I find it strange that fans think if anyone from ME takes over us, our history is washed for some reason.. I really do not get that logic.
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
- Status
I’m describing an impression I have, I’m not telling people how they feel about the club.
Qatar dont need United to buy their way into Western society, they already have solid connections with power in the West, own prestigious assets and have hosted the World Cup. They are in already.
But Shiek Jassim's father, the former PM and uncle to the current Emir with who he reportedly has frosty relations, who was reportedly too rich for comfort for the current Emir, who stepped down the day after the latter's ascend to power might, like Roman Abramovic before him, need the protection owning a premier brand like United affords him by catapulting his family to prominence.
If he is an insider on the fringe he might not feel secure should the former Emir die. Owning United affords him and his family the popularity or visibility that would (a) allow him to shift his wealth base from Qatar to Manchester and (b) make him and his family intouchable due to prominence they would get by owning United. He would give his family a platform and political to establish themselves in Manchester.
If his father's wealth was reportedly understated to an extent that the current rulers aren't comfortable with it they could very well afford United and sacrifice a bit of it to make United a springboard on which to establish a real estate and hospitality empire. And he may not be alone, there must have been a few corrupt former Ministers that are rich enough to form a consortium with him.
Since we are all speculating and all.
Again you conflate Al Thani’s interests with Qatar’s interests. Al Thani’s interest is to keep political power in Qatar, and to make Qatar economically powerful, which is a large part of what politics is about. PR or propaganda is and has always been an important tool for people in power to temain in power, and for people in business to increase their business. Do you agree, or disagree with that? Staging sports arrangements is and has always been an important tool for making propaganda and PR, from Julius Caesar to Hitler to Stalin to Reagan to Putin to Al Thani. Disagree with that?
I have a hard time understanding what you think motivated Al Thani to put so much money and effort into Barca, PSG, the world cup and Man United, etc.? Do you think it is pure sports interest and nothing else?
Neither did Rupert Murdoch.
Yes. Good points. And/or it could be Jassim al Thani wants to get in with the Emir by being useful in their joint project of rebranding Qatar in the image of modernity, success, competence, wealth health and wholesome fun.
What you have told would be of significance if they had invested only in Barca, PSG and Man United.
But no, they have investments in British Airways, Heathrow Airport, Harrod's store, Empire State Building in NY, Miramax Studios, Uber, into Musk's Twitter acquisition and that's just few of their investments.
There are different things at play and speculation that the money is coming from the state. If that is the case, there is no political power at play right?
If the money is coming from Al Thani, then sure, there is political gain in Qatar. So really it depends how the bid is financed no?
Capitalism has already infiltrated and taken over football long before the Qatari bid for United. When individuals from the west that had dealing with the oil state were allowed in, Abu Dhabi, SA and Qatar walking through the open door was inevitable. The people that make up the club, I.E coaching staff, players, employees, supporters, etc…have no control over any of this, so the idea that the club’s history is washed simply for being a product of the time it currently exists in is asinine
Seriously, this idea that Uniteds potential success would be diminished is not a novel one and it wouldn't be specific to state ownership at all.
It's literally been going on for 25-30 years already
Rival fans will always find something to whine about with us and frankly, I couldn't care less about their opinions
Your “impression” was phrased like a unilateral decision that the supporters that feel a different way about Qatari ownership than you are “not attached to the club’s history” or have “glossed over it”. Who are you to decide that for them?
Quite the opposite. Investments that you mention is a direct way of providing economical gains to diversify the National income.
Investing in WC and sports clubs costs more than it returns in pure finances (at least if you’re Al Thani and not Glazer). The motivation is not to earn money by them, but to facilitate the other business you mention. Which is why businesses and despots invest in PR and propaganda.
That's not really my point, Raine will see that the money is there. Because I know and I suspect you also know where this money is really coming from.
But there are people on here who have convinced themselves this isn't a state takeover and if that's their view, fair enough. But if someone is of the opinion that this is just a private individual then they can't be objecting to the Ratcliffe/Ineos bid because of debt. Because if the Jassim bid isn't backed by state funding then it's doubtful the guy has access to the money to achieve everything he's promising.
Everyone has his opinion on the takeover, and should be respected its not like fans wanting Qatar has no connection to the history of the club and vice versa. I believe every fan has the best interest of club. Qatar will gain a lot by owning Manchester United, but its not like they will be expelled from western economy if they don't!! they own Harrods if I'm not mistaken, the most prestigious shopping center in the heart of London. Some fans want us to suffer and be successful others just want a quick fix, and my god we have been suffering for a long time, its just that we had SAF that kept everything together, and our fanbase and global presence helped us stay relevant. We don't need to be a PSG like takeover where it becomes a circus, we just need someone to steady the ship and let us go with our business. There is a saying "Football is a game of the common people stolen by the elite", that is unfortunate, and we can't to anything about it as fans, except protests and boycott games that was a failure as the laws protects the elite
I think we can all have suspicions of where the money is coming from.
If Jassim bid requires him to take the debt on the club, then again there is a big problem, its something we as fans want to avoid, any owner taking debt on the club to buy it.
If you are putting down funds of 6/7bn, there will be a large portion of state money, agreed.
It will be interesting to see how Raine play this and if there are any other serious bidders, seems like there aren't.
If the money is coming from the state, there is political power at play, obviously.
If the money comes from Al Thani ‘private funds’, there is obviously political power at play.
When Putin has Russia invest in Sochi Olympics, asking wether the funds come from Russia or Putin makes little difference. Either way, there is onviously a lot of political motivation in it.
I don't get the world anymore. When authoritarian countries with no regards to human rights like china and quatar get to own companies and such in democratic countries something doesn't add up. This discussion need to be lifted way up higher. Which values do we share with these owners. Why do we let them wash their dirty laundry in our valued assets built up by free people?
Re: the glossing over it point, is that not the case though?
For example - imagine if the Glazer’s ownership had been different; the team had been competitive (but allowing for a lull after Alex Ferguson retired) and they hadn’t taken money out of the club. In other words - the fan base wasn’t primed and ready for a takeover. Would fans be as welcoming of state ownership then?
If we take it higher, we will need to discuss how the club operates in and pays taxes to a so called democratic country that has lied to its own people and conducted mass murders and displaced millions in the name of war on terror.
So it is better to leave the discussion at much lower level, because not everything in hunky dory in the world. And nations do what nations can.
That’s a good point. Our women’s team have progressed very well considering it’s amongst the newest, if not the newest, in the top clubs.
What’s wrong with me is that it’s clear that political and social comments are for another thread. Yet we’ve still had people make comments against Qatar on this thread, you ignored those comments and only posted to me telling me to take it to the other thread when I replied to those comments. Perhaps apply what you preach equally to all, and most imperatively to those that first start derailing the thread.
You haven’t exactly made a groundbreaking discovery here of course the Glazers’ rotting the club from within is a big influence here, but there are no bigger victims of the Glazers than the supporters, so what’s the point of throwing that in their face?
Yep and that's all I'm saying.
Ideally I don't want any owner who's putting debt on the club and I think the current debt should be paid up as part of the purchase. I don't know if Ratcliffe would remove the debt immediately but I'd have to imagine he would ant to remove it at some point to allow the club to operate more freely. As the current level of debt is unsustainable for the club going forward if we are to compete at the top again.
Even now a lot of rival fans I talk to love to point out how Fergie dominated when competition was low and the other clubs hadn't sorted their stuff out. Caring about what Rivals think is silly imo but to each their ownSeriously, this idea that Uniteds potential success would be diminished is not a novel one and it wouldn't be specific to state ownership at all.
It's literally been going on for 25-30 years already
Rival fans will always find something to whine about with us and frankly, I couldn't care less about their opinions
As I said I haven't ignored comments. I also quoted a different poster a couple days ago to say the same thing.
In my previous post I said I chose to quote yours because you appear to be a common denominator (perhaps with one or two other posters) that constantly talks about it here.
You could just quote their post and post it along with your reply in the other thread, but you constantly choose not to. I find its just getting tiresome seeing a moral debate, regardless of which side, being crowbarred into this thread.
Im not a mod, but I'm sure I'm not the only casual thread follower getting frustrated that this topic is trending, seeing if there are new updates or relevant discussion, and finding yours and a couple unrelated debates appearing.
Just take it to the other thread, it's not that hard.
I can talk more about what I meant or didn't but as people have mentioned this is not the thread for talking about the morality of any bidder so I won't talk about it here. Peace out.
Bliney you don’t have go on
Wouldn't need to if you weren't struggling to grasp what I said.
Take it to the other thread and stop derailing this one.
Good, you're learning
let's draw a line here in that caseThis went from the most exciting thread on the Caf for years to another non stop circular argument.
We were screwed the minute we went public
We were screwed the minute we went public
Which “Western values” justify slaughtering about innocent Iraqis in the thousands to make Dick Chaney and his wealthy friends wealthier? Which “Western values” allowed Barack Obama to preside over drone campaigns that murdered hundreds of innocent civilians and win a Nobel Peace prize a decade later? Which “Western values” make it ok to stand by Israel as it commits countless human rights violations? The west FOUNDED these oil states and handed power to the tribes that are now running these countries without interference from the west and its great values. You are incredibly naive.
Anyone seen where the 'Glazers considering selling United' thread is now?
Stoning pit evidently.
Ok I get where you are coming from but its not a given that Qatari ownership would lead to insane spending, we have spent (wasted?) ridiculous amounts in the transfer window in recent years as it is. And unlike the likes of City, Chelsea, PSG etc we have plenty of our own cash to spend so dont need the doping anyway.
As for the owner being part of the club's history, this doesnt really bother me - its hardly like our current owners will go down as some great chapter in our history and many fans hated Edwards too so same shit, different day.
And I dont expect any owner to do anything to damage the history and heritage of the club - why would they?
We are told that both Sheikh Jassim and Jim Ratcliffe have grown up as fans of the club so thats already a step ahead of Malcolm Glazer who only bought us for business reasons and never once visited Old Trafford in his entire life.
Line drawn.Good, you're learning
But it shouldn't really be surprising that people would have different opinions on this. We all want what's best for the club but we haven't been presented with an option where the club isn't being exploited.
What do you mean by the club being exploited?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
“Matchgoing fans” were also singing homophobic songs against Leeds.
Strangely enough, a couple of flags isn’t representative of 70,000 people.
- Status