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

[ROFLUTION]

Yes



Yes because the Glazers have mismanaged us for many years so we need to clear the debt and rebuild the stadium

But why would this not be possible under Jim? Just because he isn’t as vocal as the Qatari doesnt mean he wont fix the stadium. For any long term owner it would be weird to just let an asset rot. I understand that this would make for less money for transfers possibly, but is it only Jassim who will be renovating the stadium?

After that we also need the best footballing people in the boardroom to make the right decisions

How do we know Jassim is the right person? What decisions has he made that makes you trust him to be a good leader of a football club? (Not saying there’s any good examples of SJR neither, Im critical of both).

And since you believe this is non-state backed, will Jassim then also show up more at Old Trafford than City’s owner? (Who’s been attending a mighty 1 game in 2010).

There is no worry about cheating like City because we simply don't need to, we make more than enough money already

Corruption from and in Qatar doesnt frighten you as being a big red alert to whether it would be within logic to cheat? Or that it would be possible Jassim would be able to do stuff like this?

Some of the 115 allegations against City include leaked documents that money was paid to agents directly by the state-owned entity Abu Dhabi United Group which is illegal but only found out if leaked. Do you honestly think we wont go this way and try to do the same, when our main rival does this? You can basically only compete with a state by doing the same shady deals as a non transparent state (Ineos will have a hard time and much bigger reputation at stake to pull these shady deals off).

If you dont believe we will cheat/pay agents under the table with Jassim, then what’s the point if that’s the way to get to the big players and compete? We’ll be outbid by City and others who do cheat this way. It wont be even unless we do the same.

 

[Zen86]

I’m pretty much this too. INEOS is the least worst option of the two for me, but it’s still Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich.

Pretty much. There are no good owners at this size and value. I feel pretty detached from football these days but I’ll laugh if it’s Qatar, it’ll be the final nail in the coffin for football.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

But why would this not be possible under Jim? Just because he isn’t as vocal as the Qatari doesnt mean he wont fix the stadium. For any long term owner it would be weird to just let an asset rot. I understand that this would make for less money for transfers possibly, but is it only Jassim who will be renovating the stadium?



How do we know Jassim is the right person? What decisions has he made that makes you trust him to be a good leader of a football club? (Not saying there’s any good examples of SJR neither, Im critical of both).

And since you believe this is non-state backed, will Jassim then also show up more at Old Trafford than City’s owner? (Who’s been attending a mighty 1 game in 2010).



Corruption from and in Qatar doesnt frighten you as being a big red alert to whether it would be within logic to cheat? Or that it would be possible Jassim would be able to do stuff like this?

Some of the 115 allegations against City include leaked documents that money was paid to agents directly by the state-owned entity Abu Dhabi United Group which is illegal but only found out if leaked. Do you honestly think we wont go this way and try to do the same, when our main rival does this? You can basically only compete with a state by doing the same shady deals as a non transparent state (Ineos will have a hard time and much bigger reputation at stake to pull these shady deals off).

If you dont believe we will cheat/pay agents under the table with Jassim, then what’s the point if that’s the way to get to the big players and compete? We’ll be outbid by City and others who do cheat this way. It wont be even unless we do the same.

We've beaten City to a lot of players to be honest. Not sure I buy this line of thinking.

 

[ROFLUTION]

We've beaten City to a lot of players to be honest. Not sure I buy this line of thinking.

It doesnt work like that 10/10 times of course, but mostly when we beat City to a player it’s because they already are settled in the area/position we are bidding and they know it wont mean the World if they lose out on say Sancho or Ronaldo. They already got Grealish or another clone, which makes it unnecessary to beat us. They beat us by always strengthening in depth and getting to many of the biggest talents, and this usually happens by paying hefty agent fees under the table or offshore fees.

When looking at some of the 115 incidents against them its very clear that their city network group of clubs is their way to getting the big talents also. Paying under the table, trying to make deals to have first right to sign big talents like Alvarez for low money so it doesnt affect their ffp spend. Its no wonder they got Ederson, Dias, Gundogan, KdB, Sane, etc, and it’s all for prices under what they would cost if United had tried to buy them. They both have hired the best in class for recruitment/scouting, but to top it off and blow everyone out of the water they also cheat.

 

[Bastian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh look, you can have nice things. Like he promised.

 

[Water Melon]

It's not the size of the orchestra, but the quality of the symphony

Sure, but when it comes to braincells, the more the mearer, just like neurons. Just can not stand when people start using derisory remarks

 

[jm99]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh look, you can have nice things. Like he promised.

"All the money he's collected"

They make it sound like he's been looking down the back of the couch

 

[Rhyme Animal]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh look, you can have nice things. Like he promised.

FFS

Please let this happen. Don’t want this guy running Utd with the Glazers on board.

It has shambles and failure written all over it.

Imagine reading this as a Nice fan.

 

[Mike Oxard]

Nah, we still actually make money as a club. There's no reason for Qatar to have to give us a bunch of fake sponsorships.

…you’re forgetting the ‘Human Rights’ bleat then? Thought so.

 

[MUFC OK]

Yes

Jassim has committed to a debt free takeover - Jim has not. Thats the major difference and I assume the biggest reason that votes in this poll go for the Qatari option.

Agreed. Aren't loan repayments and interest on debt factored in to FFP? Therefore the idea that we can only spend the same amount under FFP be it Ineos or Qatar is a nonsense argument.

 

[sunama]

FFS

Please let this happen. Don’t want this guy running Utd with the Glazers on board.

It has shambles and failure written all over it.

Imagine reading this as a Nice fan.

Agreed 100%.
The Glazers need to be cut off completely. I think of them as leeches - you gotta take a knife and one by one each leach needs to be scraped out of the club until there are no more Glazers.

 

[Sandikan]

FFS

Please let this happen. Don’t want this guy running Utd with the Glazers on board.

It has shambles and failure written all over it.

Imagine reading this as a Nice fan.

Casually just going to invest 5billion into a middle of the road French club. Brilliant.

 

[Sandikan]

…you’re forgetting the ‘Human Rights’ bleat then? Thought so.

Bet that username felt hilarious when you set it up.

 

[Pexbo]

Bet that username felt hilarious when you set it up.

You can talk

 

[Sandikan]

You can talk

Try doing the same with pex and bo on the same site you numpty

 

[Bastian]

No one else has officially announced that they bid, although there was media speculation about other bids

The minority stake options seem the worst case scenario as they leave the Glazers in charge and if you start looking into the dodgy background of vulture capitalists like the Elliott Group then anyone with moral questions is likely to have a heart attack

I would question the whole angle of constantly comparing the Jassim bid to City and saying any future success would be tainted.
Firstly because it's not officially a state bid (whereas City/PSG undeniably are), secondly because we are not a tinpot club like City (or Chelsea or PSG) were before their oil lottery win. They had to break the rules and spend unsustainably to get to this point - we already spend vast amounts on the squad, there is actually no need for us to spend anymore than we have over the past decade. The idea that the Qataris turn up and start throwing money at Mbappe et al is just speculation - some fans might be excited at that kind of muppetry but I certainly dont want to see us doing that.

I totally understand that you find it difficult to back any of the options on the table, especially when there are no many unknowns - I initially preferred the INEOS bid (British owner from Manchester, supported the club etc) but as things have developed Ive felt the Qatari bid would be the best for the club (clear debts, get rid of the Glazers, infrastucture) but Id take either over the Glazers staying with new investment.

Yeah, it's tricky. Certainly not the Elliot group. I naively am just hoping some more desirable suitors might come along, unlikely as that is.

I just listened to some Bloomberg guy on "How to buy a football club" who said there were too many unknowns with Jassim's bid, while INEOS was more clear. Maybe in terms of the pure bids it's true, but it's actually the other way around in terms of what they've said they'll do once in situ. INEOS have said feck all.

It's hard to deny that future success would be tainted were we state owned - I know you stick to the facts that are put out there, but I cannot not read between the lines here. That being said, how tainted will depend on how the club will be run. I think under an ownership that would have been able to afford the club in '05, the club could easily have been able to finance its own infrastructure upgrade. Had the same ownership hired competent people to oversee the footballing side of things this squad could have been elite without having spent any more money than has been spent. In the right conditions the club can sustain itself and compete at the highest level, nearly, i.e. no outside payments off the books.

But the reality is that we've been set so far back by the Glazers that we need significant investment now, even if we consider the debt as Glazer-debt (which I do). Do you think the club can invest 1-1.5 billion (especially in the current financial climate) on infrastructure whilst also remaining competitive in the sporting sense through its own financial might?

The cleanest possible version here would be wipe the debt and only use the club's generated income for the footballing side and infrastructure. I guess if Jassim did that everything that followed would feel less tainted - I am trying to rationalise this as much as possible here.

 

[Rood]

Yeah, it's tricky. Certainly not the Elliot group. I naively am just hoping some more desirable suitors might come along, unlikely as that is.

I just listened to some Bloomberg guy on "How to buy a football club" who said there were too many unknowns with Jassim's bid, while INEOS was more clear. Maybe in terms of the pure bids it's true, but it's actually the other way around in terms of what they've said they'll do once in situ. INEOS have said feck all.

It's hard to deny that future success would be tainted were we state owned - I know you stick to the facts that are put out there, but I cannot not read between the lines here. That being said, how tainted will depend on how the club will be run. I think under an ownership that would have been able to afford the club in '05, the club could easily have been able to finance its own infrastructure upgrade. Had the same ownership hired competent people to oversee the footballing side of things this squad could have been elite without having spent any more money than has been spent. In the right conditions the club can sustain itself and compete at the highest level, nearly, i.e. no outside payments off the books.

But the reality is that we've been set so far back by the Glazers that we need significant investment now, even if we consider the debt as Glazer-debt (which I do). Do you think the club can invest 1-1.5 billion (especially in the current financial climate) on infrastructure whilst also remaining competitive in the sporting sense through its own financial might?

The cleanest possible version here would be wipe the debt and only use the club's generated income for the footballing side and infrastructure. I guess if Jassim did that everything that followed would feel less tainted - I am trying to rationalise this as much as possible here.

In theory the club could keep rolling on with a decent transfer budget even without any fresh investment. Suggestions that the Glazer business model is close to bankrupt etc are exaggerated but the level of money needed for a refurb or rebuild can only be done with outside investment or extra debt. Richard Arnold himself has admitted this and that's why the Glazers announced this process last year.

You are right that the way the club is run will dictate how 'tainted' any success would be under the Qataris but it's certainly not a given as many suggest. Too simplistic to look at City or PSG and assume it would be the same with a Gulf owner.

 

[Rood]

But why would this not be possible under Jim? Just because he isn’t as vocal as the Qatari doesnt mean he wont fix the stadium. For any long term owner it would be weird to just let an asset rot. I understand that this would make for less money for transfers possibly, but is it only Jassim who will be renovating the stadium?



How do we know Jassim is the right person? What decisions has he made that makes you trust him to be a good leader of a football club? (Not saying there’s any good examples of SJR neither, Im critical of both).

And since you believe this is non-state backed, will Jassim then also show up more at Old Trafford than City’s owner? (Who’s been attending a mighty 1 game in 2010).



Corruption from and in Qatar doesnt frighten you as being a big red alert to whether it would be within logic to cheat? Or that it would be possible Jassim would be able to do stuff like this?

Some of the 115 allegations against City include leaked documents that money was paid to agents directly by the state-owned entity Abu Dhabi United Group which is illegal but only found out if leaked. Do you honestly think we wont go this way and try to do the same, when our main rival does this? You can basically only compete with a state by doing the same shady deals as a non transparent state (Ineos will have a hard time and much bigger reputation at stake to pull these shady deals off).

If you dont believe we will cheat/pay agents under the table with Jassim, then what’s the point if that’s the way to get to the big players and compete? We’ll be outbid by City and others who do cheat this way. It wont be even unless we do the same.

We have no need to cheat like City - debt free we would legitimately be able to spend as much as anyone, even with debts we regularly compete with City for big names. Well known that City wanted the likes of Sanchez and Maguire, just a shame they chose us !

Sheikh Jassim is a Man United fan apparently, he has been pictured at OT already. So again comparison to Sheikh Mansour are wide of the mark.

It is actually bizarre to me that Jim hasnt commited to the same debt free takeover and stadium refurb - he can afford it if he wants but all reports suggest he will keep some debt in place which gives big question marks over how many stadium works would be financed.
He's not done a good job to appeal to the fans at all, a very basic soundbite about Manchester is all he's offered officially.

 

[Tyrion]

FFS

Please let this happen. Don’t want this guy running Utd with the Glazers on board.

It has shambles and failure written all over it.

Imagine reading this as a Nice fan.

I dont see what's wrong with it tbh.

…you’re forgetting the ‘Human Rights’ bleat then? Thought so.

Plenty of United fans are. Plenty aren't. I think there's some more of our fans that care about it but not as much as I would have hoped.

Casually just going to invest 5billion into a middle of the road French club. Brilliant.

He obviously isn't going to do it. Presumably he has to say something.

 

[Tyrion]

We have no need to cheat like City - debt free we would legitimately be able to spend as much as anyone, even with debts we regularly compete with City for big names. Well known that City wanted the likes of Sanchez and Maguire, just a shame they chose us !

Sheikh Jassim is a Man United fan apparently, he has been pictured at OT already. So again comparison to Sheikh Mansour are wide of the mark.

It is actually bizarre to me that Jim hasnt commited to the same debt free takeover and stadium refurb - he can afford it if he wants but all reports suggest he will keep some debt in place which gives big question marks over how many stadium works would be financed.
He's not done a good job to appeal to the fans at all, a very basic soundbite about Manchester is all he's offered officially.

Is he actually a United fan? That reads to me like how Robbie Keane used to say it "was always his dream to play for" whatever club he wound up at that August.

 

[roonster09]

…you’re forgetting the ‘Human Rights’ bleat then? Thought so.

City fan talking about human rights

Are you still going to pretend that you are not a City fan?

 

[ROFLUTION]

We have no need to cheat like City - debt free we would legitimately be able to spend as much as anyone, even with debts we regularly compete with City for big names. Well known that City wanted the likes of Sanchez and Maguire, just a shame they chose us !

Sheikh Jassim is a Man United fan apparently, he has been pictured at OT already. So again comparison to Sheikh Mansour are wide of the mark.

It is actually bizarre to me that Jim hasnt commited to the same debt free takeover and stadium refurb - he can afford it if he wants but all reports suggest he will keep some debt in place which gives big question marks over how many stadium works would be financed.
He's not done a good job to appeal to the fans at all, a very basic soundbite about Manchester is all he's offered officially.

But wanted is not the same as needed. They won league titles without them. They didnt need to go to the distance of outspending us. They were okay with not getting them. I definitely think they could. In hindsight it’s quite clear Maguire is not a Pep player, so that could also be why they didnt go to great lengths. But as I say it’s not 10/10 times they outspend us.

I think it’s a bit naive to think that we can just spend within the new FFP framework and get big players/talents before City without doing any similar stuff that City does with a lotnor feeder clubs and what they pay under the table for talents that later on become stars for them. Its the sum of everything they do that makes them on top. Im pretty sure we can get Mbappe as that is between two Saudi owned clubs, but posters on here who goes through our potential new balances talk of maybe 150-200m in transfer budget pr season within the new FFP framework. If city does all sort of shady stuff on top of that and has the edge there, then I think it’s quite fair to say that a new Qatari owner would only catch up so and so much. When the framework is not bigger than maybe 150-200m more then I think we’re in the same ballpark as if Jim took over.

 

[Rood]

Is he actually a United fan? That reads to me like how Robbie Keane used to say it "was always his dream to play for" whatever club he wound up at that August.

There is a recent photo of him at Old Trafford wearing a United shirt

Plus according to The Athletic he was in talks to be part of the Red Knights bid to buy United back in 2010 - so his interest goes back many years

 

[Rood]

But wanted is not the same as needed. They won league titles without them. They didnt need to go to the distance of outspending us. They were okay with not getting them. I definitely think they could. In hindsight it’s quite clear Maguire is not a Pep player, so that could also be why they didnt go to great lengths. But as I say it’s not 10/10 times they outspend us.

I think it’s a bit naive to think that we can just spend within the new FFP framework and get big players/talents before City without doing any similar stuff that City does with a lotnor feeder clubs and what they pay under the table for talents that later on become stars for them. Its the sum of everything they do that makes them on top. Im pretty sure we can get Mbappe as that is between two Saudi owned clubs, but posters on here who goes through our potential new balances talk of maybe 150-200m in transfer budget pr season within the new FFP framework. If city does all sort of shady stuff on top of that and has the edge there, then I think it’s quite fair to say that a new Qatari owner would only catch up so and so much. When the framework is not bigger than maybe 150-200m more then I think we’re in the same ballpark as if Jim took over.

Qatari, not Saudi - big difference!

Even with all their FFP breaches and one hand tied behind our backs due to the debt, we have spent more than enough to be competing with City in recent times - we just spent badly. And even if not City then we have certainly spent far more than a whole host of clubs around Europe who have done better than us over the last decade.
We do not need to cheat like them, we just need to be debt free and have better decision makers in the boardroom.

 

[Sultan]

Sir Jim (Ineos) and Sheikh Jassim (Qatar) can both cheat FFP rules. We generally associate states as capable of doing such. Do we have an in-built bias due to the City having done so?

If United are run well as has been said numerous times the club can compete with anyone on the planet even with cheats.

 

[KikiDaKats]

I’m back and forth with my support daily.
1 The romanticism of being own by a local lad that can’t hide when it all goes tits up.
2. Understanding of the SJ intentions aligns, if it works out will be where I want the club.

Human Rights is the new Civilisation, I try not to go on about the human rights in other countries because that’s the same thinking we all use to justify why our countries have been changing governments across the globe and help civilise them by giving them the beautiful democracy.

There seem to be a push for some cultures or countries to skip certain stages of their evolution as a society instead of allowing for organic growths. Politics and political views go hand in hand with historical facts. So an individual interest doesn’t make up a whole political landscape, it’s just a component.

This same applies to individual businessmen producing for the present needs and damaging another sectors, whilst ignoring the contributions of their work to future development/innovations. Technology will not be where it is today if such unpalatable undertakings were never made.

So, I’d stick to supporting what will make the club I support sustainable and competitive at the same time. In terms of sustainability
1. SJR/INEOS with politics of climate change and how does our club stay prioritised if they hit the hard times.
2. SJ/92 Foundation are they independent of Qatari government interference to a point United can be free off a pawn in some geopolitical games.

I’ll be fine with the club being a greenwashing or sportswashing machinery because it’s all around us, so I won’t choose to play the moral police in a globalised world thats calling for diversity and acceptance. I see Arsenal Bayern and Madrid fans against this but their shirts and stadia don’t reflect that. Even the FA cup has done more sportswashing for States than owning United will do. So it’s all good for the FA to take Arab money but United doing it will ruin English football. Ive not stopped watching the FA Cup and I like every current fan wanted us to win it. I’d rather stay with the football on this, not play xenophobia on it and reserve that for my women. The properties will only increase in value from their investment.

 

[Lecland07]

Agreed. Aren't loan repayments and interest on debt factored in to FFP? Therefore the idea that we can only spend the same amount under FFP be it Ineos or Qatar is a nonsense argument.

The debt will be on Ineos so it has absolutely no affect on Manutd for FFP - this has already been confirmed.

Therefore, not a nonsense argument.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

The debt will be on Ineos so it has absolutely no affect on Manutd for FFP - this has already been confirmed.

Therefore, not a nonsense argument.

In all likelihood, even under such a structure, United would make an annual transfer payment to INEOS to cover the interest expense on the debt. Which I'd imagine would have an FFP impact.

 

[Lecland07]

In all likelihood, even under such a structure, United would make an annual transfer payment to INEOS to cover the interest expense on the debt. Which I'd imagine would have an FFP impact.

They have already said they are not going to put debt on the club, so what you are saying would end up being an inter-company loan. In other words, Ineos would owe Manchester United money rather than the other way around.

This could actually end up being a way to increase Manutd's revenue as the club could actually charge interest on the loan to Ineos. Of course, this would be entirely up to Ineos to decide.

 

[Big Ben Foster]

They have already said they are not going to put debt on the club, so what you are saying would end up being an inter-company loan. In other words, Ineos would owe Manchester United money rather than the other way around.

This could actually end up being a way to increase Manutd's revenue as the club could actually charge interest on the loan to Ineos. Of course, this would be entirely up to Ineos to decide.

No, the debt would be held by INEOS as you stated (since they would be able to get better financing terms). United would make intercompany transactions to INEOS to cover payments on the portion of INEOS' debt that's associated with United.

No guarantees this is how it'll be structured, but it's a real possibility.

 

[Rood]

The debt will be on Ineos so it has absolutely no affect on Manutd for FFP - this has already been confirmed.

Therefore, not a nonsense argument.

Where has this been confirmed ?

Lots of media rumours but there is actually very little about the INEOS bid that is clear

 

[Denis79]

I am at a point where I care less who takes over as long as the Glazers go. It's obvious we aren't going anywhere with them.

 

[LuckyScout78]

Which of those 2 owners do you think has most luck and good karma? The bank of luck. To match City's owner?

The new owner will compete against city rich owner.


You get to have a lot luck and good karma bank to compete and beat the City owner.



But United current owner shall decide to sell or not. So it make it easier to th new owner and Ten Hag to plan theirs summer transfer. Not to drag and sit on the fence too long. Wait too long.

5 bids and still haven't decide yet? I would loose my patience.

 

[wolvored]

Looking likely Qatar now they have registered the 92 Foundation

 

[Catt]

Looking likely Qatar now they have registered the 92 Foundation

Haven't kept up with this. What does that mean exactly?

 

[esmufc07]

Haven't kept up with this. What does that mean exactly?

Means it is looking likely Qatar now they have registered the 92 Foundation

 

[Catt]

Means it is looking likely Qatar now they have registered the 92 Foundation

That's what he said. I wanted some more juice.

Nevermind

 

[Redstain]

Hopefully this is the last of all the back and forth.

 

[ScholesyTheWise]

I think that from an emotional POV, with regards to us, I was kind of living under a rock these past couple of months.
The fact that United is very likely to be owned by Qatar kinda starts to sink in.

feck me. How on earth do you keep supporting the club after that?

Better start working on my gymnastics skills...

 

[Sviken]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Oh look, you can have nice things. Like he promised.

this reads like a parody. why hasn't he invested this money until now?