order if they purchased Manchester United than when they purchased any one of the other £370bn worth of assets already within their global portfolio.
It is obvious that Qatar have long been accepted within the global order - the purchase of Manchester United has no significance within that fact.


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.

Bottom line - sport and politics would always be inherently intertwined if a state owned (even if they deny it) entity were to gain control of United.
Qatar has the sixth best GDP per capita in the world, so an uprising there seems rather unlikely :lol:

In any case, I'm interested as to why you think our reputation would be so closely intertwined with Qatar's should they purchase us. I don't recall any previous instances of a sports club's reputation being "dragged through the mud" because of their owner's misdeeds in unrelated circumstances?
 

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
124,316
Location
Hollywood CA
The video you referred me to showed the representative of the Manchester United LGBT fans' group specifically speaking about a potential feeling of exclusion from being part of Manchester United due to some of the owner's practices within their home country. I questioned that assertion because it specifically relates to the fact that a sports club never automatically imbibes its owner's key characteristics, meaning that Manchester United and its ownership will always be two distinct entities. Therefore, it should be entirely possible to feel like a part of Manchester United without lining up behind the owners.

The point you're now referring to seems to be slightly a different one but also a similar stretch. It doesn't make sense to me that somebody would suddenly feel like the Qataris are any more accepted within the global order if they purchased Manchester United than when they purchased any one of the other £370bn worth of assets already within their global portfolio.
It is obvious that Qatar have long been accepted within the global order - the purchase of Manchester United has no significance within that fact.



Qatar has the sixth best GDP per capita in the world, so an uprising there seems rather unlikely :lol:

In any case, I'm interested as to why you think our reputation would be so closely intertwined with Qatar's should they purchase us. I don't recall any previous instances of a sports club's reputation being "dragged through the mud" because of their owner's misdeeds in unrelated circumstances?
They’re a tiny Island nation in the Persian Gulf with about 200k actual citizens (the rest are migrant workers), so it’s a small sample size of net worth per capita. The fact that all of their wealth happens to come out of the ground makes it even less consequential.

A recent example would be Abramovich, whose money is tacitly tied to Putin (Russian Oligarchs don’t actually own their own money. Instead it is owned by Putin and “deployed” to specific Oligarchs home and abroad to advance his interests). We all know what happened once Putin invaded Ukraine.

There’s always a massive risk in state ownership, much less that of an autocratic regime. Beyond the obvious moral depravity of it, United would do well to steer clear of the risk associated with the behavior of the Qatari government.
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,138
The video you referred me to showed the representative of the Manchester United LGBT fans' group specifically speaking about a potential feeling of exclusion from being part of Manchester United due to some of the owner's practices within their home country. I questioned that assertion because it specifically relates to the fact that a sports club never automatically imbibes its owner's key characteristics, meaning that Manchester United and its ownership will always be two distinct entities. Therefore, it should be entirely possible to feel like a part of Manchester United without lining up behind the owners.

The point you're now referring to seems to be slightly a different one but also a similar stretch. It doesn't make sense to me that somebody would suddenly feel like the Qataris are any more accepted within the global order if they purchased Manchester United than when they purchased any one of the other £370bn worth of assets already within their global portfolio.
It is obvious that Qatar have long been accepted within the global order - the purchase of Manchester United has no significance within that fact.
It's not a different one, you simply misunderstood the point of the video.

The fact you then immediately dismiss the feelings of United's LGBT+ community is telling. Just because you think it shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. The evidence that it does is right in front of your eyes.

And of course Man Utd matters more, no LGBT+ individual has grown up dedicating their time to supporting Harrods.
 
Last edited:

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
24,588
It's not a different one, you simply misunderstood the point of the video.

The fact you then immediately dismiss the feelings of United's LGBT+ community is telling. Just because you think it shouldn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. The evidence that it does is right in front of your eyes.

And of course Man Utd matters more, no LGBT+ individual has grown up dedicating their time to supporting Harrods.
No one is dismissing their feelings but just look at PSG with those limited edition rainbow shirts to see Qatar isn't closed off to clubs they owns feelings on LGBTQ+
 

Bert_

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Messages
650
Location
Manchester
No one is dismissing their feelings but just look at PSG with those limited edition rainbow shirts to see Qatar isn't closed off to clubs they owns feelings on LGBTQ+
The sole reason they did that is to provide cover against anyone that brings up LGBTQ issues in realtion to Qatar. Congrats on being their patsy.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
84,201
Location
Centreback
In reality, I'll still support the club - that's a connection that is more or less impossible to break.

In financial terms - I might well stop making any contribution to it (match tickets, MUTV sub) - but even that's a hard habit to break. If club policy/marketing/social media starts to reflect Qatari state policy then it'll be easy to stop.
I don't like the idea at al but I'm not sure I can stop supporting the team. As for financial stuff I have already stopped (made easier by living in Sydney now). I cancelled my Optus Sport subscription in the middle of last year and I doubt I'll sign up again.
 

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
24,588
The sole reason they did that is to provide cover against anyone that brings up LGBTQ issues in realtion to Qatar. Congrats on being their patsy.
I also don't want them putting money into scousers either and openly admit that,also Ratcliffe to not have concerns about ROI and just see us as a hobby like Abramovich did with Chelsea for years
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
2,017
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…
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
These posts are so wrong on so many levels.

"What is this nonsense about human rights issue.."

Now we've heard it all.

It is not someone from Qatar making bids for the club, it's the absolute monarch himself. The very same people enforcing the violations against human rights, they are personally 100% responsible for Qataris (10%) or the immigrant workers (90%) not having the right to vote (in anything meaningful), say what they want, love who they want, believe in what they want and women not having equal rights to men.
Investors from America/GB are not the president of US or representing their government in any way, neither are US banks. They are not responsible for US politicians forbidding abortion (mindblowing step backwards, I agree) or any other decision made in the oval office or the house of representatives. I can judge them because I don't personally put people in jail for not sharing my views, believe in what I've decided they must believe in or love some one of the same sex or limit other people's rights or freedom. This is not an investor from Qatar, this is the regime of Qatar. If you can't see the difference between being bought by a dictator of an absolute monarchy and a group of private investors, well then your whataboutism has no limits. It's hard to restrain myself from using harder rethorics here.

I have nothing against people from the ME, it's their dictator rulers and their method of keeping their power and whealth I have a problem with.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
34,466
I have nothing against people from the ME, it's their dictator rulers and their method of keeping their power and whealth I have a problem with
What about the players who play for the clubs owned by these dictators?
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
2,017
What about the players who play for the clubs owned by these dictators?
I wouldn't have myself.

Mbappe, Messi, Neymar, Haaland, KDB, Pep, Cristiano etc. has through their choice of employers shown that they put human rights and sportswashing below money and/or sports ambition on their priority list, and that is frankly disappointing.
I respect them less for knowingly becoming tools for sportswashing.
 

rimaldo

Seriously friggin' hot
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
36,976
for context, if it god’s britain, and the proposed new owner was a british, white guy with floppy hair and a poncy name, going around saying how there are only two genders and how one is clearly superior to the other, then we’d probably elect them as an mp.
 

weizxx

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
159
Do not want. But maybe I will keep watching United play, just like the WC last year.
 

FrankFoot

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2022
Messages
997
Location
Chile / Czech Republic
Supports
Neutral
for context, if it god’s britain, and the proposed new owner was a british, white guy with floppy hair and a poncy name, going around saying how there are only two genders and how one is clearly superior to the other, then we’d probably elect them as an mp.
Tbh what the Qatari royal head would say about women is worse than just "one gender is superior than the other".
 

Dion

Full Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
4,138
No one is dismissing their feelings but just look at PSG with those limited edition rainbow shirts to see Qatar isn't closed off to clubs they owns feelings on LGBTQ+
I mean the guy is literally dismissing the feelings of the people in the video so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

And oddly enough, the LGBTQ+ community has been through enough shit to not be sated by doing the bare minimum abroad to not look homophobic when they're persecuting their community elsewhere.
 

Mainoldo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
21,373
I would say no and fight against it if a well known human rights violator wanted to buy the football club I supported. That's on top of my list, actually.
Good on you. Anything else doesn’t really matter then. Out of site out of mind.
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
2,017
Good on you. Anything else doesn’t really matter then. Out of site out of mind.
Where did I say that?
Of course it matters, but this is one of the opportunities we get to actually do something and this is one of the few cases where this actually touches something in your live. I try to make a difference where I can, and if we're enough people saying no to this, it will make a difference.
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
2,017
I mean the guy is literally dismissing the feelings of the people in the video so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

And oddly enough, the LGBTQ+ community has been through enough shit to not be sated by doing the bare minimum abroad to not look homophobic when they're persecuting their community elsewhere.
Qatar literally made it impossible to wear the rainbow armband in the WC.
 

Wilt

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
5,070
Simply not worth all the unwanted baggage.

Could result in the downfall of this iconic football club.
 

Matthew84!

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2018
Messages
1,112
Location
England, herefordshire
Absolutely fine with Qatar owning Ufd, nothing will change for Utd except having no debt, more money for players, better stadium and facilities and perhaps a few tours of Qatar in pre season,
 

MyBloodIsRed

Full Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
466
Location
USA
I mean, the Glazers leeching our club for as long as they have has really opened me to Qatar. I mean feck it. clear our debts, upgrade the training facilities and OT. Yes it could help us in the transfer market but I don't think any other offers will clear out the rotten debt Glazers caused. INEOS would have to service the debt
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
5,976
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
Really couldn't care less...and I'm not going to hear any non-United fans try to lecture/moralise with us about it.

First of all, on the subject of sporting merit, we're 'owed' £1.5/2BN quid. That's the best estimate for what the Glazers have cost us. Could argue they have cost us even more with their incompetence, via lost opportunities.

So until we have had that pumped back in, artificially, I'm not going to hear any arguments about how we somehow don't deserve any success we get. We were far and away the best team in England and dominating Europe with Barcelona until the Glazers' interfered, so the idea we're buying success is flawed.

Second, on the subject of morality and ethics...well...United fans were the one's protesting in the streets when BSkyB tried to takeover the club. United fans were the one's protesting in the streets when the Glazers tried to take over the club. We've warned rivals fans for years this was coming. We said it when Chelsea were bought, we were accused of sour grapes. We said it when City were bought, we were accused of sour grapes. We said it when Newcastle were bought, we were accused of sour grapes...so this is just another chicken coming home to roost.

The commercialisation of football, the flagrant profiteering, the disconnect with local communities and fans, 'sportwashing' and/or highly-dubious ownership/ownership models began a long time ago. We tried to fight it, tribalism meant nobody bothered to listen and/or help and we were largely just ridiculed or ignored.

Rival fans might finally start waking up to what all this means now, with United and Newcastle being bought within a year. Especially when we finally do get the Super League, or a variation on it, particularly those fans who's teams aren't part of it. Fact is, any chance we had collectively to stop this from happening went a long, long time ago - football fans as a collective were too caught up in their own teams to see the big picture
 

Levi1

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
522
Location
NYC
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!
So Christopher Columbus is now also a fit person and approved to bid?
 

pogbasformerbarber

Full Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
331
I loathe the ever present trend these days of crying “racism” at the very mention of something that is slightly tied to national identity or skin color. I loathe it it quite completely…

But I have to admit these some of these posts are starting to feel a little to close to that for me…look I share some general consternation. That’s natural for any new owner of a team you love.

But assuming the likely hood of financial malfeasance because other owners from the same region have acted in a bad manner…is a bridge too far to me. Just like it would be odd to assume an American or English owner would be problematic if a former American or English owner broke laws. I don’t see why all ME funds are being viewed by some on here as automatically shady.

I get being uncomfortable with some of the state policies. That’s a valid and separate conversation. But I’ve done some minor work with ME funds in my day and they are generally very well run and are viewed as reliable by almost any underwriting standard. I’m sure there are bad apples, but there’s certainly no widespread issue in the region when it comes to most of these funds…at least in my experience.

This assumption of shady business practices just because a fund is from the ME is really uninformed IMHO…
 

Mockney

Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
40,541
Location
Editing my own posts.
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

It’s not Qatar state who is bidding. So now you should not have a problem. Thank you very much!
Ok, cool. Thats great. How is he funding it then? Since according to most estimates he’s about £4b less wealthy than Jim Ratcliffe. Whose financial ability to buy the club is currently (rightfully) being scrutinised in great detail - Where he’s getting loans from, who he’s going to be partnering with, what those people will expect in return etc, whereas this guy (who again, isn’t as rich as him - apparently) is supposed to just buy the club outright, clear our debts, build new facilities and invest in the team by… Magic? I guess it’s magic because no one seems to be able to explain it without just assuming he’s getting money from the state… but apparently assuming that and asking where it’s coming from instead are both a no no. So I guess we’re just back to magic then?

What if I have an issue with being owned by a magical being? Which also doesn’t seem very sporting tbh.

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…
I completely agree. And I too would be strongly against either The East India Company or the Confederate United States purchasing Manchester United. Where can I register my disapproval?
 
Last edited:

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
24,362
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
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!
'Red indians'? What is this 1842?
 

troylocker

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2019
Messages
2,017
I loathe the ever present trend these days of crying “racism” at the very mention of something that is slightly tied to national identity or skin color. I loathe it it quite completely…

But I have to admit these some of these posts are starting to feel a little to close to that for me…look I share some general consternation. That’s natural for any new owner of a team you love.

But assuming the likely hood of financial malfeasance because other owners from the same region have acted in a bad manner…is a bridge too far to me. Just like it would be odd to assume an American or English owner would be problematic if a former American or English owner broke laws. I don’t see why all ME funds are being viewed by some on here as automatically shady.

I get being uncomfortable with some of the state policies. That’s a valid and separate conversation. But I’ve done some minor work with ME funds in my day and they are generally very well run and are viewed as reliable by almost any underwriting standard. I’m sure there are bad apples, but there’s certainly no widespread issue in the region when it comes to most of these funds…at least in my experience.

This assumption of shady business practices just because a fund is from the ME is really uninformed IMHO…
How Qatar «bought» the WC is well documented. They got it through good old fashion corruption. Was that shady in your book?
 

IRN-BRUno

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
561
Went for option 2.

Firstly, I'd say that the day the Glazers leave will be a great one for the club whoever takes over. Their tenure has been a disaster and really it's a miracle that we are still at our current level despite them being here. We might not have been fighting at the top for a while now but I'm not sure many, if any, clubs would have been able to maintain a regular top 4-6 place.

On to new owners and I am uncomfortable with state ownership whoever that may be. It's something that we have criticised at City, Newcastle, PSG and rightly so. I think it also goes against the history and traditions of Manchester United. That history is something we should be proud of, to lose that will feel like a part of the club has been lost.

In terms of the morals of Qatar, I couldn't walk away from the club myself over this but I do respect those who feel as though they have to make that choice. That is a huge decision and one that can't come easily so it's been disappointing to see some of the replies to those posters across the threads. Everyone will have their own tipping point, if this is that time for some people then it's understandable and I feel for them.

I can only hope that the majority will not see it as though we must defend Qatar from whatever is written/said. We should continue to raise concerns and in fact use our voice as a fanbase to speak louder about them. Unfortunately there are already plenty of examples that might not be the case. It saddens me to see so many taking the opposite side, confronting posters for daring to have an unfavourable opinion, abusing journalists and human rights groups for doing their job. I thought we'd spent years criticising City and taking the piss out of Bluemoon because we genuinely thought it was wrong. It's clear now that for many it was simply jealousy.

On what this means for the team, I can't help but be concerned about what might happen. This season has been a real lift, it really feels as though we are on the way back. It's fine saying that nobody with any sense would change the manager but who knows? Maybe they won't have sense, it could be something further down the line when the first rough run of results is enough for them to change. Until a takeover is completed and decisions start to be made we can't say for sure. That also goes for transfers, the idea of just buying whoever doesn't appeal to me. We don't need Galacticos, we don't want a copy of PSG where they talk publicly about other teams players in interviews. We've just started to get things right this summer by bringing in the right characters and getting rid of the arseholes, we shouldn't move away from that however good the player is.

I should also mention I'm not a fan of Ratcliffe owning the club either. His record at Nice doesn't impress me, not so much on the pitch but the appointments made off it. I guess I'm waiting for the squeaky clean United fan with billions to spare who doesn't exist.

Apologies that this ended up rambling on, probably doesn't make much sense but I felt the need to say it anyway!
 

pogbasformerbarber

Full Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2022
Messages
331
I didn't read the whole conversation obviously, but as far as I could tell the poster said we shouldn't stereotype ME businesses, then you brought up a corrupt WC. I don't think the poster contests that. Anyway. Whatever.
haha I’m agreeing with you! I was the original poster. And my point is the folly that all ME dealings are shady because some have been shady. We’re in the same page my friend…