Just interested

I’m not arguing for a Qatari takeover but it looks to me that it is moving that way. The other thread is so long now I can’t make head nor tail of it. If you don’t want them why not?

State owned clubs are the biggest threat to football and other than cheating they have no track record of success

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

State owned clubs are the biggest threat to football and other than cheating they have no track record of success

Sorry, should have added another option “because all nation states have to cheat to be successfull”

have gone with nation states not owning football clubs. but, since they do, it would be silly for us not to be owned by one.

Originally Posted by jem

have gone with nation states not owning football clubs. but, since they do, it would be silly for us not to be owned by one.

So option 3, but who cares if it’s unfair?

Hate being overdog status with no gradual and organic build up to things . Can only be either mildly satisfied or disappointed when you expect complete domination

Why does it look like it’s going that way?

All that seems to be happening is that a dodgy Twitter account suggests it’s done and then a ‘reputable’ newspaper dismisses it.

Why don’t people want them? Maybe because they’re from another country and have no connections to Manchester or the club. The country they’re from has a bad history of human rights. They will attract more #@&%!s following us. Just a few reasons I can think of.

Personally I couldn’t care as long as someone takes over asap.

Originally Posted by avocado

Sorry, should have added another option “because all nation states have to cheat to be successfull”

Where did I say they have to cheat? That the two state clubs have blatantly cheated and one of those clubs is lead by someone who has been involved in the bid to buy us isn’t meant to cast aspersions on the respect oil and gas billionaires have for football regulations

Originally Posted by avocado

So option 3, but who cares if it’s unfair?

no, because it's not just about fairness, it's about the principle of ownership of community assets. clearly, though, it's not fair on us if everyone else has a sugar daddy and we've got miserly cash cow milking carpetbaggers. if we get our own sugar daddy, it's actually more likely clubs will only be allowed to spend what they generate from football activities. obviously, that favours us, but life isn't fair.

I don’t want them because it’s dirty money from a regime who have stupid religion based laws

I dont want them because it will mean we will be a vehicle to improve the standing of Qatar on the world stage

And I dont want them because it will make us no better than City


Having said all that, I just know if/when they buy us I will still go

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

Where did I say they have to cheat? That the two state clubs have blatantly cheated and one of those clubs is lead by someone who has been involved in the bid to buy us isn’t meant to cast aspersions on the respect oil and gas billionaires have for football regulations

Precisely. But will need a new thread on the difference between oil/gas billionaires and chemical/polymers/oil/ gas billionaires.

Originally Posted by no fun

a regime who have stupid religion based laws

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=10&id=&page=

Originally Posted by avocado

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=10&id=&page=

Yea but

Nation states shouldn't own football clubs. I can't even be arsed going through all the reasons. And some are worse than others, but they're fundamentally all @#%&!s and shouldn't be allowed near any football team.

But at the same time, The Premier League and our own shithouse state have ushered it into English football with open arms with complete disregard for what it does to the game as a whole. There's a good argument that if custodians of the game don't give the slightest £#%&!, then why should we the fans. And that's a good argument to which I have no counter for.

It's not our fault we got £#%&!ed over with the Glazers, and it's not City's fault they have their owners. Two examples which couldn't be more different, but both were bad for the game in their own ways. City fans were begging for it, we we're protesting against it. Both were ushered through by those who should have been stopping it. So what the £#%&! are we meant to do? We accept it or tough shit, it's happening anyway.

I've been saying for years that Manchester United was the only thing keeping me interested in top flight football precisely because of the absolute nonsense of City, PSG and Newcastle, and whoever else the £#%&!. Logic dictates that United becoming the thing that is turning me off top flight football is only going to turn me off it even more.

Was a toss up between the first and last options but I went with the first because I think it makes me look better.

Originally Posted by jem

no, because it's not just about fairness, it's about the principle of ownership of community assets. clearly, though, it's not fair on us if everyone else has a sugar daddy and we've got miserly cash cow milking carpetbaggers. if we get our own sugar daddy, it's actually more likely clubs will only be allowed to spend what they generate from football activities. obviously, that favours us, but life isn't fair.

Lot of truth in this.

For me it’s about devaluing an already devalued competition - and the people doing that are Middle East states. It seems utterly bizarre that state ownership was ever allowed to happen but once it did then it’s difficult to stop. I think rules and fairness are fairly important in sport and they should be valued above everything else - otherwise it becomes farcical very quickly. My blue mates deep down know that beating Gillingham in the play off final in 1999 means more to them than winning the lance Armstrong treble.

In summary, it will make the sport ever more farcical and selfishly, I will lose interest fairly rapidly as that happens. And my kids might superficially enjoy it but deep down, they will never enjoy united as much as I did and as they should be able to.

Originally Posted by avocado

I’m not arguing for a Qatari takeover but it looks to me that it is moving that way. The other thread is so long now I can’t make head nor tail of it. If you don’t want them why not?

All of the above. Which is not an option.

Originally Posted by avocado

Precisely. But will need a new thread on the difference between oil/gas billionaires and chemical/polymers/oil/ gas billionaires.]

If you can’t distinguish between a repressive regime backed by sovereign wealth and a bloke who made a few billion in petrochemicals then you might want to set your ambition higher than a new thread to help you understand

Originally Posted by avocado

Precisely. But will need a new thread on the difference between oil/gas billionaires and chemical/polymers/oil/ gas billionaires.



https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...v=10&id=&page=

There is a very easily identifiable difference. States own the resource, oil, gas etc. Some companies licence the ability to commercialise this resource to the benefit of them and the state. Other companies, INEOS for example, own the technology and logistics to make use of said resources. States are the top tier, companies such as Ineos are two levels down. They tend to have to work under normal commercial rules, states don't. Is this simple enough for you. As an addendum, they're all @#%&!s but Qatar<Ineos.

United are a football club not some religious deity.

Football has changed, forever.

The ideal situation is every club having support itself organically but that has long gone.

I get the gammons want United to be the club they were in the ‘good old days’ but the truth is they aren’t, and never will be again unless they move with the times.

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

If you can’t distinguish between a repressive regime backed by sovereign wealth and a bloke who made a few billion in petrochemicals then you might want to set your ambition higher than a new thread to help you understand

I don’t have an issue telling the difference. But looks like you have moved from option 1 (because nation states cheat) to option 2 (nation states with repressive regimes shouldnt own football clubs). No shame in holding that view.

Originally Posted by measlyshark

There is a very easily identifiable difference. States own the resource, oil, gas etc. Some companies licence the ability to commercialise this resource to the benefit of them and the state. Other companies, INEOS for example, own the technology and logistics to make use of said resources. States are the top tier, companies such as Ineos are two levels down. They tend to have to work under normal commercial rules, states don't. Is this simple enough for you. As an addendum, they're all @#%&!s but Qatar<Ineos.

Suspect they all have the propensity to bend the rules as far as their position in the hierarchy allows it. It’s then a matter of degree not the principle?