Qatari Bid

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Because it's not.

Unbelievable naivety believing that these evil £#%&!ers are pumping billions of their money into the club out of the goodness of their own hearts and wanting nothing in return. The most insidious thing about it is the fact they don't want or need the money. So what do they want with the club?

Promotion of their country to the rest of the world pure and simple. The same reason Saudi did the World Cup and the same reason Abu Dhabi bought city.

Originally Posted by believe

Promotion of their country to the rest of the world pure and simple. The same reason Saudi did the World Cup and the same reason Abu Dhabi bought city.

Awww, bless

If you really honestly believe that then fair enough pal, I'm happy for you.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Awww, bless

If you really honestly believe that then fair enough pal, I'm happy for you.

Why is “Big jim” wanting to buy the club? Out of the goodness of his heart? Because he “supports” the club?

Be good if you could answer without labelling those who disagree with you as thick @#%&!s.

if it ain’t Qatar Jim can get to £#%&!. He tried to buy Chelsea ffs so don’t give me any “he’s a United supporter” piffle.

Originally Posted by shenwen

Why is “Big jim” wanting to buy the club? Out of the goodness of his heart? Because he “supports” the club?

Be good if you could answer without labelling those who disagree with you as thick @#%&!s.

Happy to answer, although not sure why you're pretending you're having to drag an answer out of me when it's the first time it's been asked.

Money.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Reckon within 10 years the Emir will be wearing a bucket hat and Qatar will have a gay village.

A club called the Hackienda.

(I'll get my coat)

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Happy to answer, although not sure why you're pretending you're having to drag an answer out of me when it's the first time it's been asked.

Money.

. I'm not. I'm just curious about the hierarchy of preferred owners.

We're for sale. None of the options are great. But right now I'd rather we sell to the buyer that can afford to do so, without using the purchase as future leverage.

being run by Kim Jong un type dictators with cash makes us barely discernible from a city/Newcastle/PSG

Manchester United should mean more, you’ll never get a Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona or Ajax in this situation. We should protest till they go and buy Liverpool.

Blood money, no thanks.

Originally Posted by browser

being run by Kim Jong un type dictators with cash makes us barely discernible from a city/Newcastle/PSG

Manchester United should mean more, you’ll never get a Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona or Ajax in this situation. We should protest till they go and buy Liverpool.

Blood money, no thanks.

I agree.

What's the alternative?

The Government will say £#%&! all
The Premier League will say £#%&! all
Manchester City council will say £#%&! all
UEFA will say £#%&! all

Why? Because they're all slaves to middle eastern money. As I've said previously I dont care who owns United as its been gone for years. I literally couldn't give a £#%&! about the human rights argument from the Geldofs of the forum either.

All i want to see is Ten Hag continue turning United around and bring trophies to OT. The potential difference between United the other oil clubs is we're easily able to be self sufficient with the money thats brought into the club. Yes investment is needed however I'm way past the point of caring where its from.

If all you care about is signing superstars and success then they are probably the best horse to back. PSG still haven’t won the big one though…City neither.

If you care about the history of this great club and are genuine about wanting owners that actually care about the fans and their interests, Jim has to be the preferred option.

All the years of abuse directed at Chelsea and City would be thrown back in our face. The hollow victories they had could be our hollow victories. Look at the summer Chelsea just had, do you honestly want a summer like that? Hard no for me.

Qatari ownership would be a stain on the club. Weve got a women’s team top of the league at the minute, imagine how they feel about Qatari ownership.

Originally Posted by browser

Qatari ownership would be a stain on the club. Weve got a women’s team top of the league at the minute, imagine how they feel about Qatari ownership.

Hi Bateman!

Originally Posted by 53RedRum

Do you think the British government have ever murdered anyone? Or the American government?

This houlier than thou attitude most westerners have is comical really.

Didn’t know the British and American governments were putting bids in.

What are the human rights issues people keep talking about? I’d say forcing their own people to choose between eating and keeping their house warm, forcing people to go to food banks in 2023 and forcing people to work zero hour contracts is more of a human rights issue than anything the Qataris have ever done.

Originally Posted by 53RedRum

Won't somebody think of the human rights!







Posted by my 1k phone put together by a Chinese child*

Mine’s contract 😎

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Reckon within 10 years the Emir will be wearing a bucket hat and Qatar will have a gay village.

Originally Posted by believe

What are the human rights issues people keep talking about? I’d say forcing their own people to choose between eating and keeping their house warm, forcing people to go to food banks in 2023 and forcing people to work zero hour contracts is more of a human rights issue than anything the Qataris have ever done.

So is something like this completely untrue then?

“Women continued to face discrimination in law and practice. Under the guardianship system, women remained tied to their male guardian, usually their father, brother, grandfather or uncle, or for married women, to their husband. Women continued to need their guardian’s permission for key life decisions to marry, study abroad on government scholarships, work in many government jobs, travel abroad until certain ages, and receive some forms of reproductive healthcare.
Family laws continued to discriminate against women by making it difficult for them to divorce. Divorced women remained unable to act as their children’s guardian.
In March, the government disputed the findings of a Human Rights Watch report on discrimination against women in Qatar, and pledged to investigate and prosecute anyone who had breached the law. By the end of the year, no such investigations had taken place”

Originally Posted by believe

What are the human rights issues people keep talking about? I’d say forcing their own people to choose between eating and keeping their house warm, forcing people to go to food banks in 2023 and forcing people to work zero hour contracts is more of a human rights issue than anything the Qataris have ever done.

Aside from homosexuality being illegal, women being legally tied to a male guardian and migrant workers having passports confiscated? It’s medieval

Originally Posted by Ethers

So is something like this completely untrue then?

“Women continued to face discrimination in law and practice. Under the guardianship system, women remained tied to their male guardian, usually their father, brother, grandfather or uncle, or for married women, to their husband. Women continued to need their guardian’s permission for key life decisions to marry, study abroad on government scholarships, work in many government jobs, travel abroad until certain ages, and receive some forms of reproductive healthcare.
Family laws continued to discriminate against women by making it difficult for them to divorce. Divorced women remained unable to act as their children’s guardian.
In March, the government disputed the findings of a Human Rights Watch report on discrimination against women in Qatar, and pledged to investigate and prosecute anyone who had breached the law. By the end of the year, no such investigations had taken place”

Yeah, but have you seen the cost of a pint of Moretti in town?

Another myth peddled out by the British media. It is completely illegal for companies to keep passports, the government upholds this rule very serious. What they can’t do is monitor every single company all the time

Can an employer hold the passport of an employee?

It is very usual for employers in THE GCC to keep their employee’s passports even though the practice is illegal. In reality, employers can hold passports only for official purposes like applying for a new visa, renewing, or cancelling a visa. After completion of visa stamping, the employer must return the passport to the respective employee.

When can an employer keep custody of your passport?

Your employer is not an authorised body to hold your passport. It is your duty to keep your passport safe and not your employer’s. Here employee’s consent and will are very essential because holding a passport against his will and consent makes it illegal. But this practice is extensive within GCC companies because of the large number of expats in the organization