https://twitter.com/FabrizioRomano/status/1636673557957623810?s=20
Jim Ratcliffe has arrived in Manchester today for talks.
The Qatari delegation yesterday didn't include Sheikh Jassim. I wonder if that'll make any difference to how it goes?
For the record I don't think we'll get any perfect billionaire owner (Ratcliffe apparently isn't perfect himself) but of those we know who want to take over the club he'd be my first choice.
I liked their statement last month which mentioned fans, wider community and football governance -
"Sir Jim Ratcliffe and INEOS have submitted a bid for majority ownership of Manchester United Football Club. We would see our role as the long-term custodians of Manchester United on behalf of the fans and the wider community.
"We are ambitious and highly competitive and would want to invest in Manchester United to make them the number one club in the world once again. We also recognise that football governance in this country is at a crossroads. We would want to help lead this next chapter, deepening the culture of English football by making the club a beacon for a modern, progressive, fan-centred approach to ownership.
"We want a Manchester United anchored in its proud history and roots in the North-West of England, putting the Manchester back into Manchester United and clearly focusing on winning the Champions League."
To finish though no matter who ends up buying the club I'll still be supporting them. I'm just expressing my preference for him.
United's potential takeover
posted on 18/3/23
comment by Ten Hag Bald is Best Ball at its Facking Finest (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
I will make my view clear, which I understand many do not agree with.
I do not want the club I support, à Manchester club with a great history, owned by a country from the middle east who have a moral view of the world with which I profoundly disagree. A morality that affects workers they import, women, homoseksuals, and anybody who disagrees.
++++
I would say that most people DO sympathise with that view. I do personally for what its worth.
But as you say in a previous post in this thread you still wont stop supporting the club if such an country or individual actually did own United.
Just like me, too. And the vast majority of all the other sympathisers who currently support Man United.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. There is no need for anyone to get on the moral high horse over this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't read 52's post that way. Knowing him as we do, I expect he was just trying to explain his own mind, rather than assert any kind of moral authority.
Ultimately, as with all of our decisions, we'll all have to decide what we can live with. Different people will have different views, and I don't expect 52 or anyone else will be judging publicly or privately the decisions of those who continue to support the club.
I haven't met anyone who already bailed to follow FCUM, for example, who judged those fans who stuck with United. Not one; and I've met a few.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right ten Hag. I have no moral authority, nor am I trying to change people's minds. Just expressing how I feel. But I will stay a fan.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Darren’s already covered pretty much all of it, it was for business purposes rather than political. Yes it’s still influence but it means how they run the club is entirely different. That’s what we’ve had the investment off the pitch as well as Mansour no longer owning the whole club.
In terms of how I feel about them, as owners they’ve clearly been fantastic. They’ve done it all as equity (something that would have been mandatory pre mid eighties) which means none of the risk has ever been on the club.
In terms of the political side of it, personally I’m ok with it given they haven’t tried to enforce any of that on the club or the fans, in fact the opposite and I think westernised people like Mubarak and Mansour are the route to change, I’ve never bought into isolation or exclusion as I think that has an even more detrimental impact and builds barriers rather than reducing them.
I am against both the psg and Newcastle models though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a man with sense and objectivity.
I couldn’t agree more. Whilst we have been given the chance to change and improve, we should create barriers with these people seeing as their way of thinking does not align with ours. You can’t give the brown people a chance to change their ways like the white people were given to distance themselves from the horrors of slavery. I say distance, in this very country slave owners were paid up until 2015…. A royal farce brushed under the carpet. I wonder white.
posted on 18/3/23
If Qatar do buy the club it will be the first time this type of sovereign state takeover has happened to club that is actually financially self sufficient and doesn’t need the money we just need to be able to retain and invest what we make, we’re already one of the biggest clubs in the world with a fan base that reaches every part of it and have won everything possible in the game with a huge role of honour.
How will our future successes be viewed following huge Qatar investment the same as now or seemingly bought like City who would be nowhere near their current standing without AbuDhabi similar to Newcastle suddenly no longer relegation fodder.
Are Manchester United the jewel in the crown as reported big enough as a club to over shadow Qatar owners and still be respected for future success or will it be tarnished and seemingly bought like other much smaller original investment clubs whose relevance now has depended on the state money invested to be possible ?
posted on 18/3/23
I wouldn't be too happy with the Qatari state as our owners but if owning us helps drive some positive change (even in our perceptions) then that would be something I suppose.
I'll still support United come what may.
Just a final point though about the Ratcliffe bid though. We rightly pride ourselves on our youth and local lads getting a chance. It'd be great to get a local owner too IMO.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 40 minutes ago
Darren’s already covered pretty much all of it, it was for business purposes rather than political. Yes it’s still influence but it means how they run the club is entirely different. That’s what we’ve had the investment off the pitch as well as Mansour no longer owning the whole club.
In terms of how I feel about them, as owners they’ve clearly been fantastic. They’ve done it all as equity (something that would have been mandatory pre mid eighties) which means none of the risk has ever been on the club.
In terms of the political side of it, personally I’m ok with it given they haven’t tried to enforce any of that on the club or the fans, in fact the opposite and I think westernised people like Mubarak and Mansour are the route to change, I’ve never bought into isolation or exclusion as I think that has an even more detrimental impact and builds barriers rather than reducing them.
I am against both the psg and Newcastle models though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s a man with sense and objectivity.
I couldn’t agree more. Whilst we have been given the chance to change and improve, we should create barriers with these people seeing as their way of thinking does not align with ours. You can’t give the brown people a chance to change their ways like the white people were given to distance themselves from the horrors of slavery. I say distance, in this very country slave owners were paid up until 2015…. A royal farce brushed under the carpet. I wonder white.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you feel there are any concerns with Qatari ownership that don't boil down to racism?
posted on 18/3/23
No, I do not see anything wrong with their ownership. They are being allowed to buy the whole of this country legally and no one is saying nothing.
As stated previously, as long as they don’t try to impose their ways on us, which they won’t, I see no issues.
Yes they have their own issues which they have to deal with and so do bloody we down here.
I however am no Mandela. I am not here to fight everyone’s fight. The world is an ugly place. Some of you hypocrites are wearing Nike and adidas daily. They pay folks peanuts to make their products. Do you care??
posted on 18/3/23
I’ve never bought into isolation or exclusion as I think that has an even more detrimental impact and builds barriers rather than reducing them.
———
It depends how it’s achieved and where the balance of power lays. Unfortunately Britain and America’s actions in the Middle East have been a cultural and diplomatic failure.
posted on 18/3/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 38 minutes ago
I’ve never bought into isolation or exclusion as I think that has an even more detrimental impact and builds barriers rather than reducing them.
———
It depends how it’s achieved and where the balance of power lays. Unfortunately Britain and America’s actions in the Middle East have been a cultural and diplomatic failure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep I agree with that.
posted on 22/3/23
Couple of tweets from the last hour, nothing groundbreaking but hey ho.
https://twitter.com/fabrizioromano/status/1638649671999717376?s=46&t=OGtF2r2qWFSojPdK5ETiMg
https://twitter.com/mikekeegan_dm/status/1638645981343371264?s=46&t=OGtF2r2qWFSojPdK5ETiMg
Did Admin make this live so it can be bumped as the ongoing takeover thread?
posted on 22/3/23
https://twitter.com/fabrizioromano/status/1638672932284116992?s=46&t=OGtF2r2qWFSojPdK5ETiMg