Don’t see how you equate Qatar asking people not wear the lgbt logo to people being stoned and IS taking over a war torn country and lgbt jumping from roof tops.Where in my post have I said that LGBTQ are being stoned to death in Qatar? They are 2 different things that I have mentioned separated by a comma in my post. Read this article to understand how LGBTQ are treated by the security forces in Qatar, if you tell me the stuff mentioned in the article is not as bad as LGBTQ being stoned to death then you are missing the point of my post. Also, LGBTQ are made to jump from roofs and made to jump again if they survive the first fall in some Islamic countries, I don't think that happens in Qatar though.
Honestly you keep doing this, can you just discuss the morals and political / socio-economic side of it in the other thread?Don’t see how you equate Qatar asking people not wear the lgbt logo to people being stoned and IS taking over a war torn country and lgbt jumping from roof tops.
Just out of curiosity & to see you actual understanding of the world and reality. Who do you think would fair better. Someone wearing the lgbt logo in Qatar, or someone who does it in Ukraine ?
I’d say many of those fans didn’t have a great attachment to the club’s history in the first place, or the prospect of untold riches has lead them to gloss over it.Well I think it's probably more that many fans simply don't agree that the club's name will be sullied if they took over. Or not anymore than it already is by the Glazers at least.
The mere fact of state ownership sullies it. If Qatar own the club for decades that then becomes part of the club’s story and identity.I do understand reservations about the Qatari bid and I have some myself, but I don't see much threat (if any) to the history and heritage of Man Utd as that goes beyond any owner. What are you afraid of them doing exactly ?
The article documents abuse and torture, why are you talking about a logo?Don’t see how you equate Qatar asking people not wear the lgbt logo to people being stoned and IS taking over a war torn country and lgbt jumping from roof tops.
Just out of curiosity & to see you actual understanding of the world and reality. Who do you think would fair better. Someone wearing the lgbt logo in Qatar, or someone who does it in Ukraine ?
Honestly, you keep turning a blind eye to people that make preposterous statements about Qatar but then only take offence to the thread being taken off topic when people reply.Honestly you keep doing this, can you just discuss the morals and political / socio-economic side of it in the other thread?
Im not offended. You can carry on the debate just take it to another thread. It's not rocket science, and it's not hard to see you're the constant in the debates with various other posters.Honestly, you keep turning a blind eye to people that make preposterous statements about Qatar but then only take offence to the thread being taken off topic when people reply.
So you don’t mind other posters making political / social comments about Qatar so long as it’s against Qatar on this thread, you just don’t want people replying with anything that isn’t 100% in agreement on this thread. Are you Miguel Delaney by any chance?Im not offended. You can carry on the debate just take it to another thread. It's not rocket science, and it's not hard to see you're the constant in the debates with various other posters.
Crikey give it a rest, it's all so tedious. None of you are going to change each other's minds on this.So you don’t mind other posters making political / social comments about Qatar so long as it’s against Qatar on this thread, you just don’t want people replying with anything that isn’t 100% in agreement on this thread. Are you Miguel Delaney by any chance?
Guaranteed no debt put on the club and all existing debts paid?From the confirmed interest so far, the Ineos bid.
Probably from next week, all indication seemed to be that the Raine Group and Glazers were going through all proposals to decide who will be invited to the next stage.Any news on when we’ll hear about next round of bidding? Perhaps next week?
They were taking a week or so to sift through bids so hopefully after the cup final we’ll get something.Any news on when we’ll hear about next round of bidding? Perhaps next week?
Is the Ineos bid (significantly) superior to the current ownership? And does it leave United’s name/identity intact?Guaranteed no debt put on the club and all existing debts paid?
Take it to the other thread.I’d say many of those fans didn’t have a great attachment to the club’s history in the first place, or the prospect of untold riches has lead them to gloss over it.
And Manchester United’s name hasn’t been sullied by the Glazers. The club achieved success in spite of them, not because of them…and now under ETH it looks like success is on the horizon again! A great manager using skill, ingenuity, man-management and youth. And all this will again be in spite of the owners.
The mere fact of state ownership sullies it. If Qatar own the club for decades that then becomes part of the club’s story and identity.
Ineos bid does not say they will wipe the debt, only that new debt wont be added to the club. They also did not address anything about the stadium or infrastructure.From the confirmed interest so far, the Ineos bid.
Nor the women’s team.Ineos bid does not say they will wipe the debt, only that new debt wont be added to the club. They also did not address anything about the stadium or infrastructure.
Seeing how the PSG women's team has developed over recent years with the Qatari ownership, making up the ground to catch Lyon who was very good, I am looking forward to them investing in our women's team. Considering they're already at a pretty good level to begin with we could go on to be one of the best teams in the world.Nor the women’s team.
Whatever about Ineos ownership relative to the Qatar bid, it would clearly be far superior to the current ownership. And crucially it keeps the club’s name/identity intact.Ineos bid does not say they will wipe the debt, only that new debt wont be added to the club. They also did not address anything about the stadium or infrastructure.
What the feck is wrong with you? I have an issue with political / social comments about the takeover in this thread regardless of the stance.So you don’t mind other posters making political / social comments about Qatar so long as it’s against Qatar on this thread, you just don’t want people replying with anything that isn’t 100% in agreement on this thread. Are you Miguel Delaney by any chance?
To be fair a prudent company probably shouldn't make such claims before getting a look at United's accounts and doing some due diligence. The other guy has made those claims and more, but saying and doing are two different things. We still have no clue where he's supposed to be getting all this funding from if it's not a state bid. His foundation as far as anyone can tell doesn't even currently exist.Ineos bid does not say they will wipe the debt, only that new debt wont be added to the club. They also did not address anything about the stadium or infrastructure.
You didnt answer my questionIs the Ineos bid (significantly) superior to the current ownership? And does it leave United’s name/identity intact?
So in that case, if we take your approach, he shouldn't be considered a serious bidder. Lets just wait to see what the Raine group say, if he has no money, Raine group will not take his bid.To be fair a prudent company probably shouldn't make such claims before getting a look at United's accounts and doing some due diligence. The other guy has made those claims and more, but saying and doing are two different things. We still have no clue where he's supposed to be getting all this funding from if it's not a state bid. His foundation as far as anyone can tell doesn't even currently exist.
Those ‘guarantees’ mean very little for me because they come from a state and at the expense of the club’s name/identity.You didnt answer my question
Those ‘guarantees’ mean very little for me because they come from a state and at the expense of the club’s name/identity.
I’m pointing out what it was that made Manchester United a household name in the first place, i.e. what happened during the Busby era. That’s where the history, heritage, tradition, culture of the club that people often mention principally stems from. And state ownership conflicts with this. It will alter the identity of the club.What do you mean? What will happen to the clubs name and identity?
Really? Do you think Harrods is a household name? I dont see anyone saying that Harrods is tainted because its owned by Qatar.I’m pointing out what it was that made Manchester United a household name in the first place, i.e. what happened during the Busby era. That’s where the history, heritage, tradition, culture of the club that people often mention principally stems from. And state ownership conflicts with this. It will alter the identity of the club.
The sad thing about it all is that it’s completely unnecessary - United doesn’t need state ownership!
When I mentioned ‘household name’ I’m not referring to ‘Manchester United’ as a fecking brand. I’m talking about the club’s place in the public consciousness, and how it came about. It didn’t happen by accident.Really? Do you think Harrods is a household name? I dont see anyone saying that Harrods is tainted because its owned by Qatar.
Barclays is still one of the bigger banks whilst having QSI as their largest shareholder.
I dont see anyone saying the Empire state building is tainted, QSI have their investment in there too.
VW has shareholders from Qatar, dont see it being tainted because of its affiliation with Qatar.
I tell you what alters the identity of the club.. poor facilities, leaking stadiums, not winning anything.
Yeah I'd hate to be in a situation like we are now, competing for four trophies...
I'd much rather we were more like PSG paying players a million a week and not competing in Europe.
Now you being unsincere. I claimed that City’s owners have political motivations for investing in City. You could say you agree or you disagree, but you actually asked me what political gain I thought City’s owners got from investing in City. I answered your question, and no part of that question is about western nations’ histories of violence or comparing atrocities.Ahhh what a post. I think you need to look hard at the west before making such posts. How do you think the British aquired all its wealth? I dont want to start this, all I will say is before accusing other countries of doing something, go make sure you have all the facts of what the Western countries did.
City owners have banned free press and free speech at Man City? Can you show me proof of this?
What political gain? Qatar already do more business with the Uk than you can imagine.
PLease go educate yourself on the political agreements with both countries before Qatar have even taken over a sporting project in this country.
I mean they have hosted a WC so really yeah buying United for 4bn is a political campaign.. ok.Yet i have read a bit about Qatar, I know Qatar, the people of Qatar, the people in Qatar and the ruling dynasty of Qatar are very different entities. And I thin what I wrote about the tandem of Business investment and PR relations working in tandem fits really well with Qatar too, to be honest. I don’t know why you would claim it isn’t politically motivated to a serious degree.
You are wrong about that, I know season ticket holders who have been going for decades who would be happy with Sheikh Jassim taking over. Because why would it impact any of our history in any way?I’d say many of those fans didn’t have a great attachment to the club’s history in the first place, or the prospect of untold riches has lead them to gloss over it.
And Manchester United’s name hasn’t been sullied by the Glazers. The club achieved success in spite of them, not because of them…and now under ETH it looks like success is on the horizon again! A great manager using skill, ingenuity, man-management and youth. And all this will again be in spite of the owners.
The mere fact of state ownership sullies it. If Qatar own the club for decades that then becomes part of the club’s story and identity.
Opposing Qatar ownership doesn't mean wanting the Glazers to stay! It's not an either or scenario!Oh you're saying this is the norm then and are just ignoring the past 10 years? The Glazers and directors have done a good job lets carry on?
What a post that is, wrong on virtually every single thing you've said well done
Say what you mean instead of just ironically mocking someone or exaggerating what they are saying (me). Do you say that Al Thani had no political motive at all for buying Man United? Or for making Qatar host the world cup?I mean they have hosted a WC so really yeah buying United for 4bn is a political campaign.. ok.
Okay, fair enough.When I mentioned ‘household name’ I’m not referring to ‘Manchester United’ as a fecking brand. I’m talking about the club’s place in the public consciousness, and how it came about. It didn’t happen by accident.
And needless to say - football clubs aren’t a bank, a building or a shop!
Indeed, now that I think about it…that’s what state ownership would really be in a sense - the solidification of Manchester United as a brand.
Say what you mean instead of just ironically mocking someone or exaggerating what they are saying (me). Do you say that Al Thani had no political motive at all for buying Man United? Or for making Qatar host the world cup?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You don’t get to tell people how they feel about the club. Especially when they have no control over the situation.I’d say many of those fans didn’t have a great attachment to the club’s history in the first place, or the prospect of untold riches has lead them to gloss over it.
And Manchester United’s name hasn’t been sullied by the Glazers. The club achieved success in spite of them, not because of them…and now under ETH it looks like success is on the horizon again! A great manager using skill, ingenuity, man-management and youth. And all this will again be in spite of the owners.
The mere fact of state ownership sullies it. If Qatar own the club for decades that then becomes part of the club’s story and identity.
It’s even more than good relations, it’s a business deal signed decades ago with the ruling tribe that allowed the very founding of these oil states. Qatar and SA would not exist without the west.I am not mocking you, I just said they hosted a WC, they dont need to buy United to gain any political power.
You talk about Political motive, what is the political motive? Do you think Al Thani wants to run for leadership? I am unsure what political motive you are talking about, I am asking you to expand on it, rather than saying oh its political motive.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Qatar and UK already have good relations, as you can see from the amount of business they do, the amount of equity QSI owns in the UK. So I am struggling to see what political benefit owning United gives Qatar. You are failing to explain that to me.
I did say many, not all.You are wrong about that, I know season ticket holders who have been going for decades who would be happy with Sheikh Jassim taking over. Because why would it impact any of our history in any way?
I’ve mentioned state ownership in and of itself. I have strong views against it as a point of principle - for me it’s a form of doping. So it’s not particular to Qatar, although the kind of autocratic rule that exists in that country just makes my opposition to it all the stronger. I would even be against the club being bought by the likes of Norwegian Sovereign wealth fund for example. I would begrudgingly accept it but the feeling from success just wouldn’t be the same. The meaning would be stripped away.I also don't really understand what about a Qatari owner is so much worse for you than the current US owners who the vast majority of fans want to see out of the club ASAP - you keep saying it's terrible but haven't explained why.
