Qatar or Ineos - which owners would you prefer? | Vote now Private

[Member 101269]

I'm indifferent to both; i don't have enough info to make a call.

 

[dove]

I'm indifferent to both; i don't have enough info to make a call.

None of us do, now pick a side.

 

[Rightnr]

Qatar for the win. Jimmy R for the debt.

Choice is clear.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Stunned that majority of the Caf prefers Qatar. Genuinely, would take Glazers staying over the Qatar bid. At least, we know our current owners are leeches and as a club and fanbase, we stand against it. With Qataris, through sportswashing, it is an effort for their nation to be constantly associated with our club which is and thus diluting what the club stands for.

 

[Lost bear]

Needed saying.

Also think it's quite synonymous of the entire world. People just don't care about anything anymore only what can make their lives better.

Imagine being reminded of everything bad in Qatar every time we win anything. Nah not for me. It's simply not worth it.

On the other hand, if Ineos is the Ratcliffe bid, we’ve got rabid Brexiteer tories in charge. Recall the old saying about rocks and hard places ( also the status quo with North American vampires remaining is not an attractive option). Oh dear.
The old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

 

[hobbers]

Evil capitalism plus sportswashing
vs
Evil capitalism minus sportswashing

Easy choice for me.

Missed out the greenwashing.

 

[JPRouve]

The coin I flipped said Qatar. It didn't actually talk but head was Qatar.

 

[Member 101269]

None of us do, now pick a side.

no, I'm remaining indifferent

 

[Dan_F]

This is very very hypocritical of you btw. How can you say to me, I do not understand the specifics of the Ineos bid?

When you cant tell me the specifics of Al Thani's bid? Just because he is a Qatari national, you are assuming its a state funded deal?

What I do know is Nice, who are owned by Ratcliffe are not well run, that is evidence to me.

What people don't also understand is, I know United can compete without very rich owners but without that money, United cannot build a stadium and training complex without taking loans.

It has been very widely reported that his personal wealth is nowhere near the level needed to buy the club. Let alone the continuous funding needed to upgrade old Trafford. Where do you believe that funding has come from? If you’re okay with state funding, own it.

I don’t know if SJR is the answer. There is as many questions on the structure of the debt. This should also be scrutinised when we know more, but we really don’t right now.

United can absolutely fund a stadium through a very long term, low interest loan. The Glazers have taken out a billion in interest and dividends. That alone could have got close to funding a new stadium; that’s without naming rights, higher match day income or all the money wasted on transfers fees and contract payouts that a well run club wouldn’t have.

 

[Amsterdam Devil]

Voted Ineos, only because I’m against state owned clubs, always have been and always will be. I don’t believe that’s the way forward for football and it’s only PR and sportswashing for Qatar, as is PSG and was the World Cup. They will bring the most money for sure, but at what costs?

But also have my doubts about Ineos if they can really come up with enough money for the stadium, the training facilities and players for the first team. Or that the club will be in more debts once again.

Difficult choice, either way it won’t change anything in my support for United. Supporting them since the 80’s with my high point being in Camp Nou at the 99 final. Hopefully glory days will return some day.

 

[Kinsella]

Our history and tradition?

Umm, time?

What are you insinuating?

I’m simply 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 (no matter the state) conflicts with this.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

Voted Ineos, only because I’m against state owned clubs, always have been and always will be. I don’t believe that’s the way forward for football and it’s only PR and sportswashing for Qatar, as is PSG and was the World Cup. They will bring the most money for sure, but at what costs?

But also have my doubts about Ineos if they can really come up with enough money for the stadium, the training facilities and players for the first team. Or that the club will be in more debts once again.

Difficult choice, either way it won’t change anything in my support for United. Supporting them since the 80’s with my high point being in Camp Nou at the 99 final. Hopefully glory days will return some day.

Well said.

 

[grahamo]

I don't care who buys United. I just want the glazer leeches gone.

 

[Verminator]

Needed saying.

Also think it's quite synonymous of the entire world. People just don't care about anything anymore only what can make their lives better.

Imagine being reminded of everything bad in Qatar every time we win anything. Nah not for me. It's simply not worth it.

Is that what happened to City, even though a blind man's dog could see they were cheating FFP, or has the media been kissing arse and jizzing themselves over their footballing heroics?

 

[MackRobinson]

Do you think doping will be necassary, considering how much the club actually makes anyway!

Yes. Otherwise why is Qatari money needed?

not to you specifically but I don’t get the POV that United makes enough money to sustain itself but some would rather unlimited funds.

As crap as Glazers have been they have spent loads of money of playing staff and we are witnessing how choosing the right manager has been the true catalyst for turning around the clubs fortunes.

IMO this makes the club no better than City or PSG from the point Qatar owns the club. All arguments about past history or revenues are really just cover for wanting a financial cheat code. Nothing inherently wrong with but I wish people would just own it without the weird cover stories

 

[Member 125398]

Is that what happened to City, even though a blind man's dog could see they were cheating FFP, or has the media been kissing arse and jizzing themselves over their footballing heroics?

It's exactly what's happened to City to the extent that their last 10 years on the pitch could be, rightfully, erased. Without wishing to seem too conspiratorial, I would imagine a good few journos are on the payroll in one way or another.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Honestly, neither of them. The owner I would prefer doesn't exist.

 

[Scandi Red]

Missed out the greenwashing.

Greenwashing is very much a feature of evil capitalism.

And it's a piss drop in the ocean compared to being owned by a state that views human rights as a joke.

 

[Berbaclass]

Honestly, neither of them. The owner I would prefer doesn't exist.

Yeah. Fold the club.

 

[Withnail]

It is clear that Qatar is gonna overwhelmingly win, which is why the poll won't be made. Same thing that happened with the poll on keep/sack Ole that never happened.

Are you for real? There was a poll running for practically his whole tenure.

How's your tin-foil hat? I hear they get a bit uncomfortable after a while.

 

[romufc]

It has been very widely reported that his personal wealth is nowhere near the level needed to buy the club. Let alone the continuous funding needed to upgrade old Trafford. Where do you believe that funding has come from? If you’re okay with state funding, own it.

I don’t know if SJR is the answer. There is as many questions on the structure of the debt. This should also be scrutinised when we know more, but we really don’t right now.

United can absolutely fund a stadium through a very long term, low interest loan. The Glazers have taken out a billion in interest and dividends. That alone could have got close to funding a new stadium; that’s without naming rights, higher match day income or all the money wasted on transfers fees and contract payouts that a well run club wouldn’t have.

I do own it, I dont mind him getting funding from the state. You prefer banks funding it with us paying millions interest a year to service the debt, I rather be debt free.

See, the thing you want to do is sell the club's soul. That is the difference.

I want the stadium to be called Old Trafford, I want ticket prices to not be extortionate, with higher match day income, you are promoting higher ticket prices.

So what you think if another bank gives us a loan, there will be no interest charges? thats exactly what the glazers done, took out low interest loans and we pay millions yearly just servicing the debt.

 

[red thru&thru]

I’m simply 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 (no matter the state) conflicts with this.

Our owners in that time have never come into it.

 

[yumtum]

The mere fact Ineos can't buy us without taking out a loan is enough to trigger PTSD.

For that reason alone if vote for anyone other than them.

 

[Verminator]

It's exactly what's happened to City to the extent that their last 10 years on the pitch could be, rightfully, erased. Without wishing to seem too conspiratorial, I would imagine a good few journos are on the payroll in one way or another.

No it isn't.
No need to rewrite history. They have been lauded.
Even now, there is a wait and see attitude, and very little condemnation.

They cheated and will hopefully pay a heavy price for it. Maybe then they will get the criticism they deserve.

To say that Abu Dhabi has had its negatives highlighted and associated with City is way way out from reality.

 

[OleTheGreat]

Do you not think we've started to do that now though? Take a step back and look at things as if you were just a neutral fan, United even with crumby Glazer ownership which took money out of the club, spend average minimum £100m a year and pay market leading wages, the issue hasn't been not being able to get players we want it's been an amateur club structure which, in turn, lead to poor managerial appointments and generally expensive flops for signings. Since Woodward has gone, dare I say it it's looking relatively positive for us.

Yes, we have spent money on buying crappy players because the other clubs around the world took advantage of us. Also I think the glazers spent a lot to satisfy Ten Hag recently because they knew full that only then can they sell the club for over 5 billion. I think the Glazers are a big bunch of gold diggers and we've all had enough of them for so long. I'm happy with how it is now and with Qatari owners, we'd become a fantastic club and I've wanted that for a long time.

 

[horsechoker]

no, I'm remaining indifferent

Definite tory voter

 

[pacifictheme]

One of the things that has always rung hollow for me about city is that mansour could have bought literally any club and done what he has with city. City as a club died and a new club was essentially created on its grave when he bought them. I just don't want us to be flooded with money.

The absolute most I would want would be for the debt to go, new facilities and either a new ground or old Trafford being revamped and increased in capacity.

The idea of us spending mega money beyond what we currently do on players just doesn't sit well with me, if its the owners money doing everything it's not Man United anymore. Its Qatar FC.

 

[Scandi Red]

Yes. Otherwise why is Qatari money needed?

Because of a combination of two things:

1. The price tag
2. The fact that buying a football club isn't a financially prudent move

There are only 4 potential buyers:

1. Mega rich leaches (the Glazers)
2. Mega rich corporations looking to strengthen their brand (Google, Amazon etc)
3. Mega rich fans (hopefully Ratcliffe)
4. States looking for a sportswashing project

Number 1 is what we're familiar with and no one wants that. Number 2 seems like a fantasy to me. I don't think there has been any solid rumors either.

Number 3 is what I'm hoping for. Number 4 is the worst, even though it's probably the best option if you only care about success. Which is probably why so many people want the Qataris. They care only about the football aspect of it all.

 

[Member 125398]

No it isn't.
No need to rewrite history. They have been lauded.
Even now, there is a wait and see attitude, and very little condemnation.

They cheated and will hopefully pay a heavy price for it. Maybe then they will get the criticism they deserve.

To say that Abu Dhabi has had its negatives highlighted and associated with City is way way out from reality.

I suppose there's an element of wait and see. I wouldn't want that sort of uncertainty hanging over us.

 

[troylocker]

Love these votes. “Everyone’s a nob who doesn’t agree with me”.

I'm very privileged. I live in a liberal democracy, where power is not something you are born with, but is shared among the people. Where the resources and money the country controls is shared with the people through social services like free health care and pension, roads, infrastructure etc. I live in a country where my wife and I have equal rights and worth, where we can choose what ever religion or not we want to believe in, we can state our opinons puplically without fear of getting prosecuted, our kids have grown up in an invironment where they are inspired to form their own opinions and search for their own meaning of life through unlimited uncencored sources of information from anywhere. If they are gay, hetero, trans etc. they are free to live that out and have equal rights as anyone else. If they follow Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism etc. they are free to do so as they want. Every man or woman above 18 years old has an equal saying in local and national politics and who runs the political show. The laws are formed by representatives chosen by the people and everyone has a right to the same social services and rights. Me and my family's lives are lived pretty much without concern, with enormous individual freedom and with a huge safetynet that will catch us if we somehow should need it. I'm trying my best not to take it for granted.

In Qatar the royal family (who is trying to buy this club) decides your opinion, your religion, your sexuality, what books you are allowed to read, who you are allowed to love, that if you're a woman you don't have the same value as your guardian etc. The royal family is the law, the judge, the jury, the church and the power over the people of Qatar, they don't share power and they have a horrible human rights record.

Ratcliff controls a huge chemical industry company.

Sometimes the alternatives on the weightscale isn't balanced when it comes to right and wrong, and this is one of those times. The fact that both alteratives are flawed doesn't make it a balanced choice.

If you're for the dicatorship of Qatar to own Manchester United between those two alternatives, you have a defect moral compass. That isn't up for debate really. Whether this is due to ignorance or just being a bit of a nob doesn't matter.

 

[Rightnr]

No it isn't.
No need to rewrite history. They have been lauded.
Even now, there is a wait and see attitude, and very little condemnation.

They cheated and will hopefully pay a heavy price for it. Maybe then they will get the criticism they deserve.

To say that Abu Dhabi has had its negatives highlighted and associated with City is way way out from reality.

As the old adage goes, it is better to ask for forgiveness than for permission

 

[lsd]

The mere fact Ineos can't buy us without taking out a loan is enough to trigger PTSD.

For that reason alone if vote for anyone other than them.

The mere react that our proposed Qatar owner doesn't remotely have the money to buy us doesn't trigger your PTSD?

 

[Verminator]

One of the things that has always rung hollow for me about city is that mansour could have bought literally any club and done what he has with city. City as a club died and a new club was essentially created on its grave when he bought them. I just don't want us to be flooded with money.

The absolute most I would want would be for the debt to go, new facilities and either a new ground or old Trafford being revamped and increased in capacity.

The idea of us spending mega money beyond what we currently do on players just doesn't sit well with me, if its the owners money doing everything it's not Man United anymore. Its Qatar FC.

I agree.
The sad thing is, the only chance of us being debt free, and winning on our own income is if the Qataris stay true to their word.
The INEOS bid is debt laden.

 

[Rightnr]

I'm very privileged. I live in a liberal democracy, where power is not something you are born with, but is shared among the people. Where the resources and money the country controls is shared with the people through social services like free health care and pension, roads, infrastructure etc. I live in a country where my wife and I have equal rights and worth, where we can choose what ever religion or not we want to believe in, we can state our opinons puplically without fear of getting prosecuted, our kids have grown up in an invironment where they are inspired form their own opinions and search for their own meaning of life through unlimited uncencored sources of information from anywhere. If they are gay, hetero, trans etc. they are free to live that out and have equal rights as anyone else. If they follow Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism etc. they are free to do so as they want. Every man or woman above 18 years old has an equal saying in local and national politics and who runs the political show. The laws are formed by representatives chosen by the people and everyone has a right to the same social services and rights. Me and my family's lives are lived pretty much without concern, with enormous individual freedom and with a huge safetynet that will catch us if we somehow should need it. I'm trying my best not to take it for granted.

In Qatar the royal family (who is trying to buy this club) decides your opinion, your religion, your sexuality, what books you are allowed to read, who you are allowed to love, that if you're a woman you don't have the same value as your guardian etc. The royal family is the law, the judge, the jury, the church and the power over the people of Qatar, they don't share power and they have a horrible human rights record.

Ratcliff controls a huge chemical industry company.

Sometimes the alternatives on the weightscale isn't balanced when it comes to right and wrong, and this is one of those times. The fact that both alteratives are flawed doesn't make it a balanced choice.

If you're for the dicatorship of Qatar to own Manchester United between those two alternatives, you have a defect moral compass. That isn't up for debate really. Whether this is due to ignorance or just being a bit of a nob doesn't matter.

Your insurance premium for that high horse must be insane.

 

[Verminator]

I suppose there's an element of wait and see. I wouldn't want that sort of uncertainty hanging over us.

I don't want us to cheat either.

 

[troylocker]

Isn't that supposed to be good when you're freezing?

Shortterm (5 min) yes. Longterm no.

 

[JPRouve]

The mere fact Ineos can't buy us without taking out a loan is enough to trigger PTSD.

For that reason alone if vote for anyone other than them.

I'm pretty sure that all the bidders can't buy the club without taking out a loan. IIRC QSI got the cash from QNB and it makes sense because these people make their money work, they don't keep large amount of cash around. There are very industries that do that and it's mainly in banking.

 

[Gupz]

Having Qatar as owner is like playing FM with unlimited money cheat. Accomplishments won't feel as satisfying as it used to be. You will always been known for the club that bought the success by taking the easy road. Generating your own revenue should still be the way to go.

 

[troylocker]

Your insurance premium for that high horse must be insane.

That's such a good argument! Thank you for your contribution .

 

[Pronewbie]

Lack of deets and due diligence makes this vote a first impressions one.