The Glazer Reign Is Crumbling

Just for clarification: are we being bought by Jim Ratcliffe the individual or by Ineos the company? Is it even clear?

Because while I can see the huge difference between being owned by Qatar versus a wealthy individual, that difference narrows significantly when it is Qatar vs a global corporation.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Couldn't agree with that more, but I don't think anyone (on here anyway) has claimed any different.

It's not like I'm going to outright flounce from supporting Man United like some sort of moral martyr. The club is and always will be my first and biggest sporting love. But I cannot reconcile myself with being owned by a state like Qatar for a myriad of reasons, both sporting and moral. They've already proved that they are corrupt, footballing cheats. Outside of the geopolitics, they were main players in probably the biggest example of off-field corruption in the history of the sport. That alone is enough to set alarm bells ringing for me.

Everything I've said about City, from their success meaning nothing, to them being rank football cheats, did not come from a place of green-eyed envy. I've never once called City's success plastic while secretly wishing it was instead us being used to warp the game of football as we know it for the sake of being used as a political vessel for an authoritarian regime. I think state owned clubs, and them running roughshod over the rulebook, is really really bad for the game as a whole. I said those things because I believe them, and none of that changes just because there's the potential for us to effectively be the same position.

If I believe that any success City have is just plastic, then I'll feel the same if it's us. If I just see City as a sports washing vessel for Abu Dhabi and think it's scummy as £#%&!, then that's what I'll see if it's United being bought by the state of Qatar for the same reasons.

I wish I could just turn those feelings off and carry on like everything is normal, but I can't. For me, under Qatari ownership fundamentally changes everything about the club negatively.

It's why I've not really engaged with anyone who just doesn't care about the moral or sporting reasons; fair enough, I am not going to tell them what to think. But I do engage when people want to say INEOS and Qatari state ownership are effectively the same thing, because they really aren't.

At the end of the day I'm aware of the state the game is in now, I accept it's entirely possible state ownership is the new normal for the top flight, and that's just how it's going to be. A warped competition of state sponsored vessels using their political tool football clubs like some sort of real life FIFA Ultimate Team. City and Newcastle being sold to states is one thing, but for a club like Man United to fall to state ownership would really signal a new dawn of English football. For the worse IMO. But if it happens then I'll probably just put more time, money, effort and passion into non-league football, because I have no desire to put that time and effort into a supporting what would effectively be a brand name that's being used as a political tool by the state of Qatar.

Great post.

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

All very well put and I agree, but are we making an assumption that we will be EXACTLY like City? Most people’s grievance with them is not so much the money spent, but the cooking the books. They’ve needed to do that to elevate themselves to the status they claim. They need to lie. Do we need to? Are their owners doing it out of perceived necessity or is it just in their nature?

Would we have to do the same?

I genuinely don’t know the answer to these questions. Maybe it’s a naive, idealistic position, but I’d like to think they won’t be and don’t need to be so downright £#%&!ing bent when it comes to us.

Of course this is separate from the moral argument of wanting them there in the first place.

City had to cheat. It's why I don't think Qatar would buy the likes of West Ham, because they'd also need to cheat to fast track success and there's now a little more scrutiny around that.

We wouldn't need to cheat. We'd need to spend big, but only within our means (and I also get that this is a naive argument, and puts a lot of faith in Qatar acting responsibly. See Newcastle and their new shirt sponsor).

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Couldn't agree with that more, but I don't think anyone (on here anyway) has claimed any different.

It's not like I'm going to outright flounce from supporting Man United like some sort of moral martyr. The club is and always will be my first and biggest sporting love. But I cannot reconcile myself with being owned by a state like Qatar for a myriad of reasons, both sporting and moral. They've already proved that they are corrupt, footballing cheats. Outside of the geopolitics, they were main players in probably the biggest example of off-field corruption in the history of the sport. That alone is enough to set alarm bells ringing for me.

Everything I've said about City, from their success meaning nothing, to them being rank football cheats, did not come from a place of green-eyed envy. I've never once called City's success plastic while secretly wishing it was instead us being used to warp the game of football as we know it for the sake of being used as a political vessel for an authoritarian regime. I think state owned clubs, and them running roughshod over the rulebook, is really really bad for the game as a whole. I said those things because I believe them, and none of that changes just because there's the potential for us to effectively be the same position.

If I believe that any success City have is just plastic, then I'll feel the same if it's us. If I just see City as a sports washing vessel for Abu Dhabi and think it's scummy as £#%&!, then that's what I'll see if it's United being bought by the state of Qatar for the same reasons.

I wish I could just turn those feelings off and carry on like everything is normal, but I can't. For me, under Qatari ownership fundamentally changes everything about the club negatively.

It's why I've not really engaged with anyone who just doesn't care about the moral or sporting reasons; fair enough, I am not going to tell them what to think. But I do engage when people want to say INEOS and Qatari state ownership are effectively the same thing, because they really aren't.

At the end of the day I'm aware of the state the game is in now, I accept it's entirely possible state ownership is the new normal for the top flight, and that's just how it's going to be. A warped competition of state sponsored vessels using their political tool football clubs like some sort of real life FIFA Ultimate Team. City and Newcastle being sold to states is one thing, but for a club like Man United to fall to state ownership would really signal a new dawn of English football. For the worse IMO. But if it happens then I'll probably just put more time, money, effort and passion into non-league football, because I have no desire to put that time and effort into a supporting what would effectively be a brand name that's being used as a political tool by the state of Qatar.

Maybe start a thread and document your adventures in non-league football.? Would be fascinating.

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

All very well put and I agree, but are we making an assumption that we will be EXACTLY like City? Most people’s grievance with them is not so much the money spent, but the cooking the books. They’ve needed to do that to elevate themselves to the status they claim. They need to lie. Do we need to? Are their owners doing it out of perceived necessity or is it just in their nature?

Would we have to do the same?

I genuinely don’t know the answer to these questions. Maybe it’s a naive, idealistic position, but I’d like to think they won’t be and don’t need to be so downright £#%&!ing bent when it comes to us.

Of course this is separate from the moral argument of wanting them there in the first place.

Qatar didn't need to cheat to win the rights to the world cup, they had more power and money than most of the rest of the field to compete sportingly and honestly.

But they bought it instead because it was easier, quicker and guaranteed success.

When their only involvement in football so far is corruption and human rights abuses, then they've not put themselves in a position to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

Maybe start a thread and document your adventures in non-league football.? Would be fascinating.

I've been watching non-league regulary for over two decades and not started a thread about it yet. Not sure why I'd start now

Qatar are already cheating right from the off, by pretending it’s just some magically wealthy individual making the offer. They’re trying (badly) to hide any links to the state.

Not sure why anyone thinks they’re going to stick to the rules based on the evidence so far

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Qatar didn't need to cheat to win the rights to the world cup, they had more power and money than most of the rest of the field to compete sportingly and honestly.

But they bought it instead because it was easier, quicker and guaranteed success.

When their only involvement in football so far is corruption and human rights abuses, then they've not put themselves in a position to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough. It doesn’t sit well with me. The increase in ME ownership, the Saudi clubs getting more and more ‘stars’ on ridonk contracts all feels to Grimey and soulless.

There also feels an inevitability to it all as well. The game has been centred around money for so long that it was always going to come down to
The richest of the rich running things.

The flip side is that INEOS giving the Glazers a route to stick around is disgusting and I question their ability to run the club well. They’re not paying off the debt. Nice seem to hate Ratcliffe.

Massive reservations about both. I’m certainly more excited about getting the glazers out than either of these two in.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Qatar are already cheating right from the off, by pretending it’s just some magically wealthy individual making the offer. They’re trying (badly) to hide any links to the state.

Not sure why anyone thinks they’re going to stick to the rules based on the evidence so far

It’s bizarre - all the ME states have systematically cheated and done everything they could to cheat - creating false companies, false sponsorships, bribery etc etc from the off.

It’s part of the culture - their driver is only to achieve success through whatever means and buy admiration. They couldn’t give a shit about the ethics of competition and have proved so numerous times.

The argument that they won’t do that at united is utter tripe.

Originally Posted by Ethers

Qatar are already cheating right from the off, by pretending it’s just some magically wealthy individual making the offer. They’re trying (badly) to hide any links to the state.

Not sure why anyone thinks they’re going to stick to the rules based on the evidence so far

Not sure anyone thinks they will. Just hope

The only thing I’m hanging onto in that regard is that this will be the first time they’ll have owned a ‘big’ club that can actually sustain itself. As has been said, the won’t need to cheat. I guess it then comes down to whether they cheat because they need to or it’s the only way they know.

It’s probably the latter, I’m just trying here

This argument is going to go round and round for years, regardless of who eventually takes over.

They’re all @#%&!s.

I’d have to say that with Newcastle testing the waters for their financial doping, you’d hope that the powers that be are getting ready to lock down the financial rules to prevent such things occurring and preparing proper punishments, so you’d like us to be on the right side of it when/if it does eventually happen, ideally.

Originally Posted by magic_cantona

It's weird when the moralistas pretend they don't understand the dynamic and make out people have zero ethics.

The Glazers still at the club, still getting paid and £#%&! knows what can happen long term while they're not cut free or

Qatari billions and knowing we'll never go bankrupt and we'll be able to compete at the very top again quite soon.

If Ratcliffe had unlimited billions and wanted to buy us out in totality - most would take him, obviously. Turns out he's a Glazer enabler though.

i'm not being a 'moralista' whatever that is, i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who have poured scorn on city and newcastle's achievements but will gladly accept the same for united.

newcastle is probably the best case in point here. deeply unpopular owner who has underinvested in the club for several years. did you say fair enough they deserve the saudi billions to get rid of ashley at any cost, or were you being a 'moralista'...?

the idea that we need 'qatari billions' to stop us going bankrupt is pure hysteria. as is the idea that in your hypothetical the glazers would have any influence or would be taking any more money beyond that of any minority shareholder of a publicly listed company.

the nuts and bolts of it are that we have an incredibly spoilt fanbase who can't handle a decade of only being the 4th most successful club in england and would happily become the public relations glove puppet of a nation state to win a few more trophies.

The idea that they won’t cheat because they won’t need to is mad to me tbh. I think it’s very naive. The fact we’re so big just means it will be easier to cheat, and they can actually do it on an even larger scale if anything.

Think of a guy who’s been cooking the books for years in his job, skimming a bit off the top for himself. Goes from company to company, never noticed. Eventually works himself up to a really good position, where he’s paid so much legitimately, truth be told he no longer needs to sort out a little extra on the side. Do you think he stops? Or does he just realise that he can get away with even more?

If you think people who have shown a penchant for corruption and cheating suddenly become clean when they get in a position of real power, you’re completely misunderstanding the realities of power and greed imo.

Originally Posted by pedr0

It's staggering to read this thread and the Bert treble thread.

Literally some of the exact same people deriding city's success as hollow and meaningless, begging for the exact same thing to happen to united

New to football fans etc?


I have understanding with some who want the glazers gone at all costs and Qatar in at all costs. It's been a (relatively) difficult decade, watching rivals clean up while we have had to 'settle' for the odd 2nd rate trophy and 1 FA cup.


The problem with selling your soul though is that you immediately forego any right to take any stance whatsoever against the state of the game and state owned clubs.


The game, organisation and various bodies (FIFA, UEFA, PL etc etc) are all going to shit. We know that. As pedro said it (state ownership) may simply be the price of staying at the top of the game.


None of us can do a thing about it by the way. We've seen how far protests get you, even when the entire fanbase of one of the best supported clubs in the worlds almost to a man hates the ownership (bellers excepted of course).


But that doesn't mean you have to like it.



£#%&! city, £#%&! newcastle, £#%&! chelsea, £#%&! PSG and £#%&! Qatar. If we go down that road I trust everyone in favour is prepared to acknowledge City's treble matches our own?

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

It’s bizarre - all the ME states have systematically cheated and done everything they could to cheat - creating false companies, false sponsorships, bribery etc etc from the off.

It’s part of the culture - their driver is only to achieve success through whatever means and buy admiration. They couldn’t give a shit about the ethics of competition and have proved so numerous times.

The argument that they won’t do that at united is utter tripe.

Jesus. At least you're honest.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Qatar didn't need to cheat to win the rights to the world cup, they had more power and money than most of the rest of the field to compete sportingly and honestly.

But they bought it instead because it was easier, quicker and guaranteed success.

When their only involvement in football so far is corruption and human rights abuses, then they've not put themselves in a position to be given the benefit of the doubt.


I've been watching non-league regulary for over two decades and not started a thread about it yet. Not sure why I'd start now

So you're going to carry on doing what you've been doing anyway for 20 years?

That's your moral stand on the issue?

Originally Posted by Patty_b

At the end of the day I'm aware of the state the game is in now, I accept it's entirely possible state ownership is the new normal for the top flight, and that's just how it's going to be. A warped competition of state sponsored vessels using their political tool football clubs like some sort of real life FIFA Ultimate Team. City and Newcastle being sold to states is one thing, but for a club like Man United to fall to state ownership would really signal a new dawn of English football. For the worse IMO. But if it happens then I'll probably just put more time, money, effort and passion into non-league football, because I have no desire to put that time and effort into a supporting what would effectively be a brand name that's being used as a political tool by the state of Qatar.

Shame the purveyors of the game didn't feel this way when Manchester Untied was being saddled with debt & @#%&!d out to all & sudy for the beneift of the Glazers.

You reap what you sow.

Originally Posted by atticusgrinch

So you're going to carry on doing what you've been doing anyway for 20 years?

That's your moral stand on the issue?

Originally Posted by Whip Hubley

£#%&! city, £#%&! newcastle, £#%&! chelsea, £#%&! PSG and £#%&! Qatar. If we go down that road I trust everyone in favour is prepared to acknowledge City's treble matches our own?

fair competition in football has been ruined. it's more likely to come back in some form if united are bought by a similar bottomless pocket.

Originally Posted by pedr0

i'm not being a 'moralista' whatever that is, i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of those who have poured scorn on city and newcastle's achievements but will gladly accept the same for united.

newcastle is probably the best case in point here. deeply unpopular owner who has underinvested in the club for several years. did you say fair enough they deserve the saudi billions to get rid of ashley at any cost, or were you being a 'moralista'...?

the idea that we need 'qatari billions' to stop us going bankrupt is pure hysteria. as is the idea that in your hypothetical the glazers would have any influence or would be taking any more money beyond that of any minority shareholder of a publicly listed company.

the nuts and bolts of it are that we have an incredibly spoilt fanbase who can't handle a decade of only being the 4th most successful club in england and would happily become the public relations glove puppet of a nation state to win a few more trophies.

That's a good point. For their fans they would have taken anyone else and plenty of names were banded about over the years. They simply hit the jackpot with the Saudi takeover. I suppose if you're a supporter of a club on the low end of the scale both on and off the pitch as Newcastle were (or an Everton now) the question is different. For example they no doubt had the same issues against City's takeover and subsequent domination as we do because it's a result of financial doping and cheating (two separate things). At the same time they probably had some envy that it could have been them instead of City. Yet the most envious they probably were was of Leicester who won a title without pumping billions.

The difference with us is the need for the financial power of a state isn't in my opinion required to get to the top of the league again whereby the desperation of having to be associated with the off-field consequences of this ownership is a worthwhile trade off.

Originally Posted by Hyman_Roth

It’s bizarre - all the ME states have systematically cheated and done everything they could to cheat - creating false companies, false sponsorships, bribery etc etc from the off.

It’s part of the culture - their driver is only to achieve success through whatever means and buy admiration. They couldn’t give a shit about the ethics of competition and have proved so numerous times.

The argument that they won’t do that at united is utter tripe.

Wow. Things really heating up now. Bloody Arabs.

Thank God we've got Scarecrow Jim as the alternative - a real paragon of fairness and good ethics. Must be a cultural thing.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

I'm lashing out cos city won the treble mate and I've got toothache.

Apologies.