Wumminator
The Qatar Pounder
Over a state owning United? All of them are morally superior.Well I asked you earlier, which of our ownership options are not 'morally dubious' (as you put it)?
Over a state owning United? All of them are morally superior.Well I asked you earlier, which of our ownership options are not 'morally dubious' (as you put it)?
It's absolutely not a fact - authoritarian perhaps but certainly doesnt quality as a 'brutal totalitarian' regime.Qatar is a totalitarian state, it doesn't require logic because it is not an argument, it is a fact.
There is no state officially bidding for United, but ok I get that you dont agree with thatOver a state owning United? All of them are morally superior.
Yes. I’d rather keep the Glazers.There is no state officially bidding for United, but ok I get that you dont agree with that
So you prefer Elliott Capital backing the Glazers?
The arguments for sportwashing are well documented, evidenced and explained by people far more eloquent than me to the extent that they could be considered conventional. The onus is on those arguing that it is not sportwashing to explain why, So far, I've been told it's a vanity purchase and nothing more with no explanation as to how that conclusion was reached.Anyway thats going off topic - I was actually more interested in logic behind the sportwashing comments
I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man UnitedThe arguments for sportwashing are well documented, evidenced and explained by people far more eloquent than me to the extent that they could be considered conventional. The onus is on those arguing that it is not sportwashing to explain why, So far, I've been told it's a vanity purchase and nothing more with no explanation as to how that conclusion was reached.
You might want to have a look into the background of Elliott hedge fund - so called 'vulture capitalists' with the power to bring entire countries to their knees after buying up their bad debtsYes. I’d rather keep the Glazers.
There is a single tweet in support of that argument as opposed to a mountain of academic, journalistic and historical evidence to support the idea of sportwashing. But lets say you are correct and the sportwashing possibilities are just a free bonus that come with a purchase motivated by different reason. The sportwashing still exists.I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United
There are any number of other reasons to buy our club: he's a lifelong fan who thinks he can do a better job than the current lot, vanity, profit, family legacy etc.
We are the crown jewels of sports clubs on this planet, the opportunity to buy only comes around once in a generation
You might want to have a look into the background of Elliott hedge fund - so called 'vulture capitalists' with the power to bring entire countries to their knees after buying up their bad debts
But let's say the Glazers stay as you prefer - how does that improve the human rights situation in Qatar that you seem so bothered about?
I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United (I have not seen any academic or journalistic evidence related to this)There is a single tweet in support of that argument as opposed to a mountain of academic, journalistic and historical evidence to support the idea of sportwashing. But lets say you are correct and the sportwashing possibilities are just a free bonus that come with a purchase motivated by different reason. The sportwashing still exists.
Agree with your point. In the case of the Middle Eastern countries, it's not just sportswashing btw. They have so much money they can buy anything on this planet. They've frankly gotten bored of owning the biggest yachts, the fastest cars and the best planes. Sports appeals to these oil monarchs because it's one area where you cannot simply buy your way into victory. Yes I know the league titles suggest otherwise, but how many CL titles have City and PSG won since the takeovers? A friend whose family lives in Qatar told me this, and it made everything make so much more sense to me personally.You've managed to explain a small part of sportwashing there. Everyone's caught up in the idea that's it about covering up their shameful treatment of migrant workers but that's a very small part of it. It's about creating international and domestic legitimacy for a brutal totalitarian regime and it's the oldest trick in the book. Why do you think Vespasian built the Colosseum?
I understand that you have a view that Jassim isn't representing the Qatari state and that's where your're trying to lead me. It's going to be impossible to conclusively prove either way. That, in itself, is problematic in my view.I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United (I have not seen any academic or journalistic evidence related to this)
If you don't have any then just say so
Jassim’s bid has not come as a surprise to experts who say it aligns with his country’s ambition to be seen as a sporting powerhouse.
https://www.aljazeera.com/sports/20...ited-bid-qatar-signals-global-sporting-intentHis interest in Manchester United suggests that Qatar is embarking on the next stage of this ambition, according to Ross Griffin, an assistant professor at Qatar University whose research interests include the portrayal of the Arab world in Western media and the relationship between sport and postcolonial society.
“Qatar’s ambition [in sport] is breaking up into two branches,” he said. The first will continue to focus on Qatar hosting sporting events such as the Asian Cup in 2024 and the Asian Games in 2030 while the potential purchase of a Premier League football club would be part of the second branch.
Actually my view is that it is not clear either way if Sheikh Jassim is representing the Qatari state, it's certainly possible but by no means definite as some claimI understand that you have a view that Jassim isn't representing the Qatari state and that's where your're trying to lead me. It's going to be impossible to conclusively prove either way. That, in itself, is problematic in my view.
Has this been conclusively confirmed one way or another? Surely the fact we are being linked along with PSG and Braga as becoming some sort of consortium of teams under Qatar's network suggests there is a state link?I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United (I have not seen any academic or journalistic evidence related to this)
Remember unlike Man City, PSG and Newcastle - no state fund is bidding for Man United
So how does a state sportswash without even putting their name on the bid?
See the quotes above. Out of the horses mouth so to speak.Actually my view is that it is not clear either way if Sheikh Jassim is representing the Qatari state, it's certainly possible but by no means definite as some claim
That being the case, I do have an issue with any opinion that at its base assumes it's a state bid
QSI are the official owners of PSG, they also own a minority (20%) share in BragaHas this been conclusively confirmed one way or another? Surely the fact we are being linked along with PSG and Braga as becoming some sort of consortium of teams under Qatar's network suggests there is a state link?
How can you compare 30 accidents to thousands of deaths in Qatar under life threatening circumstances? Go work outside in 40-50 degree heat for a couple of weeks without enough water breaks and no airco in the facilities where you stay.Regardless of how rich they are, Qatar is a developing country because their natural resource wealth is a relatively recent discovery.
I's a valid criticism to say they are rich enough to be doing better in terms of workers rights.
In reality they are way behind many Western countries in infrastructure and social development, but catching up rapidly.
You want to call it murder/manslaughter in Qatar, well how about the 30 dead on construction sites in UK last year ? Is that murder too? The number shouldn't make any difference, it either is or it isn't
Anyway to me, none of this is even that relevant to the question of who is going to be the best owner for Manchester United.
If they come in and build a new stadium then it will be to UK health and safety standards, maybe they can even learn from the process and improve the situation in their own country.
That's a pretty balanced article which presents the other side too thoughSee the quotes above. Out of the horses mouth so to speak.
Ah so if someone dies on a building site in the UK, it's an 'accident' but if it's in Qatar then it's 'murder'How can you compare 30 accidents to thousands of deaths in Qatar under life threatening circumstances?
You expect a full dossier to prove someone who no one has ever heard of and claiming to be one of the most cash rich people in the world isn't what he claims to be?I'm not interested in general arguments about sportswashing, I'm talking about specifics that apply to Sheikh Jassim buying Man United (I have not seen any academic or journalistic evidence related to this)
Remember unlike Man City, PSG and Newcastle - no state fund is bidding for Man United
So how does a state sportswash without even putting their name on the bid?
A one line rebuttal carrying no explanation, whose or what money and what governance?. Like I say, even if, in the unlikely event that, there are no credible links between the bid and the state, it's is clear that the state will take full advantage of any association. I suppose we each have a burden of proof required in order to form an opinion. My opinion on this particular issue is flexible and based on the balance of probabilities as the nature of the situation makes a conclusive proof impossible. The available information, descriptions of business and political life in Qatar and historical evidence that I have seen weighs heavily to the view that there is state involvement. If you've got anything that refutes that I'm happy to hear it.That's a pretty balanced article which presents the other side too though
However, some experts said the influx of capital from the Gulf region into international sport is not linked to image-building or “sportswashing”.
“This isn’t about soft power. It’s about money and governance,” said Craig LaMay, director of the journalism and strategic communications programme at Northwestern University’s Qatar campus...
Because I wouldn’t be supporting them? I wouldn’t be giving money to them?But let's say the Glazers stay as you prefer - how does that improve the human rights situation in Qatar that you seem so bothered about?
1. I agree, and just 1 migrant worker in the Kafala system is cause for condemnation, however the vast majority of these acts occurred prior, during the development of these places into the hubs we know today. So yes, building stadiums was done with the help of human suffering. But this was ongoing at massive scales long before they touched football. And personally, I really didn't hear much of it until they started getting interested in football. It would have been better off for their reputation if they acted like Mauritania. You ask what's bad about Mauritania? Exactly... they did the smart thing in not bidding for WC 2026.1. Their foray into football was the cause of those a good deal of those shameful acts.
2. The process of projecting legitimacy doesn't stop.
My research shows that the money is not an issue - that seems to be many people's reason for why they think it must be a state bid (based on massive under estimates of the family wealth in the media).A one line rebuttal carrying no explanation, whose or what money and what governance?. Like I say, even if, in the unlikely event that, there are no credible links between the bid and the state, it's is clear that the state will take full advantage of any association. I suppose we each have a burden of proof required in order to form an opinion. My opinion on this particular issue is flexible and based on the balance of probabilities as the nature of the situation makes a conclusive proof impossible. The available information, descriptions of business and political life in Qatar and historical evidence that I have seen weighs heavily to the view that there is state involvement. If you've got anything that refutes that I'm happy to hear it.
There is no owner that would stop me supporting the eleven players in the pitch and going to Old Trafford to watch the match. I do not see that as supporting an owner, I'm supporting my club.Because I wouldn’t be supporting them? I wouldn’t be giving money to them?
is there genuinely no evil regime that could own United that would upset you?
I mean surely that obvious?
Israel comes to mind.Because I wouldn’t be supporting them? I wouldn’t be giving money to them?
is there genuinely no evil regime that could own United that would upset you?
I mean surely that obvious?
So what's your math on HBJ's fortune, that leaves you 'no doubt'?My research shows that the money is not an issue - that seems to be many people's reason for why they think it must be a state bid (based on massive under estimates of the family wealth in the media).
There is enough info out there including huge deals HBJ was involved in while working for the sovereign wealth fund, assets & real estate he is known to own, subsequent investments via the private family office (managed by Sheikh Jassim) to suggest that HBJ is a multi billionaire plus has strong links to several financial institutions for any other funding needed. So I have no doubt that they can afford to buy us privately.
Jesus. Only one of these is using malnourished slaves who were fooled into coming over by pretense. This time not the UK.Ah so if someone dies on a building site in the UK, it's an 'accident' but if it's in Qatar then it's 'murder'
Seems fair
Posted it up a couple of days ago - feel free to check my post history. I'll dig it out if I get a chanceSo what's your math on HBJ's fortune, that leaves you 'no doubt'?
That's a bit much. Is it the one where you argued that HBJ earned 2+20 on QIA's assets for the years he was at the head of it? Because that is how a hedge fund in the US or Europe works (and the owner doesn't get to keep all of it because there's all of the other employee's salaries+bonuses and other expenses), but not how sovereign wealth funds work. Otherwise some of the managers of Norway's SWF would be the richest people in the world.Posted it up a couple of days ago - feel free to check my post history. I'll dig it out if I get a chance
There isn't. If there is, then the lack of uproar over the more significant connections caused by the UK and Qatar intertwining in defense, economics, culture, real estate... is hypocritical or dumb and that's me being politeI do not see any connection between buying a ticket to watch your team in Manchester (or watching on the TV) and the human rights situation in Qatar.
Similar thoughts.There is no owner that would stop me supporting the eleven players in the pitch and going to Old Trafford to watch the match. I do not see that as supporting an owner, I'm supporting my club.
I already had to make this decision when the Glazers came and some fans chose to leave and it's no different now. I decided back then that I was there before them and I would be there after them. I spent a fair bit of time arguing against boycotts on this forum back then and I actually think there was more reason to boycott back then than there would be now.
I do not see any connection between buying a ticket to watch your team in Manchester (or watching on the TV) and the human rights situation in Qatar.
The most important thing here is who is the best potential owner for the club, who will invest in the stadium and sort out our boardroom issues.
I find it absolutely bizarre that you would prefer the Glazers who have mismanaged us for several years based on some worthless moral crusade.
I don't actually think he would have been taking as much as 2+20, it was just an example of what's considered normal. Let's say it's half, even a quarter - feel free to do the maths.That's a bit much. Is it the one where you argued that HBJ earned 2+20 on QIA's assets for the years he was at the head of it? Because that is how a hedge fund in the US or Europe works (and the owner doesn't get to keep all of it because there's all of the other employee's salaries+bonuses and other expenses), but not how sovereign wealth funds work. Otherwise some of the managers of Norway's SWF would be the richest people in the world.
Getting millionaire/low billionaire rich because you were involved, be it as a banker, a manager, or a minor partner, in many big deals over your career is something that happens. 10+ billion in wealth without it being your own capital at risk is corruption.
Thankfully we only have to look at the poll to see that the vast majority (85%) are not considering any kind of boycott and I'm sure many of those who are conflicted will keep supporting tooThose wanting to boycott the club due to their concerns I would also say they need to research our major clothing suppliers whose manufacturing are based in poorer countries. I can guarantee they work in far poor conditions and death rates from accidents are pretty common. We are very likely to be supporting these businesses by wearing the garments every day. Difficult to live a such high moral life.
What the actual heck is going on now?If those in the West are so concerned about the working and living conditions of the workers in these newly developing countries it is mostly their citizens who are at the forefront of the development of infrastructure and buildings. They can and should make a stand against unsafe conditions with the Qatari government or threaten to quit. Similarly, the workers mostly know exactly the working and living conditions before they commit to signing contracts.
Do you really believe the employees are not paid?They aren’t paid ffs!
But in many cases the contract is only signed after arriving in Qatar buy which time of course many migrant workers will have taken out large loans to pay agents, travel fees etc.If those in the West are so concerned about the working and living conditions of the workers in these newly developing countries it is mostly their citizens who are at the forefront of the development of infrastructure and buildings. They can and should make a stand against unsafe conditions with the Qatari government or threaten to quit. Similarly, the workers mostly know exactly the working and living conditions before they commit to signing contracts.
Well, no - it's not proof of that.That's not proof of some plan at work by Qatar/Oligarchs/et al, to show that fans are hypocrites.
I hate this line of argument because it is akin to saying "those who aren't concerned about everything should not be concerned about anything". It is deflection and whataboutism.Those wanting to boycott the club due to their concerns I would also say they need to research our major clothing suppliers whose manufacturing are based in poorer countries. I can guarantee they work in far poor conditions and death rates from accidents are pretty common. We are very likely to be supporting these businesses by wearing the garments every day. Difficult to live a such high moral life.
There have literally been instances of this yes?Do you really believe the employees are not paid?
There are probably more concerning reasons to be against a Qatari owning the club than coming up with unfounded accusations.