Great news this evening guys.
It's not done yet, but hopefully the trust fund kid fecks off for good now.
It's not done yet, but hopefully the trust fund kid fecks off for good now.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Don't forget me, please.
Yeah I will hold my hands up it does look like Jassim's bid failed that proof of funds test
Indeed
The ceiling value of the 2 G’s holdings is the stipulated amount on the call(or is it put?) that SJR holds which can force them to sell their 20% at that price, 2 or 3 years down the line. Add £20 to that and match the offer the 4 siblings. Now you have a better offer. Or I’ve misunderstood the situation?
Yeah it's hard not to be skeptical where there are so many pressing issues he hasn't acknowledged in previous statements
Yeah his worrisome history with clubs is another reason why it's hard to have any trust
Comparing the xenophobia of opposing their World Cup bid (which I agree with) to buying Manchester United is a false equivalency. If the US or England were buying Manchester United you might have a point, but since they aren't you don't.
Sorry, not forgetting @Rojofiam too
How do the morality brigade feel about INEOS having investments in Saudi Arabia?
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...16bn-in-building-saudi-arabia-chemical-plants
Do they feel that knowing our future owners will happily do business in a country with human rights issues as long as its profitable taints them in any way?
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...16bn-in-building-saudi-arabia-chemical-plants
Do they feel that knowing our future owners will happily do business in a country with human rights issues as long as its profitable taints them in any way?
6 Bil and it;s a done deal, only way Sheik is getting the club.
Considering that Dan Snyder just accepted a record bid worth $6.1 billion (£4.9 billion) today to sell the Washington Commanders, the Glazers better not expect too much above that amount.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It will not go to £6 billion. Not even that cnut Snyder could get anything better for a team that did nothing worthy in a while.
There's tonnes of things that taint INEOS and Ratcliffe, from what I've heard. They pale in comparison though.
While there may be and I've missed it, I don't remember seeing many people arguing that Ineos are a bastion of morality. Most recognize that they have their own issues.
I am firmly against Qatar or any state ownership under any circumstances, but I also have also called on fans to use our collective voice to continually bring attention to the abuses of whichever owner wins the bid (environmental abuses if it is Ineos, human rights abuses if it is Qatar). That's how you counter sportswashing/greenwashing.
So it's OK to be owned by a company that will profit from murderous regimes? This was about a year after the khalashoggi stuff, that Jim announced this. Its just those regimes directly owning us that's the issue. A guy who's already rich doing business there to make himself slightly richer is totally ok?
My point is that people are strongly against Qatar owning us, but a business profiting from deals with Saudi Arabia doesn't provoke the same response. Is it because its easier to turn a blind eye with a degree of removal?
Are you asking why it's seen as less harmful to do business with people who do bad things than it is to be the people doing those bad things?
Well no, I'm asking why some people who say they'd be appalled at us being owned by Qatar are desperate for a billionaire who happily does business in Saudi Arabia after the khalshoggi murder.
I mean they say morally they can't accept Qatar but are totally OK with Jim, surely if your morals are so strongly against these regimes you wouldn't want either in charge
My preference would be for an owner that raised less moral issues than INEOS, though I think they are vastly less problematic than Qatari ownership. My desire for INEOS to take over the club is due to finding them preferable to the presented alternatives, not a belief they are a force for good in the world.
Then why not want the Glazers to stay? As far as I'm aware they don't do any business with any murderous regimes nor are they responsible for any human rights abuses. If your morals have you not wanting Qatar, then you shouldn't want Jim either, you should want the takeover to fail and the Glazers to stay.
But obviously people don't want that, because as it turns out they are generally willing to be morally flexible for support of their club.
Its easy to be sneering and condescending towards people who want Qatar and talk about blood money and sacrificing your morals for trophies, but Ratcliffe profits from murderous regimes and the Glazers don't, so if morals matter more than trophies you should want the Glazers to stay
I don't think the Glazers pose significantly less moral issues than INEOS. I do prefer them to Qatar and were they the only two options I would hope for the Glazers to stay.
I am fine with either ownership and usually just skim to search news, but the above is why I hate this thread.
They do. The Glazers are just shitty football owners, ineos do business with places like China and Saudi Arabia, they don't have to, they were already huge without that, they could have stuck to doing business with the US, or Denmark or Norway for oil and the like but for a little bit more profit they happily deal with these regimes, less than a year after the khalashoggi murder he announces a deal to set up plants in Saudi Arabia, and as far as I remember from the morality lectures any money from these states is blood money.
Therefore the Glazers aren't blood money and Jim is. So people are compromising their morals for trophies by wanting Jim in, while criticising others for doing the same thing
I don't want either. I WANT 50+1 (or really 100%) fan ownership. I'd also accept a benevolent multi-billionaire that grew up on the terraces of OT and made all of his money saving the environment, feeding the poor, building schools and hospitals in poor countries, etc.
But as none of those things are realistic, we are left with three choices, none of which are good: The Glazers, Ineos, or Qatar.
True, but of those 3 the Glazers are clearly the least morally troublesome, they're just shit, so anyone who wants Ratcliffe or Qatar, is to some extent sacrificing their morals for trophies, just that some have managed to do this while criticising others for it
No they aren't.
Yes they are, all they do is own sports teams, they don't do business in Saudi Arabia, they aren't polluters, they didn't back brexit, they aren't tax dodgers, they're just shitty owners but morally they don't seem to present any real dilemma
"Anyone". No, not everyone that is against Qatar has criticized pro-Qatar people on moral grounds.
And who says all the people that prefer Ineos are doing so based on trophies?
I know you think you've built this "gotcha" argument, but it's really just generalizations and straw man arguments.
But it's getting late for my old ass, so have at it.
I imagine they have investments in things other than sports teams, I think a lot of their wealth comes from the oil and gas company that Malcolm owned but I don't know what they own currently. They do business with Saudi Arabia. They are tax dodgers.
Regarding the high horse fans, If investors from China is trying to own a stake, the fans will want China to quit communism, the investors owned company in their country should have equal woman workforce, lgbt policy, shouldn’t make pollution etc to comply being a Man united owner.
The fans can’t do anything when 1b is taken out of club but will hold any new owners to their high expectation from their other businesses or far away country as the new owners are trying to wash something by owning the club.
The fans can’t do anything when 1b is taken out of club but will hold any new owners to their high expectation from their other businesses or far away country as the new owners are trying to wash something by owning the club.
Last edited:
Well presumably the people who want rid of the Glazers it's because of our current lack of success.
I mean quite a lot of people have, I've seen it said in here that people are happy to endorse murderous regimes that hate gays, then **** for a guy who is happy to do business with these regimes if it means making a bit more profit. Fair enough it's not everyone against Qatar, but really if you're OK with Jim but against Qatar it really means you don't care that much about what goes on in these countries, just as long as there's a degree of separation
Are they tax dodgers? What business do they do with Saudi Arabia, I can't find anything online.
You're just trying to rationalise here, Jim happily went into business with Saudi Arabia less than 12 months after the khalashoggi murder, he does business with these regimes. Given that apparently wanting Qatar in as fans is us endorsing these regimes, what does Jim doing billions of dollars of business with them count as?
They are tax dodgers (why do you think United is registered in the Cayman Islands?).
They aren't British (so didn't have a vote on Brexit, and so you don't know if they supported, opposed, or didn't care about Brexit).
But they did support and give money to Trump, which is worse (and will probably support Trump again, or DeSantis, both of which just compounds this).
There had tried to get investment in the club from Saudi Arabia.
They own a cricket team in UAE.
So yeah, pretty much every example that you gave about them not being morally problematic, was wrong.
Manchester United plc is incorporated in the Cayman Islands.
Here's a quote from Richard Arnold about a partnership it has with Saudi Arabia
https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...ip will see the,League champions help the GSA
I mean Owning a cricket team in UAE isn't really the same thing as dealing directly with the state of Saudi Arabia to set up plants there.
Would you want ineos if they were doing business with Russia right now? Or is Saudi Arabia OK to profit from but Russia is a red line?
As I asked in another comment, if ineos was doing business with Russia right now would that be a red line for you in wanting them in? If so what's the difference between them doing business with Saudi Arabia and doing business with russia?
You're just flat out wrong on that. As proof, please look up the protests of 2010 and the origin of the green and gold campaign, as we were in the midst of 3 straight PL titles and 3 CL finals in 4 years.
As I said, straw man arguments. Enjoy your evening.
Right but at that point we were still servicing massive amounts of debt and barely investing in the team. Given the billion pounds we've spent over the last decade I think if we'd been successful post fergie a lot of that would have died down
One thing we know is that Ratcliffe can’t come out saying he will put the club back where it belongs, make us great “again “ etc.
If he’s partnering with the Glazers they won’t let him given it would be insulting to them, and it would make things awkward for Ratcliffe.
You can see why people are set against him, letting the people who fecked up the club stay is near unforgivable. No real Utd fan would contemplate it if they were buying the club, which makes Ratcliffe look more like an opportunist than a person who has the clubs best interests at heart.
If he’s partnering with the Glazers they won’t let him given it would be insulting to them, and it would make things awkward for Ratcliffe.
You can see why people are set against him, letting the people who fecked up the club stay is near unforgivable. No real Utd fan would contemplate it if they were buying the club, which makes Ratcliffe look more like an opportunist than a person who has the clubs best interests at heart.
- Status