I know people that have gone to the region from Pakistan and absolutely know how difficult things are, the sad thing is its an improvement on where they are coming from. I don't think the average westerner realises the level of poverty that is prevelant in parts of the sub continent .
Club Sale | It’s done!
- Thread starter JB08
- Start date
- Status
Still sounds like a very hard sell for Joel and Avram to make.
No payday for their siblings, new share partner and probably no more dividends, diluted stakes and the share price will still tank if they stay.
Would they do that to pay down the debt and build stadium renovations, which probably means no more opportunity to walk away for years.
The sad reality is the migrant workers take the positions despite knowing up front how poorly they can or will be treated. These jobs are often very sought after, I have friends who experience of these "trade fares" where they go and recruit large numbers of people from India, Bangladesh etc to come and work in the Gulf. They become generational/family type jobs for people in many instances, with multiple generations and family members working together to secure the positions. There are also people who "join the queue" for multiple disciplines, just in the hope of getting a job, so they will try to pass themselves off as a groundworker, then electrician, then plumber etc.
The reality is that to them the pay is worth the conditions and risk, they don't live by "Western" standards. They only do 2-3 years in many instances and then have enough money for a farm, small holding or other business back home. What needs to be stopped is the exploitation of this, and the "Western" companies operating in the Gulf need to lead this, and in many if not all they have done so. The number of migrant camps of the extremely poor variety has decreased enormously in the Gulf and continues to do so. Given the nature of the location you are never going to get rid of camps entirely, even highly paid Western oil workers live in camps, just a higher standard, and this is what needs to be filtered down to all migrant workers.
To be fair to Qatar and other Gulf states the problem is not unique to them. There is always exploitation, we have it in the UK with workers being brought in from places like Eastern Europe and Spain, and working for far less money and general conditions than people based in the UK would. This is all supposed to be controlled by European legislation, but there are ways around it for employing companies.
All true. But the fact is that if countries like Qatar have the money to drop on buying a football club and staging a world cup then there is zero excuse for them allowing the exploitation of migrant workers. There is a lot of hyperbole on both sides of the debate (which i'm guilty of using myself at times) that masks the reality of the situation and enables apologists. The truth is that countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE operate what is, essentially, an apartheid system where migrant workers are exploited, dehumanised and treated appalingly to varying degrees. The state is not directly responsible for that in many cases but is complicit through lack of enforcement. Where the state is directly responsible is that it denies workers access to citizenship, legal process and healthcare. This should not be happening in rich nations that can spend 7 billion on football clubs and it is right and proper to find it offensive that it does.
For anyone saying but what about.... see the thread on Spain and Portugal world cup.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is nothing banning state ownership in the EPL. Newcastle’s deal was held up so long due to piracy of the EPL in Saudi Arabia. Once that was resolved it was allowed. The reason for the insistence PIF aren’t state controlled and that state would have no influence on the running of Newcastle was purely due to PR and allowing the EPL to play smoke and mirrors on the question.
I've seen numerous posts on here confidently proclaiming that the Glazers can't do a minority deal.
Why exactly do they think they know more than Elliott Investments, who clearly think a minority deal is possible (otherwise they wouldn't be involving themselves this far into the process!)
Also, they talk as if they know the financial situation of the Glazers and know their interests/intentions better than the Glazers do themselves. You don't! There is only a limited amount of public information about the Glazers (based on scrappy briefings and speculation - nobody can 100% stand up the story of a sibbling split or the extent of it) and the in-depth financial picture of the club. Elliott Investments certainly know more about all that stuff than you do.
Telling yourself things you desperately want to be true won't actually make it true.
Why exactly do they think they know more than Elliott Investments, who clearly think a minority deal is possible (otherwise they wouldn't be involving themselves this far into the process!)
Also, they talk as if they know the financial situation of the Glazers and know their interests/intentions better than the Glazers do themselves. You don't! There is only a limited amount of public information about the Glazers (based on scrappy briefings and speculation - nobody can 100% stand up the story of a sibbling split or the extent of it) and the in-depth financial picture of the club. Elliott Investments certainly know more about all that stuff than you do.
Telling yourself things you desperately want to be true won't actually make it true.
I agree, there is no excuse for poor working conditions in these countries and one positive of the world cup coverage is that there were actaully some reforms that came in due to the spotlight. However, exploitation of workers from poorer countries happens all over the world, obviously to varying degrees. I have already written a few times in detail about the exploition and so won't repeat it here.
We also need to be careful by lumping all migrant workers into one category, there are also many migrant workers not in manual labour jobs in the gulf that are also doing well for themselves.
I posted the UEFA rules and not the Guardian's rules. If they aren't neccesarily enforceable it is still a big risk as Qatar wouldn't want to have to sell PSG whereas INEOS wouldn't care about selling their Swiss club if it meant owning United.
I don't get why people are so invested in hoping it isn't an officially backed bid? The Emir let's it be known that he wants to buy United. Changes to ownership rules don't change fast enough. Some rich bloke, but not THAT rich, suddenly finds 6 billion quid down the back of the sofa. Seems legit.
Last edited:
That was my assumption at the beginning of this process but it doesn't appear to have any real merit.
It's not about backing one over another, it's about fairness. If one organisation can own two should another.
As for INEOS wouldn't care about selling their Swiss club, we have no idea what they think. Doesn't nasser al-khelaifi work on the exec committee of Uefa?
Fairness? Huh?
The rules are the same for both.
And are you suggesting that Qatar could just ask Knasser Al-Khelaifi to change or ignore the rules?
And even INEOS know they can't outbid Qatar so what would happen if they did win is more or less moot.
It was all for show. Same as the women’s national team set up to impress FIFA and abandoned since they won the bid, or the way they said they would allow beer to be sold and then went back on it as soon as there was nothing FIFA could do about it.
They will jump through hoops to get what they want, but anyone who thinks they will commit meaningful or permanent change is largely naive.
The rules? There is zero indication INEOS would sell the Swiss team. Who mentioned changing the rules?
I think the majority of people in the West are aware that most of the World don't have the same standard of living they are lucky enough to have. And I can appreciate that these guys can possibly earn more working in Qatar than they can at home. But earning more and having to live and work in appalling conditions that may or may not be slightly better than what they came from isn't good enough for a country with the wealth of Qatar. They can afford to do better, it's been well documented that they did make some improvements in the build up to the World Cup. So let's see if that trajectory continues, personally I have my doubts.
And Qatar need to do more to stop the exploitation of people looking to go and work in Qatar in the first place. Mainly the exorbitant fees many of these people have pay to get involved in a recruitment agency. As I'm sure you are aware in many cases migrants will have to borrow money at very high interest rates or borrow from friends family. I've heard these fees can be as high as $2000-4000 which is outrageous for guys who may only be earning a few hundred dollars per month. So these people end up working their first 6-12 months paying off debt before they can even start saving.
Absolutely mate.
I guess these debates will continue until the sale.
But once it does, then what? What will people debate about then? Still the same stuff or how the club is being run?
But once it does, then what? What will people debate about then? Still the same stuff or how the club is being run?
The inevitable mbappe thread when the Qataris win.
Assuming there is a sale, the ownership debate will surely continue beyond it. We've been talking about the Glazers for 17 years - this won't be any different and if United end up with state ownership, it promises to be just as controversial.
Honestly, you dont have to look far for exploitation of workers.
Trapped and destitute: how foreign nurses’ UK dreams turned sour
My research shows that Sheikh Jassim's family are THAT rich and that he can afford to buy the club without state funds.
But in any case I'm not that bothered if it's state backed or not but it's certainly not as certain as some make out - others seem to think this makes a difference on some moral level.
On the conflict rules, as mentioned Red Bull have already paved the way for others and shown that a bit of a boardroom reshuffle is enough to get around these rules. UEFA themselves obviously recognise this and have openly talked about changing the rules which are clearly not enforceable.
fecking hell mate, give it a rest. You're just panicking for no reason whatsoever.
I tell you what - when the Qatar or Sir Jim deal goes through and the Glazers feck off, will you apologise to all of us?
Hopefully new owners wont promote the likes of Fletcher and co who has been promoted 2 times in 6 months.
My Mbappe thread has been opened for a long time already.
The unnecessary hate for Fletcher on this site is fecking hilarious
Probably whether a certain forward will play for us again or get sacked.
Unless the takeover stuff rumbles on into the Summer, which is looking a 50/50 prospect
That's fair enough if you're answering the second part of my post (although I'd count being in constant contact after the bid as a form of feedback)
But it doesn't explain why the media need to say "feedback will be in one week" for every day over the course of a week. If we believe the first article that said it, feedback will be today. If we believe the most recent, it'll be on Tuesday next week. Until an article comes out today saying "one week" - then its next Wednesday.
The only point I was making is that there's very inconsistent reporting on when the feedback will be
What exactly would I apologise for if that happened? I never said it wouldn't, I just think it's more likely that the Glazers stay.
And illogical
I don't think anyone is claiming it doesn't happen in most countries to varying degrees mate.
Anyone else frantically refreshing Twitter my hands are shaking
https://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-disease/ss/slideshow-reasons-your-hands-are-shaking
It's not worth it. You don't have to shake.
Manchester United will survive, regardless of who the club's new owners are. We've already survived 17 years of the Glazer family shitshow. It is not worth getting stressed about - real life is more important!
Pretty sure I saw the tweet from a Qatari twitter account early in the morning saying "5 more hours". Couldn't follow it due to work and now I'm home but nothing has happened.
Disappointed. Anything but Ediot and Glazers.
Disappointed. Anything but Ediot and Glazers.
UEFA rules apply equally so there is no unfairness. How each approaches them is up to them but the rules still apply equally.
And you mentioned Knasser Al-Khelaifi seemingly as if this meant that Qatar didn't need to worry about the rules.
Why do you believe it will be as controversial? Do you think majority of the fans will be against Jassim, like fans are now against the Glazers?
Of course it makes a difference on a moral level. A huge difference.
And no way are the Jassim family so rich that they can afford to spend 6 billion plus in cash for no commercial return.
You're not answering anything though. Just claiming to know more yourself. I asked you things and you weren't even man enough to directly respond.
Likewise
Elliott want to exploit the Glazers/buyers in any way they can. If the Glazers want minority investment Elliott obviously want to be the ones they sell to. If someone wants a loan to finance part of the deal they want to be the ones paying out those loans, be they to the Glazers or to other bidders. Wherever the opportunity knocks. That's how financial vultures operate.
There's no reason to believe anything other than that most of the Glazers want to cash out. They wouldnt be entertaining a sale if they didn't. And they cant cash out with minority investment, very simple.
Its gone very quiet. The calm before the storm?
- Status