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 cult 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.