Club Sale | It’s done!

[HarryP]

Nobody's saying Qatar are out of order for doing this. It's entirely up to them how they wish to wield their resource. It's not underhanded either as it's blatantly obvious what they're doing.

But it doesn't mean we have to accept it or like it. Qatari culture is not the same as that of Manchester and there are legitimate concerns about their human rights practices. But if they act sensitively and don't try to push any moral agendas directly through owning United then it will be accepted. Dirty money rules the world from all parts of the globe, as long as they don't overplay it then we'll all move on.

This is a big misunderstanding when it comes to 'sportswashing'. They do not try to push any 'moral agendas'. City, PSG or Newcastle haven't been used as a vehicle to push back against human rights in any shape or form.

What they do is promote the big companies connected to their country via sponsorship - Fly Emirates, Qatari Airways etc. These companies become more successful and increase jobs + revenue for the countries they're located in.

Middle Eastern states buy football clubs in order to make their countries more wealthy, not to sustain 'moral agendas'. In fact I would say the best thing they could do to sustain human rights abuses would be to cut themselves off from the rest of the world and not try to grow their economies.

 

[oates]

Qataris will invest in the infrastructure and local community, pay the debt and let the club use what we earn. I am all for it. We will be self sustainable without having to pay off the interest and the leaking roof of the OT will be fixed.

I don't really understand this and tbh it hasn't just been you saying it, but the Qataris won't be paying off the debt, it will still be debt, still on the debt side of the ledger. In reality as we all know if the debt is anyone's it should be the Glazers but instead even if the amount of any remaining loan is paid off that must be what is really happening, the debt is simply transferred.

 

[Wumminator]

Men literally fought and died since the dawn of time in slave revolts because surprise, men don’t like to be owned by other men, but yeah, ‘human rights is just a lie’.

I’ll take the warning, but some of you are thick as pig shit. No one would have a problem if you just say I can’t give up on the club, but actually trying to justify the MENA states human rights records with these sort of babbles is hilarious, and sad. Go live in a freaking state where mere decades ago, police barged into your house and dug up your floor to confiscate your own property and tell me that’s just a difference in opinion.

Great post

 

[Wumminator]

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

Think about what you are saying here.

 

[Cloud7]

they are more influential than they would be in part because of sportswashing, obviously

I mean, do you honestly think they paid 10 times more than any world cup in history for the love of the game? For most of the group games in the world cup the VIP seats were all empty, it was only in the latter stages when they were actually filled up with locals. They could barely give a feck about it.

Kashoggi doesn't care but it did cost him something, people think less of him in the west. And the knock-on effect is people trust SA less and are less likely to do business with them.

Is this really the case though? Genuinely asking for my own knowledge here. To the common, untrained eye I.E. me, it doesn't seem like any governments or large bodies are doing any less business with SA after this

The common person, certainly, as that incident was quite an eye opener to me regarding them, but on a more global scale has it actually caused what you said?

 

[The Boy]

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

Possibly the most ridiculous post in this thread so far and definitely up there with "Most women living in Qatar love the laws"

 

[Tarrou]

Is this really the case though? Genuinely asking for my own knowledge here. To the common, untrained eye I.E. me, it doesn't seem like any governments or large bodies are doing any less business with SA after this

The common person, certainly, as that incident was quite an eye opener to me regarding them, but on a more global scale has it actually caused what you said?

well it's impossible to answer that question, as we don't know what would have happened if he didn't do it

but certainly his reputation is massively tarnished by that incident, and SA's by association

 

[Cloud7]

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

Do you really think, deep down, that the UK are more moral, objectively, than Qatar? Don't answer that. Because this isn't an easy question.

And am I right? Is my view free from prejudices and lies? No. I'm a white South African, living in a country with one of the best constitutions, yet absolutely discriminated against.

What

 

[oates]

This is a big misunderstanding when it comes to 'sportswashing'. They do not try to push any 'moral agendas'. City, PSG or Newcastle haven't been used as a vehicle to push back against human rights in any shape or form.

What they do is promote the big companies connected to their country via sponsorship - Fly Emirates, Qatari Airways etc. These companies become more successful and increase jobs + revenue for the countries they're located in.

Middle Eastern states buy football clubs in order to make their countries more wealthy, not to sustain 'moral agendas'. In fact I would say the best thing they could do to sustain human rights abuses would be to cut themselves off from the rest of the world and not try to grow their economies.

So in effect what their goals are is to win consumer spending from where it currently is heading to their own country?

 

[Sweet Square]

Men literally fought and died since the dawn of time in slave revolts because surprise, men don’t like to be owned by other men, but yeah, ‘human rights is just a lie’.

I’ll take the warning, but some of you are thick as pig shit. No one would have a problem if you just say I can’t give up on the club, but actually trying to justify the MENA states human rights records with these sort of babbles is hilarious, and sad. Go live in a freaking state where mere decades ago, police barged into your house and dug up your floor to confiscate your own property and tell me that’s just a difference in opinion.

Well said.

 

[Cloud7]

well it's impossible to answer that question, as we don't know what would have happened if he didn't do it

but certainly his reputation is massively tarnished by that incident, and SA's by association

But do we have any objective evidence that SA has lost business as a result of this, or are we just talking reputation here? Like, numbers/associations that have decreased from before that incident to after?

 

[Shakesy]

Think about what you are saying here.

Because you are "free" to make up your own mind, right? Right?

 

[Wumminator]

Because you are "free" to make up your own mind, right? Right?

It is genuinely one of the stupidest posts I’ve ever seen,

 

[Cloud7]

When someone says "If slavery was enforced then after a while people would think it was for the best" I feel like this thread needs another time out

 

[cyberman]

Well this thread has turned rather sour

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

Explain what?

If you wanted to say something or your contribution to this thread was until good lord only?

Bizarre

He is actually right, the concept of house maid or house help is very common in middle east and south asia. Because you have several kids and one mother to take care of them all, so you have house help from morning till evening. Or sometimes even both parents are working and it's cheaper to have house help than to enroll 2 kids to daycare for example, which is very expensive.

 

[Tarrou]

But do we have any objective evidence that SA has lost business as a result of this, or are we just talking reputation here? Like, numbers/associations that have decreased from before that incident to after?

nah, I was just speaking to the repetitional loss as my opinion.. so don't put any weight into it

 

[Shakesy]

Men literally fought and died since the dawn of time in slave revolts because surprise, men don’t like to be owned by other men, but yeah, ‘human rights is just a lie’.

I’ll take the warning, but some of you are thick as pig shit. No one would have a problem if you just say I can’t give up on the club, but actually trying to justify the MENA states human rights records with these sort of babbles is hilarious, and sad. Go live in a freaking state where mere decades ago, police barged into your house and dug up your floor to confiscate your own property and tell me that’s just a difference in opinion.

Never take someone's conviction of power away. We live in a democracy! Power to the people! We decide what is right or wrong. We matter! Our opinion matters!

 

[redcucumber]

Show me one country that doesn't abuse human rights. Human rights - the biggest lie ever told.

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

I feel like you're just saying random things at this point. I don't see how what you're talking about is at all relevant - maybe you are misrepresenting your argument.

 

[Judas]

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

Do you really think, deep down, that the UK are more moral, objectively, than Qatar? Don't answer that. Because this isn't an easy question.

And am I right? Is my view free from prejudices and lies? No. I'm a white South African, living in a country with one of the best constitutions, yet absolutely discriminated against.

How does this thread keep getting worse for feck sake

 

[cyberman]

To be fair aren’t the Tories getting rid of human rights post Brexit?

 

[Shakesy]

Possibly the most ridiculous post in this thread so far and definitely up there with "Most women living in Qatar love the laws"

What

It is genuinely one of the stupidest posts I’ve ever seen,

Nice

 

[Shakesy]

How does this thread keep getting worse for feck sake

 

[sullydnl]

When someone says "If slavery was enforced then after a while people would think it was for the best" I feel like this thread needs another time out

In this particular case I don't think the rest of the thread needs to take any responsibility.

 

[El Zoido]

When someone says "If slavery was enforced then after a while people would think it was for the best" I feel like this thread needs another time out

Personally I think it’s a good idea to have an open thread where people can air their concerns. But of course, drawing the line at personal attacks. I’ve been following the thread but don’t have a lot to contribute so haven’t. I can’t imagine ending up in a situation where I’m not supporting the club though.

 

[golden_blunder]

Would be very difficult within FFP. He’s on absurd money.

I think a big amount of fans are still misunderstanding what we can and cannot do, even with a richer owner. It’s not FM. We can’t just go out and buy every player we want. It all has to be done within the confines of what the club make. Otherwise you’re in danger of being in the same position that city now find themselves with over 100 charges levelled against them

 

[Wumminator]

Did you have a servant or house maid in your house? I'm only asking because something like the bold is quite normal throughout the world where you have servants

. If they wanted to be out unsupervised they should have not accept the Emirate's contract

If the UK enforces slavery, most would object. At first. Then people would all get in line and convince themselves it's for the better.

presented without comment.

 

[cyberman]

I think a big amount of fans are still misunderstanding what we can and cannot do, even with a richer owner. It’s not FM. We can’t just go out and buy every player we want. It all has to be done within the confines of what the club make. Otherwise you’re in danger of being in the same position that city now find themselves with over 100 charges levelled against them

But being allowed to spend all of our 70 percent is a huge advantage to us anyway. Plus we have a few sponsorship deals up for renewal soon that should be completed by the summer if the takeover happens

 

[Cloud7]

In this particular case I don't think the rest of the thread needs to take any responsibility.

If there's one thing I learned in my time on the Caf, is that there's always someone out there with a worse take. Someone will be around before long with a worse take than that

 

[Tarrou]

this thread is a cultural zeitgeist

I can imagine future generations of teenagers studying it with equal parts confusion and hilarity

 

[Adam-Utd]

I think this is getting a bit OTT.

They're trying to buy a football club, not impose Shariah law in Manchester.

Was Man City not also a working class club? their fans and the area seem to be pretty happy at the moment.

I very much doubt the Qatari's want to change the soul or style of the club, just make it win again.

Making the famous Manchester United WIN again is a trophy only some could dream of.

 

[Nick7]

How does this thread keep getting worse for feck sake

This is just the beginning

 

[redcucumber]

This is a big misunderstanding when it comes to 'sportswashing'. They do not try to push any 'moral agendas'. City, PSG or Newcastle haven't been used as a vehicle to push back against human rights in any shape or form.

What they do is promote the big companies connected to their country via sponsorship - Fly Emirates, Qatari Airways etc. These companies become more successful and increase jobs + revenue for the countries they're located in.

Middle Eastern states buy football clubs in order to make their countries more wealthy, not to sustain 'moral agendas'. In fact I would say the best thing they could do to sustain human rights abuses would be to cut themselves off from the rest of the world and not try to grow their economies.

It's a combination of both. The greater the power, wealth and influence they have, the easier it is to do as they please without fear of reprisal (yes, just like the UK and the US). Jamal Khashoggi, human rights abuses, the Yemen crisis. Generally speaking, all super rich and powerful people care about is maintaining and growing their own power base and wealth, and thus are able to do whatever the feck they want.

 

[Ten Lasso]

This thread is fecked.

It's already been locked once, some people just can't help themselves. Like children.

 

[redcucumber]

I think this is getting a bit OTT.

They're trying to buy a football club, not impose Shariah law in Manchester.

Was Man City not also a working class club? their fans and the area seem to be pretty happy at the moment.

I very much doubt the Qatari's want to change the soul or style of the club, just make it win again.

Making the famous Manchester United WIN again is a trophy only some could dream of.

We don't need to be owned by a nation state to win again. Be it Qatar, the US, Germany, Dubai, Bolivia etc.

 

[Fahad Jawaid]

Why?

This has been THE thread over the last few days. I’ve rarely seen something so illuminating. We’ve got people saying that Qatar isn’t that bad because people chose to enter a work force where they can’t be left unsupervised, having servants treated horribly is quite okay and it’s acceptable to believe that gay people will be punished when they die.

THIS is what people need to see. It’s all well and good saying “football is just escapism” but your escapism is going to be paid for by appalling viewpoints on human rights and dignity.

In this very thread you have people arguing that women should be controlled by men because they’re happy. That beheadings are okay from potential owners (this was another thread tbf) because it can’t be proven.

THIS is what sportswashing is. Some people will feel okay and not bothered because they love United and want them to do well. Others will love United and struggle to see such horrendous people having control of the club.

There is a price tk be paid with Qatari owners. Sentences like “if they want to be let out unsupervised they shouldn’t have taken the contract” and “servants are common across the world” is part of that price. Face up to it and admit that if you want the Qatari owners, you accept that cost. But don’t ignore the issue

Actually nobody is saying those things, you either really have a comprehension skills of a five year old or you are on wum just to derail the thread and make it about religion and make baseless comments.

The discussion should be about whether the owners are good for Manchester United football club against other potential owners, and whether they will do their outmost and make decisions in the best interest of Manchester united.

Instead you want to discuss what they do in their home country and why the religious laws of that country is made a certain way.

You are either a wum or a huge racist and spreading islamophobia in this thread. I think it's best to put you on ignore.

 

[kaku06]

So everyone wanted us to be ‘fan owned’ for years, but not a fan from Qatar.

I’m well aware what it means. It is this romantic notion of Flex and Goldbridge being on the United board or something and being consulted on decisions. However, a large part of the initial romantic appeal of Sir Jim Ratcliffe was also that we would be owned by a fan. I read many a post to that effect.

By the looks of things, we may not be owned by Ratcliffe, but instead a wealthy fan who is from Qatar.

 

[Wumminator]

Actually nobody is saying those things, you either really have a comprehension skills of a five year old or you are on wum just to derail the thread and make it about religion and make baseless comments.

The discussion should be about whether the owners are good for Manchester United football club against other potential owners, and whether they will do their outmost and make decisions in the best interest of Manchester united.

Instead you want to discuss what they do in their home country and why the religious laws of that country is made a certain way.

You are either a wum or a huge racist and spreading islamophobia in this thread. I think it's best to put you on ignore.

Reported.

I have literally quoted those things on the last page.

 

[Tarrou]

Actually nobody is saying those things, you either really have a comprehension skills of a five year old or you are on wum just to derail the thread and make it about religion and make baseless comments.

The discussion should be about whether the owners are good for Manchester United football club against other potential owners, and whether they will do their outmost and make decisions in the best interest of Manchester united.

Instead you want to discuss what they do in their home country and why the religious laws of that country is made a certain way.

You are either a wum or a huge racist and spreading islamophobia in this thread. I think it's best to put you on ignore.

people did say those things though

 

[redcucumber]

Actually nobody is saying those things, you either really have a comprehension skills of a five year old or you are on wum just to derail the thread and make it about religion and make baseless comments.

The discussion should be about whether the owners are good for Manchester United football club against other potential owners, and whether they will do their outmost and make decisions in the best interest of Manchester united.

Instead you want to discuss what they do in their home country and why the religious laws of that country is made a certain way.

You are either a wum or a huge racist and spreading islamophobia in this thread. I think it's best to put you on ignore.

You might not like it, but some people have different ideas with regards to what sort of owners and ownership model they'd like to see at United.