Just interested

Originally Posted by avocado

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.



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?

Degree of influence. Qatar can influence the destination of a world cup, as can Russia. Who both did. Ineos can influence access to resources via an intermediary and their share price, but not the same umbrella level a state can. Different capabilities IMO. States shape the world, companies such as ineos work in said shape.

Hmmm…one of the challenges people face is that global corporations are now more powerful than the smaller states.

Originally Posted by tatty

Hmmm…one of the challenges people face is that global corporations are now more powerful than the smaller states.

How do you define a small state? Qatar (technically small) or Nigeria (geographically large). Companies aren't that big, the companies we are talking about are all US based, they (US govt) still have the power.

Originally Posted by avocado

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.

?

You are misrepresenting your own options. Not cheating isn’t my value, it’s the fundamental premise of sport. The way in which city have been able to cheat isn’t a means available to any other club in the football pyramid. To try and match their ownership model, regardless of cheating makes us complicit in further distorting the game. Having an essentially endless pit of money also cheapens any achievements.

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

You are misrepresenting your own options. Not cheating isn’t my value, it’s the fundamental premise of sport. The way in which city have been able to cheat isn’t a means available to any other club in the football pyramid. To try and match their ownership model, regardless of cheating makes us complicit in further distorting the game. Having an essentially endless pit of money also cheapens any achievements.

Nicely put.

City:

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

You are misrepresenting your own options. Not cheating isn’t my value, it’s the fundamental premise of sport. The way in which city have been able to cheat isn’t a means available to any other club in the football pyramid. To try and match their ownership model, regardless of cheating makes us complicit in further distorting the game. Having an essentially endless pit of money also cheapens any achievements.

He's made a poll that's ended 13:2:0:0:0 (I think). He hasn't voted in it.

Nation state ownership is @#%&!ish. Not sure of Avocados point, probably just a degree of confusion.

Originally Posted by Chris Quayd

You are misrepresenting your own options. Not cheating isn’t my value, it’s the fundamental premise of sport. The way in which city have been able to cheat isn’t a means available to any other club in the football pyramid. To try and match their ownership model, regardless of cheating makes us complicit in further distorting the game. Having an essentially endless pit of money also cheapens any achievements.

I’m not.
I agree cheating is fundamentally wrong.
I don’t agree national states will inevitiably cheat.
As has been pointed out by others, there should be no need to cheat with United given the revenue base that we have regardless of ownership.
Now you are moving onto option 3. Again no issue with that.
Although I am not sure what you mean by “ownership model”. Having the richest owners? Someone has to.

Originally Posted by avocado

I’m not.
I agree cheating is fundamentally wrong.
I don’t agree national states will inevitiably cheat.
As has been pointed out by others, there should be no need to cheat with United given the revenue base that we have regardless of ownership.
Now you are moving onto option 3. Again no issue with that.
Although I am not sure what you mean by “ownership model”. Having the richest owners? Someone has to.

Can you share an example of when a nation state hasn't cheated?

Just one.

Originally Posted by measlyshark

He's made a poll that's ended 13:2:0:0:0 (I think). He hasn't voted in it.

Nation state ownership is @#%&!ish. Not sure of Avocados point, probably just a degree of confusion.

As the thread title says, just interested. Thanks to those that have explained their views, whether I agree or not. I’m not confused, but I think some are about why they oppose (and I don’t necessarily mean those that have posted in this thread).

Originally Posted by measlyshark

Can you share an example of when a nation state hasn't cheated?

Just one.

Nepal? You may prove me wrong, but I’m not sure what Nepal has cheated at.

I suppose that is fair. From my point of view, you've stated that cheating is fundamentally wrong, which I think all would agree. But at the same time have asked what is wrong with Qatar ownership. I genuinely cannot align the two, Qatar have cheated on everything they do/have done. Ownership of Utd is anathema to that IMHO. Don't get why anybody would countenance it given their proven cheating over the years.

Odd.

Originally Posted by avocado

As the thread title says, just interested. Thanks to those that have explained their views, whether I agree or not. I’m not confused, but I think some are about why they oppose (and I don’t necessarily mean those that have posted in this thread).



Nepal? You may prove me wrong, but I’m not sure what Nepal has cheated at.

Nepal won which competition?

Nepal has a shocking human rights record

Originally Posted by avocado

I’m not.
I agree cheating is fundamentally wrong.
I don’t agree national states will inevitiably cheat.
As has been pointed out by others, there should be no need to cheat with United given the revenue base that we have regardless of ownership.
Now you are moving onto option 3. Again no issue with that.
Although I am not sure what you mean by “ownership model”. Having the richest owners? Someone has to.

Their ownership model is the brother of a head of state who is siphoning money into the club. I can’t comment on Nepal but the nation states that have invested in football (Qatar, UAE) have cheated repeatedly. Saudis have been in the game a year and cheated just to own the club by lying about the ownership links to the state.

There might be no reason to cheat with United if we are run well, but if we’re not doing well do you think Qatari owners are more likely to follow the rules or break them?

Originally Posted by andyroo

Nepal has a shocking human rights record

Good at high altitude sports though, so all is well.

I'd prefer football wasn't the way it is but it is and there's not much we can do as fans. The club is for sale, that's not going to change, and I feel the Qatari bid - as depressing as it is - is the best bid on the table.

If there was a potential buyer who had earned his billions in a remotely ethical way and was willing to pump enough money into the club while taking a hands off approach, I'd kick the Qataris into next week. But it's pie in the sky. The reality is what we have in front of us and nothing more.

As much as I've been leaning toward the Qataris on here (or at the very least leaning against the scarecrow bid) it's going to be a sad day when we are finally bought and we're no different in ownership to city or PSG.

One thing that fascinates me tbh is how polarising (or not) it will be on here if we win the league under Qatar.

Originally Posted by tatty

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.

Gammons


And United does support itself 'organically'. We just have owners that take a lot of the wealth out and have run it appallingly


Awful take

Originally Posted by Stickman

One thing that fascinates me tbh is how polarising (or not) it will be on here if we win the league under Qatar.

Will it be much different to when we won the league under the Glazers?

Originally Posted by Ethers

Will it be much different to when we won the league under the Glazers?

I don’t suspect it will be, no.

I feel like there’s a lot of hot air going around but I suppose time will tell.

Originally Posted by shenwen

it's going to be a sad day when we are finally bought and we're no different in ownership to city or PSG.

it was a sad day when the club was bought by the glazers. ideally, we would not want to be owned by @#%&!s, but, if we are going to be owned by @#%&!s, it would be better to be owned by @#%&!s who aren't trying to milk the club for every penny they can get.

Originally Posted by Stickman

I don’t suspect it will be, no.

I feel like there’s a lot of hot air going around but I suppose time will tell.

Nah, there’s two options being advanced currently that people will rightfully have opinions on. But when one is decided upon, people will very much get on with it.

A bit like brexit tbh, once the decision was made, most of us simply got on with it and didn’t complain about it again.