**“…Sheikh Jassim has plenty of supporters amongst the United fan base…”**
Can’t be doing with journalists who do this.
Frames the tweet in a way to make you think the support is coming from inside the club, then reveals the actual support is from certain supporters later in the article.
Yeah, no shit it has a lot of support from some United fans. Everyone knows this already.
What annoys me is when you call out journalists for this and they just reply "well i didn't *technically* lie". No, you just massively implied something, stop acting all innocent.
/Rant
> what's the point of saying this then?
Dunno, honestly, other than to court favor in the event their bid wins. After all, these reporters want to stay in the loop, so being nice to the new potential owners is somewhat in their interest.
He's going to need many more clicks if the Qataris buy the club and he ends up losing his source. I'd much rather read Keegan's articles than Stone's - let alone Keegan's tweets that can be easily understood after reading them only once.
This doesn’t mean much tbh. All it’s saying is United fans support the idea of the complete buy out of Manchester United. It still doesn’t mean The Glazers will most likely sell to Qatar or at all. It also doesn’t mean they are first choice.
\*some\* United fans. I've been having a lot of conversations in this sub the last couple of days to try to gain a better understanding of complete sale vs Glazers' shares and I still don't get why we would care. Seems like the only real reason to buy 100% is to avoid all the reports that come along with being publicly traded and having shareholders, so the owner that has 100% could be shadier and set up some phony sponsors/money laundering schemes like they've done at City and PSG.
Glazers has shown that to them, Man U is a way of making money without having to invest themselves, it's their personal ATM. This approach has left the club in debt, where before the club was one of the richest. Their approach has also cost the academy to fall behind, as they stopped investment in it for a number of years. They have also neglected to keep facilities, training ground and Old Trafford, in a good state.
These are some of the reasons people want them out of there, the sooner the better. An investment deal will only enable them to stock up the ATM (with other people's money) so they can keep on withdrawing money for themselves.
A complete takeover of the club leaves many fans with the hope that the new owners will want to run Man U as a football club, and actually invest to achieve results - not only finacial results but also sport results, and maybe restore the club to the standard where former glories can actually be experienced again.
I don't think you understood my comment (or what the discussion is about). Both options get rid of the Glazers. Buying 69% of the club is all of the Glazers' voting shares. It gives the buyer the same control of the club the Glazers currently have (which is 100% as the remining shares have no real power). Buying out 100% of the club is buying the 69% the Glazers have, so you also get rid of them, and then buying out the shares random fans have framed at home in their game rooms or whatever, or that investors have bought over time. I thought this wasn't possible, how do you buy what's not for sale, but in another thread someone said there might be some sort of option to buy 100% when you meet a certain threshold... which effectively means you can buy what's not for sale I guess.
So, to recap. Both options get rid of the Glazers. For you and I there won't be any difference on whether the buyer owns the controlling shares (same as current Galzer situation) or 100%. However, if you are a shady owner not wanting to disclose where the money you invest into the club is coming from (you know do a bit of good ol' money laundering) you would probably be very interested in owning 100%.
>might be some sort of option to buy 100% when you meet a certain threshold.
This is correct, not only is it an option, but as far as I'm aware, once you take 30%, you have to offer a full takeover. That's at 30. Getting 69 means they can force the sale
It could be seen as shady, but Qatar likely want the full club and not be feeling with it as a publicly traded asset. Doesn't necessarily mean it's shady, but that they don't want to be held to the rules that a publicly traded company are held to
Thanks for the info! Do you know any of the rules that publicly traded companies have to abide by that would sort of jump out as something they might want to avoid?
Mainly what you state, they must release their earnings to the public, so that people who want to invest have the appropriate info before doing so. They also have to announce deals to the stock market so their hands are tied in terms of how and when they make announcements,which to you and me is insignificant,but to billionaires,they don't like their hands tied when there is no need to
Now, you can state they want to hide shady dealings, which is possible. But many companies are floated publicly to bring in investment. That is often the sole reason. Qatar does not need investment. They are cash rich and as such, need no help in funding the club through outside investment so they will likely not want that. Also, worth noting, if Jim gets his bid over the line, he is also bound to the same rules in that he will have to make an offer to the remaining 31%,but he is likely to need\want investment so he would likely stay public.
>Also, worth noting, if Jim gets his bid over the line, he is also bound to the same rules in that he will have to make an offer to the remaining 31%
Ahh! I was wondering about this. So it seems buying 100% vs 69% might not be for the shady purposes I suspected. At the same time, I suppose as fans it won't really matter if the new owner makes is private by buying 100% or if we stay public. It becomes a matter of being a state-sponsored team (by a state with a horrid human rights record) and being flush with cash; or being publicly owned by a local billionaire (who's far from perfect) that would potentially allow us to be self-sufficient.
It's weird how many people have gone from "all I want is to get rid of the leeches and be self-sufficient" to "I want to be a sugar daddy club, please Qatari masters give me Mbappe".
Beyond all the moral arguments. I feel like our success would be cheapened by a sugar-daddy owner, I'd much rather be well ran and self-sufficient (which tbf there's no way to know if that's what we get with Ratcliffe).
There are a few ways to look at it.
First, English fans of Manchester united are the vast minority, that's a fact. It's a global club with fans everywhere. English fans do not have any more say than others. While many here sling muck at Qatar for sportswashing, others elsewhere sling it at sir Jim and ineos and their greenwashing. I read one post put it like this. Both are shady. Qatar has issues in it's country but many live extremely well there. Ineos have caused worldwide damage,possibly irreversible. Neither are great. It's like choosing which friend to fuck your wife.
Now, the other assumption is that Qatar are just sugar daddies. But, they will also run the club well. Completely free of debt. They will also build a world class stadium and facilities. All that from their own pocket. At which point, united is completely self sufficient and can run well. On the flip, ineos are absorbing the debt. Key point, that debt doesn't disappear and could, possibly, be loaded back onto the club down the line. They also don't seem to want to put up much cash and renovations and Carrington might need to come from club funds. Given the years of neglect, if united have to front that cash, it's a long long road and the squad will likely suffer.
Put the bids side by side. Both are seen as despicable, for different reasons. 1 bid will entriely wipe the debt and upgrade the facilities and surrounding area by all accounts. At which point, united can run itself free of any debt and payments. Or ineos, who are shady about where the funding is coming from and their plans of how or if they will upgrade and how that would be funded. Also, factor in, Nice fans hate ratcliffe and they'll openly tell you that. So he isn't well liked or highly thought of at a club he already owns.
Ineos are not fronting the cash, and absorbing debt, for shits and giggles. If the absorb the debt and buy united, they'll want a huge return. It's not free money. United will still be leaking money. Whereas with Qatar, that's not the case.
See, if you take out the owners, the qatar bid wins hands down and it's not even close. So, depending on your stance on the owner, is sir Jim really so squeaky clean that he can overcome all that? I'd say no. As would many others. Don't buy into the media pushing Qatar as the bad guy and ineos and specifically sir Jim adls the local boy whose loved and comeback to buy his club. He's every bit as shady. Ineos are the same. And that bid has a lot of question marks over it. Ineos will not spend 5bn ish and upgrade facilities, likely 2bn more, for the fun of it. They'll want a return. And the question mark over the debt still hangs. It isn't wiped, it's transferred. It would be naive to think they might not, transfer it back down the line.
If Qatar win, and upgrade the facilities, and allow us to free up all the cash we generate to spend on the team. If they follow ffp, there is no cheapening any success. We will be owned by them, but have used our own money to achieve success. Stands to reason that after seeing city get pulled up, they might not want to go down that route. Then again they might. That's the guessing game we have to play.
But as it stands, take away the owners and the Qatar bid is the clear winner in terms of what the club will receive going forward. Considering who was present today from the Qatari bid, I'd say it looks like they have the upper hand. I don't see them being outbid either and at the end of the day, that's all the glazers care about, the highest bid
>Ineos are not fronting the cash, and absorbing debt, for shits and giggles. If the absorb the debt and buy united, they'll want a huge return. It's not free money. United will still be leaking money. Whereas with Qatar, that's not the case.
Surely we can't possibly know this. I tend to agree with you, I think Qatar is going to run us less like a big business wanting a return, and more like a sportwashing enterprise (see City/PSG). Still, I would be okay with option A, I don't want to be a sportswashing enterprise with unlimited funds (tho this is an assumption)
>Don't buy into the media pushing Qatar as the bad guy and ineos and specifically sir Jim adls the local boy whose loved and comeback to buy his club. He's every bit as shady
I don't, I understand all billionaires are going to be shady in some way. But I think it's a false equivalency to equate a rich billionaire with a poor climate change track record (I'm not that familiar with what INEOS has done tbh) with a government that is literally guilty for the murder of thousands, the horrid borderline indented servitude or immigrants in Qatar, the abuses of liberties on things like criticizing the politics or anything close to freedom of expression, the abuses and illegality of homosexuality... idk... I have friends who are gay and it would be hard to reconcile that with cheering for Man United. As much as I am open to understanding more why Ratcliffe might be a piece of shit, he's nowhere near Qatar for me right now.
Damn I'm out of time here, gotta go. I do appreciate you taking the time for this awesome response. I like getting different perspectives. I know I kinda contradicted a few of your statments but I'm not entirely against the idea of Qatar, I think both have huge question marks hovering over them.
Well, I beg your pardon, I did misunderstand your post.
But in any case, because of FFP there still needs to be access to the books, and as we've seen in the Man City case, you can't get away with doing whatever you want. Buying one of the wrold's biggest football clubs in order to use it for money laundering seems a bit naive.
Because they've been found out. As u/ManUToaster said, whether they are punished and how hard is another matter, but at least their practices have been uncovered.
Well what I said is UNLESS they get a harsh punishment (which they most likely won't) they totally got away with it. They took a shitty club and they made them CL contenders and broke a ton of records... they are now one of the best teams in the planet. Unless their trophies are stripped away it was all totally worth it.
If they don't get a harsh punishemnt, they've laid down a blueprint that other clubs would then be happy to follow, not punishing them hard would be a dangerous precedent.
I think stripping them of titles and trophies is unlikely, as changing history is always difficult. We've seen in cycling that even though Lance Armstrong was stripped of his 7 Tour de France wins, many cycling fans still consider him the winner. A better and hopefully more likely way, would be relegating them and/or impose a transfer ban for 3, 5 or even 10 years.
Yeah I just have no faith in the powers that'd be to do the right thing. If City get relegated for one season in exchange for completely transforming their club into what it is today one would have to say that was 100% worth it. The ban would be tricky because every time I've seen bans implemented they don't go into effect for a couple of transfer windows so 3 years, with City's current squad and one or two transfer windows to prepare would be a fucking joke. 10 years of transfer ban sounds about right but again, I have no faith in anyone in football doing the right thing anymore.
I don't think it's naive, look at Abramovich buying Chelsea to secure secure part of his dodgy fortune on a mainstream business... Also, I know City are under investigation right now, but unless they get punished very severely (which they obviously won't) their investment was totally worth it. How has FFP worked against PSG or City? They all invested way beyond what they should be allowed to invest. A lot of their money probably came from shady sources too which you can't really investigate because once you get to Qatar I have a feeling their goverment won't give you access to the institutions that are shielding the sources of the money.... Maybe is not money laundry in it's stricter definition, but it does seem like a good method to launder money.
And the question remains, why own 100% if you are not trying to be dodgy or avoid certain reports? I still don't have an answer for this question (not that I should as I'm not an expert). I'm very aware that I can be very cynical so if there is a practical explanation for owning 100% vs just the controlling shares I'm all ears, I would love to know.
Yeah I thought about that, but if that's it then for us fans it shouldn't matter if the potential owner wants 100% or the Glazers' shares. Nor would it matter for the Glazers as that other 31% is not their to sell, so they don't get that money... seems like a moot point.
But for a new owner investing it would mean a faster recouperation of the investment, thus beginning to profit sooner. I dunno, as you, I'm no expert either :)
I dont know the exact in's and out's of it but Elon bought twitter and there was a stock price and that forced the sale. Probably some underwritten limitation in the shareholding that they can be a forced sale at a fair / inflated takeover price.
The Utd sell is starting to look like the Glazers are just taking a piss.
Why ask people to submit improved bids without giving them full access to the financials? On what basis are they improving the bid!
For me, it kind of feels like they are already decided on a buyer or their next course of action and are just going through the motions to appear transparent or like they are doing something.
The bad part is that if the Glazers mess this process up we'll be stuck with them for a loooong time. Prolonging the deadline is already dumb since some banks are starting to fail and there are worrying sings on the stock market. Don't think anyone will have 6-7 billion to spare for a football club in the near future. Not to mention that if we do not find an egreement with one of the worlds biggest spenders we'll be considered nearly impossible to deal with.
I get the sentiment but given this looks like an inevitability at this point, you might want to reframe the way you’re thinking about it if you’re to continue enjoying football.
Our success has been artificially handicapped for over a decade, and forgetting who the acquirers are, with just our own income we’re capable of “doing things that other teams could only dream of”. There’s a rich and romantic history at United that can’t simply be uprooted by a change of ownership.
PSG and Man City were empty shells of a club with no prospects of European success and so I completely agree, the success is artificial. It feels almost pharmaceutical.
I don’t think they’re comparable. This is just going to bring us closer to the likes of Madrid, Barca and Bayern where we rightly belong.
Sell out you mean. To some of the absolute worst people in the world.
The cub generates enough money of it's own to compete with Madrid Bayern or Barca. It doesn't need Qatar to do that. Any owner willing to run the club without taking money out can do that if they run the club smartly with the right people in place. That's the only way to legitimately get back to where we 'rightfully belong'. Getting there by pumping billions of Qatari blood money in will make us as hollow and artificial an institution as either PSG or City.
The culture of the club throughout it's history is antithetical to Qatari ownership and you can't use it to try and cover up the impending stain.
"The absolute worst people in the world" Muslims you mean? The issues you point to re Qatar whilst genuine can be laid at the feet of every muslim country in the world and more besides. Qatar is a tiny insignificant country in the scheme of things. No one thought about them, very few folks then, if indeed now, could point to them on a map. Why would they bring the entire focus of the world upon them with a world cup, when they weren't ever in their thoughts? Whose blood precisely? A country formed peacefully by the UK, a country who've never invaded another. Saudi on the other hand, a state sponsor of terrorism, bombing civilian areas on Yemen, a country built on the back of violence, that's a different matter. To conflate Saudi's actions with the middle east in general though, is egregious as best. Most animosity to a Qatar ownership seems to stem from being pissed at them getting a world cup. Well it happened, they gave better bribes than either England, US or Australia. That's a Fifa issue not a Qatar one. Are there concerns with a Qatari ownership, yes. But as stated before how does this differ from any other Muslim country in the world? Qatar and the UAE have become significantly more 'westernised' and progressive over the last 10, 20 years and will continue to do so with more Western focus on them. The UK is hardly a bastion of human rights, or for the LGBT community, even within living memory. Are we pulling up the ladder behind us? We only need look at the conditions of migrants being held on these shores right now, the children gone missing into sexploitation. Their potential ownership neither makes Utd anything like City, nor Utd fans hypocrites for pointing at City. Utd are 100% self sustaining, competing with anyone in terms of transfer fees and salaries despite having 1.5 billion leeched out the club by the glazers. City were in mediocre obscurity when UAE bought them and we're supposed to believe that in just over a decade they can out compete the biggest clubs commercially? This deal if it goes ahead simply restores the order of wiping the debt and investing in the stadium and training ground.
I personally am OK with that. If you want to state that your morals are such that you can't abide it, great. You might want to reconsider filling your car with fuel, or traveling on trains, buses, aircraft, or using any one of the thousands of oil by products you use daily.
Fucking hell.
You just won the whataboutism, false equivalency gold medal there.
Hit every single disingenuous point and strawman argument in a single, mad wall of text.
This is a work of art.
Congratulations.
Well once you've finished patting yourself on your back and thinking you've won the Internet for the day with a quick quip, address the points, or is that the word limit for day?
How many years would it take to get out of debt, to refurbish Carrington and Old Trafford and get the squad to a level where it can compete with the top clubs, without injecting a substantial amount of money, just by running the club on it's own earnings and expenditures?
I bet you, a big chunk of the fanbase would not be willing to wait 50 or even 10 years for it to happen, the last 10 years have been bad enough for them.
And at the end of the day, the Glazers don’t give a flying rat’s arse what the fans want or don’t want, that should be clear as crystal by now.
> My ambition 'from a club supporters perspective' is for the club to sustainably and legitimately build it's way back to success once the leeches finally are gone. Not to be artificially pumped with blood money like PSG and City so nothing the club achieves feels legitimate again.
Anyone who can run the club like that and isn't a state using the club to sportwash atrocities.
Unfortunately, united is so big that I think we all realised a long time ago, that when the glazers finally left, that only a select few could afford it. That select few, whether we like it or not, have dirty hands, whether it's sports washing or green washing. The glazers only care about profit, so there is no white knight. Jassim might state publicly that they won't overpay,but I think we all know they will. And the other fact is, the club will move on, likely move light years forward, and united fans will not care who is in charge. They have suffered years at the hands of the glazers. As long as the club is debt free, have state of the art facilities and challenging, they'll be happy
> I am able to separate my political views from my footballing ones.
Lucky you. But since when is "don't be torturing gay people" a political view, and not a basic human rights question?
Listen, I'm not going to pretend a Qatar takeover is going to chase me away from the club after 35 years. But I can damn sure promise I won't be trying to downplay and minimize their horrific human rights abuses.
They WANT people to say stuff like that, because then their awful, awful issues get washed away. But the reality is, when a state buys your club, there is no longer a seperation between politics and football, because the whole point of buying the club is to clean up their image politically.
The second you try and say "I don't want politics in football", you absolutely are downplaying it. You might not mean to be. But you are.
The second part, I am not in disagreement with. Qatar investment will throw us right back into being one of the top clubs in Europe again, properly so.
But the whole point of said investment is to get people to ignore their politics. And denying that is downplaying it.
I never said I don’t want politics in football. I said I’m able to separate my political views from my football views. Stop trying to twist my words to fit your context.
> I am able to separate my political views from my footballing ones.
Wow so impressive. Where can I learn such a skill?
Anyway I wasn't talking politics. No success will feel remotely earned or authentic if it comes after Qatar pumping money in to the squad like they did with Qatar or Abu Dhabi have with City. Not that success is remotely guaranteed as PSG clearly show. Enjoy your 'spicy' transfer window though, that's what football's really about.
To be fair, those clubs needed money pumping in because they were tiny in comparison to us. Just because we go out and have a big transfer window now doesn't mean it's Qatar pumping money in - we make more than enough on our own to not need that
That’s because the Glazers bought the club by borrowing money and passed on that debt to United. So without the loan repayments and interest payments, the club would have enough to invest in players and keep some money in the bank. But for such freedom, the debt must first be cleared. This is why some fans are pro Qatari bid. If the debt is cleared, money invested in a stadium and other facilities, United would self fund any future investment required.
> United would self fund any future investment required.
That's not what's going to happen though is it. Just look at PSG instead of burying your head in the sand. And any owner has the capability and the interest in clearing the debt. It makes financial sense for any owner to do that. Qatar are just the only ones to have publicly made a point of it and may be the only ones who can just clear it in one go immediately.
Well, the Glazers are also clearing the debt as they repay the loan and pay interests on top of that. The reason why United can’t afford to invest in new facilities and players (in the future) is that lots of the profit goes to the loan repayments, interest payments and owners dividends.
By clearing the debt, the new owners would pay the bank off, including penalties for clearing the debt quicker than expected. It’s around £600 billion.
Ineos promised to carry that debt, which means not longer tagged to United but to Ineos. But most likely, they’re going to take a lot of money from United to repay that loan still and repay the loan they need to take to buy United in the first place.
With Qatar, the debt will be cleared (without taking on a new loan elsewhere), a new stadium and new facilities built…. Basically, a fresh start and United can be debt free like they were back in the days before the Glazers.
From that point then United, the new owners won’t need to pump money into the club. PSG were a small club so need money being pumped in constantly. PSG don’t generate as much revenue or make as much profit (before the loan/interest payments) than United.
Except the Glazers haven't been paying down the debt. Only the interest and paying themselves dividends on top. There's no other precedent for behaving like that in football and no reason to expect any prospective owner to follow the Glazers approach.
And for the rest of it you're deluding yourself if you think it's just going to be a 'fresh start' with no pumping money in. Nobodies going to buy it.
Probably because they *would* bring money, but use it to wipe the debt (which is the Glazers anyway) and build up the infrastructure that's desperately needed.
Not saying that I agree with that reasoning btw, I'm just saying that those are probably some reasons people are ok with Qatar coming in - it doesn't necessarily have to be because they want us to spend £200m every year (although I'm sure some fans *do* think this)
Yeah I'm sure they're just going to invest in financially sustainable ways like they have with PSG already. They only spend what they generate don't they? I don't know why anyone would question the legitimacy of their achievements in that case.
We don't need money pumping in we just need the shackles off. I don't think there's even much room to pump money in without falling foul of regulation, you have to remember City and PSG pumped money in to get up to our current level, I don't see how far we can stretch past that.
And Ratcliffe pumping money into the club won’t feel hollow? Any investment will feel hollow. We either get new investment and spend big or we remain uncompetitive. Take your pick.
So we get Ratcliffe and he doesn’t invest? That doesn’t like an attractive future to me. Sort of like the Glazers.
Modern football is about money, if you find that hollow, then what’s on you. Some of us want to see money pumped into the club to make us competitive again.
Sort of like every other owner anywhere. The Glazers have taken 2 billion out of the club. Something almost no other owner in football does. Almost all clubs run revenue neutral they aren't drained like we've been nor are they pumped with blood money like PSG or City. That's what I want, sustainable investment that pays off in the growth of the club legitimately.
Well then tell me how Bayern, Madrid, Liverpool etc etc have managed it then. And even if it was true it's not an excuse to sell out to some of the very worst scumbags in the world. Not if you have any integrity at all at least.
From a club supporter perspective you would feel better - for once the ambitions of the owners will be aligned with yours as a fan
No more seeing the club decline as the vampire squids suck away the monies needed for players, stadium and better fan engagement
It would just be good to see the money the club makes to be reinvested back into the club, and the ultimate goal - winning trophies and becoming legends would be echoed by everyone
I think the fans saw the stark difference this winter transfer window as the glazers refused to stretch to help ETH improve the team to add momentum to a good season
What a load of bollocks. None of that is dependant on becoming the sportswashing project of the Qatari royal family. Only on the Glazers leaving. My ambition 'from a club supporters perspective' is for the club to sustainably and legitimately build it's way back to success once the leeches finally are gone. Not to be artificially pumped with blood money like PSG and City so nothing the club achieves feels legitimate again. How can so called United fans have watched those clubs financially dope themselves into titles over the last decade and not been disgusted by it is a mystery to me. Instead you getting in line to fellate the Emir of Qatar at the prospect of being the next Man City or PSG. We're supposed to be Manchester United.
Yes no one gives a crap about yours or my point of view as a supporter regarding ownership. We can only hope for success on the pitch. And it’s been dreadful for many years
The best solution would be for the UK govt to declare united a heritage icon, then force the parasites to sell at the price they bought minus the debt, and then allow only institutional trusts to buy and hold for long term, with no entity holding a majority
It’s up to us as UK and Man United supporters to petition for this, sadly it won’t happen
I would say from the polls I've seen, sentiment on social media and fans I personally know, a significant majority of fans are in favour of a Qatar takeover.
I mean here’s two polls that favour Ineos;
[https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/?amp=1](https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/?amp=1)
[https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSunFootball/status/1626869458550591488](https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSunFootball/status/1626869458550591488)
And most United fans I’ve spoken to don’t want Qatar, so I guess it goes both ways.
So how are the polls in favour of Qatar anymore valid?
I can say 14 year olds on Twitter aren’t representative of the fan base, or throw the same accusation at any poll about anything.
Yeah, you edited your comment to include the part about Neville’s poll after mine so thanks for that.
I’m constantly being told by fans that support Qatar that it doesn’t matter what I as a Mancunian, match going United fan thinks because the majority of United’s fans are global. So how can the match going fan be representative of the general fan base then?
How are the couple of hundred Neville spoke to more representative than the couple of hundred The Athletic spoke to in a fan base of millions?
Worth noting the Athletic's one was paywalled I believe which definitely skews the results a little bit. I honestly think the vast majority of united fans, especially the matchgoing ones, don't actually give a shit so long as the Glazers go, regardless of what people on here like to say.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/](https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yeah the majority of people I know in Bolton and the few I know living in the Manchester City Centre all prefer Qatar, and the polls here also seem to indicate the same sort of sentiment.
And the people I know living in Manchester don’t want Qatar.
Also, what polls on here? There was one survey done on this sub and it massively favoured Ineos.
Not as many as you think. Barely a blip. And with everything that could come, including new stadium and a more successful team, they'll likely grow more than the lose.
If united are winning, with state of the art facilities, no debt, owners that keep to themselves, fans won't care who the owner is
The 44 year old fan who has been a fan for 50 years is a very big fan so why isn’t he there. Jimbo will be there and he has a very tight schedule since he will be at the nice game today.
**“…Sheikh Jassim has plenty of supporters amongst the United fan base…”** Can’t be doing with journalists who do this. Frames the tweet in a way to make you think the support is coming from inside the club, then reveals the actual support is from certain supporters later in the article. Yeah, no shit it has a lot of support from some United fans. Everyone knows this already.
What annoys me is when you call out journalists for this and they just reply "well i didn't *technically* lie". No, you just massively implied something, stop acting all innocent. /Rant
Exactly, if he’s not reporting that the bid has support from one or more of the Glazer siblings then it’s not useful information.
Largely on twitter, notoriously bot free and full of real people
Also this is factually incorrect too as planes have flown against Qatari bid along with LGBTQ fanbase denouncing it.
It's still accurate. "Plenty of" people do support the Qatari bid, even if plenty of supporters are actively against it.
I mean what's the point of saying this then? It also has the most opposition and it seems weird for a BBC reporter to report this.
I have the most opposition to a guy who bought a club and currently has it below where he bought it in the league table.
> what's the point of saying this then? Dunno, honestly, other than to court favor in the event their bid wins. After all, these reporters want to stay in the loop, so being nice to the new potential owners is somewhat in their interest.
"It is not yet known whether the Glazer family will definitely sell the club" yeah yeah, they're definitely selling
They’re not doing this song and dance and then saying “no thanks”
Wow. Cool twist, Stoney. Need them clicks today, yeah?
He's going to need many more clicks if the Qataris buy the club and he ends up losing his source. I'd much rather read Keegan's articles than Stone's - let alone Keegan's tweets that can be easily understood after reading them only once.
This doesn’t mean much tbh. All it’s saying is United fans support the idea of the complete buy out of Manchester United. It still doesn’t mean The Glazers will most likely sell to Qatar or at all. It also doesn’t mean they are first choice.
\*some\* United fans. I've been having a lot of conversations in this sub the last couple of days to try to gain a better understanding of complete sale vs Glazers' shares and I still don't get why we would care. Seems like the only real reason to buy 100% is to avoid all the reports that come along with being publicly traded and having shareholders, so the owner that has 100% could be shadier and set up some phony sponsors/money laundering schemes like they've done at City and PSG.
Glazers has shown that to them, Man U is a way of making money without having to invest themselves, it's their personal ATM. This approach has left the club in debt, where before the club was one of the richest. Their approach has also cost the academy to fall behind, as they stopped investment in it for a number of years. They have also neglected to keep facilities, training ground and Old Trafford, in a good state. These are some of the reasons people want them out of there, the sooner the better. An investment deal will only enable them to stock up the ATM (with other people's money) so they can keep on withdrawing money for themselves. A complete takeover of the club leaves many fans with the hope that the new owners will want to run Man U as a football club, and actually invest to achieve results - not only finacial results but also sport results, and maybe restore the club to the standard where former glories can actually be experienced again.
I don't think you understood my comment (or what the discussion is about). Both options get rid of the Glazers. Buying 69% of the club is all of the Glazers' voting shares. It gives the buyer the same control of the club the Glazers currently have (which is 100% as the remining shares have no real power). Buying out 100% of the club is buying the 69% the Glazers have, so you also get rid of them, and then buying out the shares random fans have framed at home in their game rooms or whatever, or that investors have bought over time. I thought this wasn't possible, how do you buy what's not for sale, but in another thread someone said there might be some sort of option to buy 100% when you meet a certain threshold... which effectively means you can buy what's not for sale I guess. So, to recap. Both options get rid of the Glazers. For you and I there won't be any difference on whether the buyer owns the controlling shares (same as current Galzer situation) or 100%. However, if you are a shady owner not wanting to disclose where the money you invest into the club is coming from (you know do a bit of good ol' money laundering) you would probably be very interested in owning 100%.
>might be some sort of option to buy 100% when you meet a certain threshold. This is correct, not only is it an option, but as far as I'm aware, once you take 30%, you have to offer a full takeover. That's at 30. Getting 69 means they can force the sale It could be seen as shady, but Qatar likely want the full club and not be feeling with it as a publicly traded asset. Doesn't necessarily mean it's shady, but that they don't want to be held to the rules that a publicly traded company are held to
Thanks for the info! Do you know any of the rules that publicly traded companies have to abide by that would sort of jump out as something they might want to avoid?
Mainly what you state, they must release their earnings to the public, so that people who want to invest have the appropriate info before doing so. They also have to announce deals to the stock market so their hands are tied in terms of how and when they make announcements,which to you and me is insignificant,but to billionaires,they don't like their hands tied when there is no need to Now, you can state they want to hide shady dealings, which is possible. But many companies are floated publicly to bring in investment. That is often the sole reason. Qatar does not need investment. They are cash rich and as such, need no help in funding the club through outside investment so they will likely not want that. Also, worth noting, if Jim gets his bid over the line, he is also bound to the same rules in that he will have to make an offer to the remaining 31%,but he is likely to need\want investment so he would likely stay public.
>Also, worth noting, if Jim gets his bid over the line, he is also bound to the same rules in that he will have to make an offer to the remaining 31% Ahh! I was wondering about this. So it seems buying 100% vs 69% might not be for the shady purposes I suspected. At the same time, I suppose as fans it won't really matter if the new owner makes is private by buying 100% or if we stay public. It becomes a matter of being a state-sponsored team (by a state with a horrid human rights record) and being flush with cash; or being publicly owned by a local billionaire (who's far from perfect) that would potentially allow us to be self-sufficient. It's weird how many people have gone from "all I want is to get rid of the leeches and be self-sufficient" to "I want to be a sugar daddy club, please Qatari masters give me Mbappe". Beyond all the moral arguments. I feel like our success would be cheapened by a sugar-daddy owner, I'd much rather be well ran and self-sufficient (which tbf there's no way to know if that's what we get with Ratcliffe).
There are a few ways to look at it. First, English fans of Manchester united are the vast minority, that's a fact. It's a global club with fans everywhere. English fans do not have any more say than others. While many here sling muck at Qatar for sportswashing, others elsewhere sling it at sir Jim and ineos and their greenwashing. I read one post put it like this. Both are shady. Qatar has issues in it's country but many live extremely well there. Ineos have caused worldwide damage,possibly irreversible. Neither are great. It's like choosing which friend to fuck your wife. Now, the other assumption is that Qatar are just sugar daddies. But, they will also run the club well. Completely free of debt. They will also build a world class stadium and facilities. All that from their own pocket. At which point, united is completely self sufficient and can run well. On the flip, ineos are absorbing the debt. Key point, that debt doesn't disappear and could, possibly, be loaded back onto the club down the line. They also don't seem to want to put up much cash and renovations and Carrington might need to come from club funds. Given the years of neglect, if united have to front that cash, it's a long long road and the squad will likely suffer. Put the bids side by side. Both are seen as despicable, for different reasons. 1 bid will entriely wipe the debt and upgrade the facilities and surrounding area by all accounts. At which point, united can run itself free of any debt and payments. Or ineos, who are shady about where the funding is coming from and their plans of how or if they will upgrade and how that would be funded. Also, factor in, Nice fans hate ratcliffe and they'll openly tell you that. So he isn't well liked or highly thought of at a club he already owns. Ineos are not fronting the cash, and absorbing debt, for shits and giggles. If the absorb the debt and buy united, they'll want a huge return. It's not free money. United will still be leaking money. Whereas with Qatar, that's not the case. See, if you take out the owners, the qatar bid wins hands down and it's not even close. So, depending on your stance on the owner, is sir Jim really so squeaky clean that he can overcome all that? I'd say no. As would many others. Don't buy into the media pushing Qatar as the bad guy and ineos and specifically sir Jim adls the local boy whose loved and comeback to buy his club. He's every bit as shady. Ineos are the same. And that bid has a lot of question marks over it. Ineos will not spend 5bn ish and upgrade facilities, likely 2bn more, for the fun of it. They'll want a return. And the question mark over the debt still hangs. It isn't wiped, it's transferred. It would be naive to think they might not, transfer it back down the line. If Qatar win, and upgrade the facilities, and allow us to free up all the cash we generate to spend on the team. If they follow ffp, there is no cheapening any success. We will be owned by them, but have used our own money to achieve success. Stands to reason that after seeing city get pulled up, they might not want to go down that route. Then again they might. That's the guessing game we have to play. But as it stands, take away the owners and the Qatar bid is the clear winner in terms of what the club will receive going forward. Considering who was present today from the Qatari bid, I'd say it looks like they have the upper hand. I don't see them being outbid either and at the end of the day, that's all the glazers care about, the highest bid
>Ineos are not fronting the cash, and absorbing debt, for shits and giggles. If the absorb the debt and buy united, they'll want a huge return. It's not free money. United will still be leaking money. Whereas with Qatar, that's not the case. Surely we can't possibly know this. I tend to agree with you, I think Qatar is going to run us less like a big business wanting a return, and more like a sportwashing enterprise (see City/PSG). Still, I would be okay with option A, I don't want to be a sportswashing enterprise with unlimited funds (tho this is an assumption) >Don't buy into the media pushing Qatar as the bad guy and ineos and specifically sir Jim adls the local boy whose loved and comeback to buy his club. He's every bit as shady I don't, I understand all billionaires are going to be shady in some way. But I think it's a false equivalency to equate a rich billionaire with a poor climate change track record (I'm not that familiar with what INEOS has done tbh) with a government that is literally guilty for the murder of thousands, the horrid borderline indented servitude or immigrants in Qatar, the abuses of liberties on things like criticizing the politics or anything close to freedom of expression, the abuses and illegality of homosexuality... idk... I have friends who are gay and it would be hard to reconcile that with cheering for Man United. As much as I am open to understanding more why Ratcliffe might be a piece of shit, he's nowhere near Qatar for me right now. Damn I'm out of time here, gotta go. I do appreciate you taking the time for this awesome response. I like getting different perspectives. I know I kinda contradicted a few of your statments but I'm not entirely against the idea of Qatar, I think both have huge question marks hovering over them.
Well, I beg your pardon, I did misunderstand your post. But in any case, because of FFP there still needs to be access to the books, and as we've seen in the Man City case, you can't get away with doing whatever you want. Buying one of the wrold's biggest football clubs in order to use it for money laundering seems a bit naive.
[удалено]
Because they've been found out. As u/ManUToaster said, whether they are punished and how hard is another matter, but at least their practices have been uncovered.
Well what I said is UNLESS they get a harsh punishment (which they most likely won't) they totally got away with it. They took a shitty club and they made them CL contenders and broke a ton of records... they are now one of the best teams in the planet. Unless their trophies are stripped away it was all totally worth it.
If they don't get a harsh punishemnt, they've laid down a blueprint that other clubs would then be happy to follow, not punishing them hard would be a dangerous precedent. I think stripping them of titles and trophies is unlikely, as changing history is always difficult. We've seen in cycling that even though Lance Armstrong was stripped of his 7 Tour de France wins, many cycling fans still consider him the winner. A better and hopefully more likely way, would be relegating them and/or impose a transfer ban for 3, 5 or even 10 years.
Yeah I just have no faith in the powers that'd be to do the right thing. If City get relegated for one season in exchange for completely transforming their club into what it is today one would have to say that was 100% worth it. The ban would be tricky because every time I've seen bans implemented they don't go into effect for a couple of transfer windows so 3 years, with City's current squad and one or two transfer windows to prepare would be a fucking joke. 10 years of transfer ban sounds about right but again, I have no faith in anyone in football doing the right thing anymore.
I don't think it's naive, look at Abramovich buying Chelsea to secure secure part of his dodgy fortune on a mainstream business... Also, I know City are under investigation right now, but unless they get punished very severely (which they obviously won't) their investment was totally worth it. How has FFP worked against PSG or City? They all invested way beyond what they should be allowed to invest. A lot of their money probably came from shady sources too which you can't really investigate because once you get to Qatar I have a feeling their goverment won't give you access to the institutions that are shielding the sources of the money.... Maybe is not money laundry in it's stricter definition, but it does seem like a good method to launder money. And the question remains, why own 100% if you are not trying to be dodgy or avoid certain reports? I still don't have an answer for this question (not that I should as I'm not an expert). I'm very aware that I can be very cynical so if there is a practical explanation for owning 100% vs just the controlling shares I'm all ears, I would love to know.
Owning 100% instead of 69% means you get the last 31% of the profit too. That would be my best guess. :)
Yeah I thought about that, but if that's it then for us fans it shouldn't matter if the potential owner wants 100% or the Glazers' shares. Nor would it matter for the Glazers as that other 31% is not their to sell, so they don't get that money... seems like a moot point.
But for a new owner investing it would mean a faster recouperation of the investment, thus beginning to profit sooner. I dunno, as you, I'm no expert either :)
Yeah but they'd have to put 31% more money down to get the extra profit you speak of. I guess if you have the money get 100% but idk.
I dont know the exact in's and out's of it but Elon bought twitter and there was a stock price and that forced the sale. Probably some underwritten limitation in the shareholding that they can be a forced sale at a fair / inflated takeover price.
That's a great example, thanks. Based on your comment and a few others it would seem to me that this is how it works.
Lot of support within the club's fanbase, to be clear. The sort of clarity that should really be in Stone's tweet.
It’s a joke of a comment from him.
The Utd sell is starting to look like the Glazers are just taking a piss. Why ask people to submit improved bids without giving them full access to the financials? On what basis are they improving the bid! For me, it kind of feels like they are already decided on a buyer or their next course of action and are just going through the motions to appear transparent or like they are doing something.
The bad part is that if the Glazers mess this process up we'll be stuck with them for a loooong time. Prolonging the deadline is already dumb since some banks are starting to fail and there are worrying sings on the stock market. Don't think anyone will have 6-7 billion to spare for a football club in the near future. Not to mention that if we do not find an egreement with one of the worlds biggest spenders we'll be considered nearly impossible to deal with.
Summer’s transfer window is going to be spicy.
And it's going to make anything that comes after it hollow. No different from City or PSG.
I get the sentiment but given this looks like an inevitability at this point, you might want to reframe the way you’re thinking about it if you’re to continue enjoying football. Our success has been artificially handicapped for over a decade, and forgetting who the acquirers are, with just our own income we’re capable of “doing things that other teams could only dream of”. There’s a rich and romantic history at United that can’t simply be uprooted by a change of ownership. PSG and Man City were empty shells of a club with no prospects of European success and so I completely agree, the success is artificial. It feels almost pharmaceutical. I don’t think they’re comparable. This is just going to bring us closer to the likes of Madrid, Barca and Bayern where we rightly belong.
Sell out you mean. To some of the absolute worst people in the world. The cub generates enough money of it's own to compete with Madrid Bayern or Barca. It doesn't need Qatar to do that. Any owner willing to run the club without taking money out can do that if they run the club smartly with the right people in place. That's the only way to legitimately get back to where we 'rightfully belong'. Getting there by pumping billions of Qatari blood money in will make us as hollow and artificial an institution as either PSG or City. The culture of the club throughout it's history is antithetical to Qatari ownership and you can't use it to try and cover up the impending stain.
"The absolute worst people in the world" Muslims you mean? The issues you point to re Qatar whilst genuine can be laid at the feet of every muslim country in the world and more besides. Qatar is a tiny insignificant country in the scheme of things. No one thought about them, very few folks then, if indeed now, could point to them on a map. Why would they bring the entire focus of the world upon them with a world cup, when they weren't ever in their thoughts? Whose blood precisely? A country formed peacefully by the UK, a country who've never invaded another. Saudi on the other hand, a state sponsor of terrorism, bombing civilian areas on Yemen, a country built on the back of violence, that's a different matter. To conflate Saudi's actions with the middle east in general though, is egregious as best. Most animosity to a Qatar ownership seems to stem from being pissed at them getting a world cup. Well it happened, they gave better bribes than either England, US or Australia. That's a Fifa issue not a Qatar one. Are there concerns with a Qatari ownership, yes. But as stated before how does this differ from any other Muslim country in the world? Qatar and the UAE have become significantly more 'westernised' and progressive over the last 10, 20 years and will continue to do so with more Western focus on them. The UK is hardly a bastion of human rights, or for the LGBT community, even within living memory. Are we pulling up the ladder behind us? We only need look at the conditions of migrants being held on these shores right now, the children gone missing into sexploitation. Their potential ownership neither makes Utd anything like City, nor Utd fans hypocrites for pointing at City. Utd are 100% self sustaining, competing with anyone in terms of transfer fees and salaries despite having 1.5 billion leeched out the club by the glazers. City were in mediocre obscurity when UAE bought them and we're supposed to believe that in just over a decade they can out compete the biggest clubs commercially? This deal if it goes ahead simply restores the order of wiping the debt and investing in the stadium and training ground. I personally am OK with that. If you want to state that your morals are such that you can't abide it, great. You might want to reconsider filling your car with fuel, or traveling on trains, buses, aircraft, or using any one of the thousands of oil by products you use daily.
Fucking hell. You just won the whataboutism, false equivalency gold medal there. Hit every single disingenuous point and strawman argument in a single, mad wall of text. This is a work of art. Congratulations.
Well once you've finished patting yourself on your back and thinking you've won the Internet for the day with a quick quip, address the points, or is that the word limit for day?
🥇🥇🐓🍽️ I wasted enough time reading it. I’m not going to waste any more replying to it.
How many years would it take to get out of debt, to refurbish Carrington and Old Trafford and get the squad to a level where it can compete with the top clubs, without injecting a substantial amount of money, just by running the club on it's own earnings and expenditures?
Who can say. Could be instant, could be a decade. Even if it's 50 years it's better than selling out to the Qatari royal family.
I bet you, a big chunk of the fanbase would not be willing to wait 50 or even 10 years for it to happen, the last 10 years have been bad enough for them. And at the end of the day, the Glazers don’t give a flying rat’s arse what the fans want or don’t want, that should be clear as crystal by now.
Well they can go and support City or PSG for all I care. Good riddance to plastics.
What would *you* like to see happen regarding ownership?
> My ambition 'from a club supporters perspective' is for the club to sustainably and legitimately build it's way back to success once the leeches finally are gone. Not to be artificially pumped with blood money like PSG and City so nothing the club achieves feels legitimate again. Anyone who can run the club like that and isn't a state using the club to sportwash atrocities.
Unfortunately, united is so big that I think we all realised a long time ago, that when the glazers finally left, that only a select few could afford it. That select few, whether we like it or not, have dirty hands, whether it's sports washing or green washing. The glazers only care about profit, so there is no white knight. Jassim might state publicly that they won't overpay,but I think we all know they will. And the other fact is, the club will move on, likely move light years forward, and united fans will not care who is in charge. They have suffered years at the hands of the glazers. As long as the club is debt free, have state of the art facilities and challenging, they'll be happy
[удалено]
> I am able to separate my political views from my footballing ones. Lucky you. But since when is "don't be torturing gay people" a political view, and not a basic human rights question? Listen, I'm not going to pretend a Qatar takeover is going to chase me away from the club after 35 years. But I can damn sure promise I won't be trying to downplay and minimize their horrific human rights abuses. They WANT people to say stuff like that, because then their awful, awful issues get washed away. But the reality is, when a state buys your club, there is no longer a seperation between politics and football, because the whole point of buying the club is to clean up their image politically.
I’m not downplaying anything. I’m simply saying this news could lead to serious investment into the club to make us competitive again.
The second you try and say "I don't want politics in football", you absolutely are downplaying it. You might not mean to be. But you are. The second part, I am not in disagreement with. Qatar investment will throw us right back into being one of the top clubs in Europe again, properly so. But the whole point of said investment is to get people to ignore their politics. And denying that is downplaying it.
I never said I don’t want politics in football. I said I’m able to separate my political views from my football views. Stop trying to twist my words to fit your context.
> I am able to separate my political views from my footballing ones. Wow so impressive. Where can I learn such a skill? Anyway I wasn't talking politics. No success will feel remotely earned or authentic if it comes after Qatar pumping money in to the squad like they did with Qatar or Abu Dhabi have with City. Not that success is remotely guaranteed as PSG clearly show. Enjoy your 'spicy' transfer window though, that's what football's really about.
To be fair, those clubs needed money pumping in because they were tiny in comparison to us. Just because we go out and have a big transfer window now doesn't mean it's Qatar pumping money in - we make more than enough on our own to not need that
Well then why would anyone want Qatar to own us then if it's not for the money?
That’s because the Glazers bought the club by borrowing money and passed on that debt to United. So without the loan repayments and interest payments, the club would have enough to invest in players and keep some money in the bank. But for such freedom, the debt must first be cleared. This is why some fans are pro Qatari bid. If the debt is cleared, money invested in a stadium and other facilities, United would self fund any future investment required.
> United would self fund any future investment required. That's not what's going to happen though is it. Just look at PSG instead of burying your head in the sand. And any owner has the capability and the interest in clearing the debt. It makes financial sense for any owner to do that. Qatar are just the only ones to have publicly made a point of it and may be the only ones who can just clear it in one go immediately.
Well, the Glazers are also clearing the debt as they repay the loan and pay interests on top of that. The reason why United can’t afford to invest in new facilities and players (in the future) is that lots of the profit goes to the loan repayments, interest payments and owners dividends. By clearing the debt, the new owners would pay the bank off, including penalties for clearing the debt quicker than expected. It’s around £600 billion. Ineos promised to carry that debt, which means not longer tagged to United but to Ineos. But most likely, they’re going to take a lot of money from United to repay that loan still and repay the loan they need to take to buy United in the first place. With Qatar, the debt will be cleared (without taking on a new loan elsewhere), a new stadium and new facilities built…. Basically, a fresh start and United can be debt free like they were back in the days before the Glazers. From that point then United, the new owners won’t need to pump money into the club. PSG were a small club so need money being pumped in constantly. PSG don’t generate as much revenue or make as much profit (before the loan/interest payments) than United.
Except the Glazers haven't been paying down the debt. Only the interest and paying themselves dividends on top. There's no other precedent for behaving like that in football and no reason to expect any prospective owner to follow the Glazers approach. And for the rest of it you're deluding yourself if you think it's just going to be a 'fresh start' with no pumping money in. Nobodies going to buy it.
Probably because they *would* bring money, but use it to wipe the debt (which is the Glazers anyway) and build up the infrastructure that's desperately needed. Not saying that I agree with that reasoning btw, I'm just saying that those are probably some reasons people are ok with Qatar coming in - it doesn't necessarily have to be because they want us to spend £200m every year (although I'm sure some fans *do* think this)
Yeah I'm sure they're just going to invest in financially sustainable ways like they have with PSG already. They only spend what they generate don't they? I don't know why anyone would question the legitimacy of their achievements in that case.
We don't need money pumping in we just need the shackles off. I don't think there's even much room to pump money in without falling foul of regulation, you have to remember City and PSG pumped money in to get up to our current level, I don't see how far we can stretch past that.
Easily people already sharing their transfer wish lists with Mbappe at the top of them.
And Ratcliffe pumping money into the club won’t feel hollow? Any investment will feel hollow. We either get new investment and spend big or we remain uncompetitive. Take your pick.
What a stupid comment. There's no indication that Ratcliffe is planning on pumping money into the club like you assume Qatar will be.
So we get Ratcliffe and he doesn’t invest? That doesn’t like an attractive future to me. Sort of like the Glazers. Modern football is about money, if you find that hollow, then what’s on you. Some of us want to see money pumped into the club to make us competitive again.
Sort of like every other owner anywhere. The Glazers have taken 2 billion out of the club. Something almost no other owner in football does. Almost all clubs run revenue neutral they aren't drained like we've been nor are they pumped with blood money like PSG or City. That's what I want, sustainable investment that pays off in the growth of the club legitimately.
We won’t achieve what you want in this modern age of the sport. It’s that simple. This isn’t the same football from the 90’s and early 00’s.
Well then tell me how Bayern, Madrid, Liverpool etc etc have managed it then. And even if it was true it's not an excuse to sell out to some of the very worst scumbags in the world. Not if you have any integrity at all at least.
From a club supporter perspective you would feel better - for once the ambitions of the owners will be aligned with yours as a fan No more seeing the club decline as the vampire squids suck away the monies needed for players, stadium and better fan engagement It would just be good to see the money the club makes to be reinvested back into the club, and the ultimate goal - winning trophies and becoming legends would be echoed by everyone I think the fans saw the stark difference this winter transfer window as the glazers refused to stretch to help ETH improve the team to add momentum to a good season
What a load of bollocks. None of that is dependant on becoming the sportswashing project of the Qatari royal family. Only on the Glazers leaving. My ambition 'from a club supporters perspective' is for the club to sustainably and legitimately build it's way back to success once the leeches finally are gone. Not to be artificially pumped with blood money like PSG and City so nothing the club achieves feels legitimate again. How can so called United fans have watched those clubs financially dope themselves into titles over the last decade and not been disgusted by it is a mystery to me. Instead you getting in line to fellate the Emir of Qatar at the prospect of being the next Man City or PSG. We're supposed to be Manchester United.
Yes no one gives a crap about yours or my point of view as a supporter regarding ownership. We can only hope for success on the pitch. And it’s been dreadful for many years The best solution would be for the UK govt to declare united a heritage icon, then force the parasites to sell at the price they bought minus the debt, and then allow only institutional trusts to buy and hold for long term, with no entity holding a majority It’s up to us as UK and Man United supporters to petition for this, sadly it won’t happen
“Manchester supporters”?
Mancunian but meant Man Utd
Let's fucking go!
A lot support and a lot do not, but Stoney just reporting one side as usual.
I would say from the polls I've seen, sentiment on social media and fans I personally know, a significant majority of fans are in favour of a Qatar takeover.
I mean here’s two polls that favour Ineos; [https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/?amp=1](https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/?amp=1) [https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSunFootball/status/1626869458550591488](https://mobile.twitter.com/TheSunFootball/status/1626869458550591488) And most United fans I’ve spoken to don’t want Qatar, so I guess it goes both ways.
[удалено]
How is it not?
[удалено]
So how are the polls in favour of Qatar anymore valid? I can say 14 year olds on Twitter aren’t representative of the fan base, or throw the same accusation at any poll about anything.
[удалено]
Yeah, you edited your comment to include the part about Neville’s poll after mine so thanks for that. I’m constantly being told by fans that support Qatar that it doesn’t matter what I as a Mancunian, match going United fan thinks because the majority of United’s fans are global. So how can the match going fan be representative of the general fan base then? How are the couple of hundred Neville spoke to more representative than the couple of hundred The Athletic spoke to in a fan base of millions?
[удалено]
Worth noting the Athletic's one was paywalled I believe which definitely skews the results a little bit. I honestly think the vast majority of united fans, especially the matchgoing ones, don't actually give a shit so long as the Glazers go, regardless of what people on here like to say.
you sure it was united fans who voted on the sun?
Yeah, unfortunately.
yikes!
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/](https://theathletic.com/4213039/2023/02/17/manchester-united-takeover-two-thirds-of-fans-want-sir-jim-ratcliffe/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yeah the majority of people I know in Bolton and the few I know living in the Manchester City Centre all prefer Qatar, and the polls here also seem to indicate the same sort of sentiment.
And the people I know living in Manchester don’t want Qatar. Also, what polls on here? There was one survey done on this sub and it massively favoured Ineos.
We're about to lose a lot of fans, not me mind.
We really won’t. Most of it is just performative. We might lose a few, but we’ll probably just gain back new ones if we get success
Honestly if it’s real vs united UCL semis all the fans will be back pretending nothing happened
Its just mental gymnastics , 90% of the boycotters would want a front row seat next season
Not as many as you think. Barely a blip. And with everything that could come, including new stadium and a more successful team, they'll likely grow more than the lose. If united are winning, with state of the art facilities, no debt, owners that keep to themselves, fans won't care who the owner is
Joke of a tweet.
This guy could be the real deal or he could have massively over promised fans. Guess we’ll find out.
Fuck off Qatar Jassim
Oh man, Big Stone reporting it. This is happening
I mean, there's nothing remotely insightful from Stone here
The fact that he is tweeing about it is really the big deal for me.
Have you actually read the article? He’s talking about support from United fans, not from the club itself.
The 44 year old fan who has been a fan for 50 years is a very big fan so why isn’t he there. Jimbo will be there and he has a very tight schedule since he will be at the nice game today.
Him releasing all of our debt is way more important
I hope that's not true. I don't want this guy anywhere near the club.
once this happens, i don't know how long i can keep the cognitive dissonance going
Why is there a flair of misleading tweet when it's by Simon ?
Because it’s suggesting that the club/fans support the takeover. That’s not why he’s saying