Feck. Sold by this time next year?
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Very accurate, he's hard to listen to that's for sure.
i can never work out if Kaveh and Dharmesh think they're been taken seriously, or like this sort of weird way Sky Sports use them.
I mean why would they be ok for Sky to make cartoons with overly sized heads of them if they want to be taken seriously, so it must be the latter.
I’ve never said I’m pro Qatari, not once, neither am I pro INEOS, I’m anti Glazer.
I’m just pointing out the praise which appears to be heaped upon a state owned Man City and the negative comments towards a “possible” state owned Manchester United, so wind your neck in.
I think Sky are trying to create “personalities” out of them, but just look at Kaveh when he is not talking in that style “Look…” He looks like he’s waiting for a shepherd’s crook to enter stage left and hook him off.
I quoted your take on Burnham's interview, which you have ridiculously referred to as 'anti United'. There were no 'negative' comments in this past commentary upon the funding, and it wasn't particulary negative, either.
You also referred to 'journalists' and 'politicians' in a derogatory sense. A classic slice of the pro-sportswashing ethos.
'I'm just anti-Glazer'
Nowhere near enough.
It means you are pro-Qatar (and Ratcliffe). The 1958 **** hides behind disingenuous banners like: Full Sale Only, but it's to whom we are sold to which is the primary concern.
You mentioned 'investment in infrastructure and community' (the type of evidence-free bluster which attracts the #QatarIn crowd) but Qatar is not particularly 'investing' in either, absolutely not the latter.
It is worthy of pointing out city's ticket was in place for nine years before Burnham became mayor (a position he has to justify, unlike Qatar, it is not a dictatorship). This is not to absolve him. His refusal to sign a condemnatory letter regarding Abu Dhabi's human rights abuses is galling, but explained (not excused) by the now complex relationship they have with the council Burnham has inherited.
However, nobody who is in favour of, or blasé, about Qatari rule can justifiably attack another's political position without the scourge of 'hypocrisy' being played back, at the very least.
Last edited:
Agree with most of this.
Additional point, most blues were/are quite happy for their club to be a sportwashing project as long as they win things. They don't care who owns them as long as they are successful. Most of them would be happy with Putin if it meant beating us.
United's support has traditionally stood against this. Its why we protested against Murdoch with almost as much verosity as the Glazers. It's really depressing how people's justified hatred of the Glazers has led to a "if we can't beat them, join them" mentality.
feck me I actually nodded off reading this.
I promised myself I wouldn’t get engaged with any of the wanky debates about politics , ethics, morals or any of the other conversations with people who are clearly much smarter and more switched on than simple cnuts like me so I’ll leave it there and you can get back to watching question time.
Some media saying the Glazers want 8 billion now. Probably bullshit, but its being reported. Swas this on youtube and he reckons some UK press are reporting it.
Link
Link
Beyond bored now!
Back handers probably
I’m hopefully all these players being sold and off the wage bill are been instructed by Qatar so they have a clean bill of health once the club is purchased
How I wish that was the case
Don’t be daft.
Calling out a politician’s hypocrisy for praising ME owned Man City a month ago and then expressing ‘concern’ about Utd being possibly ME owned a month later isn’t sportswashing - it’s just holding commenters of Utd to normal, fair standards.
It has nothing at all to do with ‘praising Qatar’, and everything to do with demanding fairness in how Utd is viewed / treated.
Your agenda is getting tedious, and is blatantly slanted to a point of being quite distasteful.
If you have no problem with the Mayor’s disgusting double standards, I would find that very odd.
Likewise, yesterday you criticised Beckham for saying that he thinks the Glazers should move on - very odd.
Do you want the Glazers to go? Yes or no.
I have a sneaking suspicion this was agreed four weeks ago for £5.5/6bn and then the Glazers tried to renegotiate and pulled out of that deal but told the Qatari bid the following ;
1. INEOS are being giving the opportunity to bid on 100% of the club as well or at least 80% to buy out Minority share holders.
2. Told them that the record revenue now forecast without CL football has meant they have revalued the club at nearly £7/8bn but would take £6.5bn ($8bn) for their shares ( Meaning after debt has been paid of £535m they would get £6bn, which is what they’ve always wanted?)
3. Top 5 now guarantees CL football has made them reconsider as the club has only missed 5th place 3 times in 30 years
4. I also believe that the Glazers are including SJ and INEOS in all transfer dealings to string them along.
5. No one else is going to offer them £7/8bn unless a Saudi consortium is founded and then prove its not related to Newcastle, impossible.
6. I also believe they are telling Qatar, EPL directors tests are only going to get much harder for state backed bids and this might be your only chance as there is huge hostility from the PL teams .
7. They are using the recent world record of purchase of an NFL team in Washington as a measurement and they believe united is worth 20/30% more !
8. They have probably dropped in the conversation that SA was going to offer one footballer for one year a €1bn transfer fee and wages, how is not the most recognised soccer club on the planet with 140 years of history now worth at least 10 times that when you will own it for life?
Summary;
The Glazers know there really is only one bidder that can afford the £6 billion they’ve always wanted and are trying a desperate last push to get SJ and Qatar to increase the bid
They aren't making another bid
Inventing (even accidentally, as seems to be the case) equivalences, as you have done here, is indeed an indication of sportswashing.
Remember, Burnham has only claimed many are uncomfortable about the source of 92F's funding. He has not claimed Qatar should not own the club or anything other, just their source of funding is concerning. Which is fair enough.
I've an axe to grond with AB's premiership on many fronts, but it is a council's job (or should be) to ensure accountability whenever someone attempts to 'invest' in the city's infrastructure.
I do agree that he should condemn the UAE's appropriation of Manchester. Political sports-washing, like Qatar's deeply political state bid for our club, should be condemned.
Your offence with Burnham is not 'double standards' or 'hypocrisy', it's because he said something contrary about the Qatari state bid you have been championing at length on these pages. Ibid.
Glass houses.
It depends on who and what replaces them.
As for Beckham, I criticised him for urging change after he has been paid thousands (possibly more) to advertise the state of Qatar's tourist board.
I criticised him in the same way I criticised Jordan Henderson for his actual hypocrisy.
Last of my three 'big boy pages' posts today so can't reply. Newbies gotta Newbie!
I hope not, Chief.
Cant stand the thought of my beloved Reds becoming a heinous political job. Mind you, want rid of the Glazers. Should given the Finnish lad a flim after all!
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm anti-Qatar mate
Did you get your cookie for being an ethical fan today? What a bunch of nonsense.
To be fair, if he has a valid point, then hypocrisy is largely irrelevant, just bias. So the other poster does has a point when you pro Qatar types are only focused on the hypocrisy and whataboutisms to discredit the guy.
Then this rumbles on for another 12 months at least, if they had not of announced the deal was practically done 4/5 weeks ago through local Qatar media, I’d agree with you but because of that, I think they actually will?
Actually mate, a number of posters who were rightly bothered by Andy’s disgusting and blatant hypocrisy are anti Qatar.
Any Utd fan should be bothered about it from that point of view.
But you carry on with whatever it is you’re trying to achieve.
Also, I’m still waiting for @Pes6Monster to answer whether he / she wants the Glazers out or not.
Look, when Burnham's tweet first came up I knew what the reactions would be. So I didn't even bother participating. All I'm doing now is pointing out that you guys, whether anti or pro but looks mostly pro, are playing right into that posters hands by ignoring the points and going after hypocrisy. Then again, every discussion and talking point has been discussed to death anyways, so carry on...
The latest rumours is the are going to sell in Nov. Long way to go..
As long as they sell, I dont care. It doesnt matter if it goes in November, that'll do me.
how can the hypocrisy be irrelevant? That’s the entire point everyone is pulling him up on
there’s nothing more relevant in fact
The only thing relevant is bias. His motivation can be questioned, but his points could still stand.
i agree with his points about Qatar but find it hypocritical
what bias is relevant here?
Why is it being hypocritical a problem for you?
My 2 cents: I don’t think OP believes there is any hypocrisy as charged. has a go at Mayor too for not signing a letter.
Pointed out Roy Keane style that it’s Burnhams job to authenticate investors but RhymeAnimal has a point as to why it’s been done public. could be reaching out to Qatar to come a bit cleaner, though
Think the proQatar mob are clinging onto ‘disgusting’ hypocrisy but OP’s kind of right to suggest as they do. still real sad to see us fans tear each other apart like this. We were United against Glazer but now they’re going we are throwing awful mud at each other.
Guess this is the future under Qatar.
I wouldn’t call it a problem if I call someone out for being hypocritical, it’s just something I did
I’m a United fan so will generally try to defend them if I see that stuff
Understood. It's a negative thing sure, but I'm surprised to see it being the main talking point over the actual concerns about turning the city into a sportswashing machine. Imo the only relevance is that he didn't say the same things about City, hence the possibility of bias. However, it's also possible that he doesn't see the two clubs as the same. City were a nothing club when they got taken over, and we're a bit special.
I think it matters when they sell but November actually is good. Hopefully, it gives the new people enough time to sort out January based on our needs and if we're in touch for league, who knows.
Two weeks I said. Nothing will happen... told you I did... now... matters are worse. #Yoda
yeah, the sports washing thing is obviously the major talking point. But it’s been done to death in here by myself and everyone else, and I’ve reached the point where I just can’t be arsed to talk about it anymore. Nobody who thinks differently to myself (I think we’re being used to sports wash) is ever going to change their mind on the matter.
So Utd should be bled dry by awful ownership because the club is a ‘bit special’ while Citeh’s fine for him to praise publicly because they’re not special
Lovely stuff.If his problem is sportswashing - (something that DOES NOT EVEN APPLY TO MAN UTD, lest we forget) then it’s City first and foremost he should be levelling this at.
Or he should shut the feck up.
Over 2000 pages of shite talk. What a pointless exercise this all was. Except from the point of view of the Glazers probably, it took most of the focus off them.
If Andy Burnham is "uncomfortable" with this then he seemed perfectly ok with Chinese investment in Manchester City centre and made sure his mate Chris Boardman got paid in a very unusual way for his input as a cycling Tsar...
So I think he is just trying to get a cheap headline...he loves having a ready quote for occasions such as these.
Action rarely follows.
My fear with a delayed sale was that they'd sabotage our prospects for next season with the process interfering with the transfer window. But since it's been a relatively effective window and ETH's has largely been getting his targets, I'll happily wait till halloween for the Glazer nightmare to end.
What rationale is there for leaving it until November? Seems a bit of an arbitrary date plucked from the air.
- Status