NAK is the Emir’s lapdog.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Yorkshire Red (U22022)
posted 23 minutes ago
The Qataris will invest much more in the city and people of the city as well as the club, stadium and training complex.
I'm all for the Qataris. They own many things in the UK as it is. Full ownership or part ownership.
Eg:
Olympic village, London
- The Shard
- Harrods
- Heathrow Airport
- Credit Suisse Office, London
- Canary Wharf Group
- Royal Dutch Shell
- Sainsbury
- Knightsbridge
- British Airways
The racists can go ahead and boycott all these as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they will. That's how sportswashing works. They can't go in and offer more of the same given all the controversy associated with them can they? Nobody would ever take them up on that.
I suppose it comes down to what you care about. If it's just success then the Qatar route isn't guaranteed success because nothing is so certain but it's as close as you will ever get to it. I can see why people might feel that way.
However having our great clubs name being used as a propaganda machine for Doha is not something I particularly care for tbh.
It's actually a pretty sad state of affairs that this is now what football looks like. Several ME states having a d*** measuring contest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a sad state of affairs either way, the majority of pl clubs are owned by already rich Americans who sit there and get increasingly richer off the asset growth with no risk at all to themselves.
I’ll keep saying it but reintroduce some of the measures we had in pre PL and neither will be as attracted to it. The ship has long sailed though, the damage was done the moment the clubs themselves took control over the FA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.
The Glazers obviously haven't been good owners for us but they could have been had they not lumbered us with their debt and appointed the best people in the boardroom. They didn't though. Transfer funds has never been the issue for us. It's been everything else.
Having clubs used to sportswash and promote the ME is definitely a whole new level to the PL era and obviously one I have been very vocal about. I think you're right though that it's happened now and it's too late to undo it. I know you don't like it but City's takeover should never have been allowed. Neither should PSG despite that being in a different country and federation. It's just not ethical at all.
I ultimately don't get a say on who buys United and we will end up with whoever the highest bidder is and that could very well be Qatar.
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or they are Muslim.
And neither should the Glazers takeover. The PL should have blocked it because they were lumbering a debt free club with 550m of their debt.
I see that they now don't think these type of takeovers are good for it's brand. Typical that.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Yorkshire Red (U22022)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 seconds ago
Yorkshire Red feels no solidarity with the brown-skinned people abused and exploited by the Qatari laws that treat migrant workers as second class citizens. Nor for the pious Muslims who have been imprisoned by the Qatari state for exposing corruption and calling for labourers to be paid withheld wages, in line with the teaching of the Koran. Perhaps Yorkshire Red is a racist and an Islamophobe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true though. Qatar is extremely friendly to the West. Its investments prop up our economy, facilitating the liberal society and tolerance for all those decadent activities that you consider immoral. The only people who are victims of the Qatari ruling elite are migrants primarily from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal who are subject to abuse, wage theft, and dangerous working conditions without the protection of the law, and Qatari citizens who resist corruption and human rights abuses. You're not standing up for Muslims or defending Islamic values. You're being a cheerleader for a clique of plutocrats who maintain control by using brutal techniques used by every dictatorship in Europe or anywhere else in the world, and fundamentally contravening the Koran's teaching on questions of charity, corruption, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
Question for you - do you think that it’s at all likely that the continued exposure to our cultures, our standards et cetera that they might look to improve themselves?
(We all know that probably every country has its own moral failings, in whatever form it may take, but we’re not talking about our country currently that’s a separate matter.)
Could this interaction help in the mid or long term?
I’ve watched about 15 minutes of that interview and he comes across well but it’s definitely a PR piece.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying you’re wrong, you may well be correct, but I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at such an impression. Unless you meant the fan base exclusively on here, of course.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying you’re wrong, you may well be correct, but I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at such an impression. Unless you meant the fan base exclusively on here, of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's my subjective, unscientific perception based on the fans I've interacted with. But I think it's also natural that people who are generally prone to self-criticism, worrying about moral implications of the things done in their name are more likely to be uncomfortable with this than people whose worldview is based on pursuit of self-interest and unburdened by guilt. (Which is different from framing this as a left-right split.)
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Yorkshire Red (U22022)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 seconds ago
Yorkshire Red feels no solidarity with the brown-skinned people abused and exploited by the Qatari laws that treat migrant workers as second class citizens. Nor for the pious Muslims who have been imprisoned by the Qatari state for exposing corruption and calling for labourers to be paid withheld wages, in line with the teaching of the Koran. Perhaps Yorkshire Red is a racist and an Islamophobe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true though. Qatar is extremely friendly to the West. Its investments prop up our economy, facilitating the liberal society and tolerance for all those decadent activities that you consider immoral. The only people who are victims of the Qatari ruling elite are migrants primarily from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal who are subject to abuse, wage theft, and dangerous working conditions without the protection of the law, and Qatari citizens who resist corruption and human rights abuses. You're not standing up for Muslims or defending Islamic values. You're being a cheerleader for a clique of plutocrats who maintain control by using brutal techniques used by every dictatorship in Europe or anywhere else in the world, and fundamentally contravening the Koran's teaching on questions of charity, corruption, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
Question for you - do you think that it’s at all likely that the continued exposure to our cultures, our standards et cetera that they might look to improve themselves?
(We all know that probably every country has its own moral failings, in whatever form it may take, but we’re not talking about our country currently that’s a separate matter.)
Could this interaction help in the mid or long term?
I’ve watched about 15 minutes of that interview and he comes across well but it’s definitely a PR piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think they actually want to change though?
Equal rights for all, allow gay relationships, Equal opportunities for women, introduce a national minimum wage...the list goes on and on and on.
Would be fantastic to see major change in that part of the world but I think there's more chance of Brexit being a success. 😂
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying you’re wrong, you may well be correct, but I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at such an impression. Unless you meant the fan base exclusively on here, of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's my subjective, unscientific perception based on the fans I've interacted with. But I think it's also natural that people who are generally prone to self-criticism, worrying about moral implications of the things done in their name are more likely to be uncomfortable with this than people whose worldview is based on pursuit of self-interest and unburdened by guilt. (Which is different from framing this as a left-right split.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes complete sense that those positions would intersect.
I don’t think many WANT Qatari ownership, however I think the realistic scenario we are in means we either have good owners for the club, or bad owners for the club.
I guess it depends how bothered you are by having good owners who have a questionable moral compass.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it funny how you don't think City is in anyway similar to Newcastle and PSG.
The UAE is just a bit more complicated as its divided into independentaly ran regions that don't have to take notice of each other. They are free to make their own rules. Your owner is from the Royal family of one of those regions where Abu Dhabi is located.
I fail to see how your situation is any different. State / Royal family.....it's all the same really. Your owner bought your club to plaster 'Etihad' and 'visit Abu Dhabi' all over your club to promote it. And he did it almost immediately.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it funny how you don't think City is in anyway similar to Newcastle and PSG.
The UAE is just a bit more complicated as its divided into independentaly ran regions that don't have to take notice of each other. They are free to make their own rules. Your owner is from the Royal family of one of those regions where Abu Dhabi is located.
I fail to see how your situation is any different. State / Royal family.....it's all the same really. Your owner bought your club to plaster 'Etihad' and 'visit Abu Dhabi' all over your club to promote it. And he did it almost immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because two are state owned and one isn’t, I’m talking from a regulation perspective here - I’m not sure how you can stop the one that isn’t as entity wise and legally they aren’t the same scenario at all.
He also sold investment in the club and will sell more, what he wants to do isn’t dissimilar to the Glazers or FSG, albeit for a different motivation and so he’ll sell it to different investors to those they’d be willing to.
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
I still go back to reintroduce the right regulation and redistribution back into football and it’s far less likely to attract either type of investor or states though.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it funny how you don't think City is in anyway similar to Newcastle and PSG.
The UAE is just a bit more complicated as its divided into independentaly ran regions that don't have to take notice of each other. They are free to make their own rules. Your owner is from the Royal family of one of those regions where Abu Dhabi is located.
I fail to see how your situation is any different. State / Royal family.....it's all the same really. Your owner bought your club to plaster 'Etihad' and 'visit Abu Dhabi' all over your club to promote it. And he did it almost immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because two are state owned and one isn’t, I’m talking from a regulation perspective here - I’m not sure how you can stop the one that isn’t as entity wise and legally they aren’t the same scenario at all.
He also sold investment in the club and will sell more, what he wants to do isn’t dissimilar to the Glazers or FSG, albeit for a different motivation and so he’ll sell it to different investors to those they’d be willing to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought Winston and toor having an argument about the same thing for months was impressive. But you’ve been having this same one with Stretford for nearly 15 years.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
An argument involves opinions, this is more a continuous (failing) attempt at education
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t be that low surely, Boehly would have seriously overpriced Chelsea!
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it went down by 1.2bn. That's not the actual price.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or they are Muslim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m one of the biggest anti Qatari here and I am a muslamic lad
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
An argument involves opinions, this is more a continuous (failing) attempt at education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t be that low surely, Boehly would have seriously overpriced Chelsea!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t you seen what he’s been like buying players?
Sign in if you want to comment
Glazers don't want to sell
Page 3 of 6
6
posted on 28/2/23
NAK is the Emir’s lapdog.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Yorkshire Red (U22022)
posted 23 minutes ago
The Qataris will invest much more in the city and people of the city as well as the club, stadium and training complex.
I'm all for the Qataris. They own many things in the UK as it is. Full ownership or part ownership.
Eg:
Olympic village, London
- The Shard
- Harrods
- Heathrow Airport
- Credit Suisse Office, London
- Canary Wharf Group
- Royal Dutch Shell
- Sainsbury
- Knightsbridge
- British Airways
The racists can go ahead and boycott all these as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they will. That's how sportswashing works. They can't go in and offer more of the same given all the controversy associated with them can they? Nobody would ever take them up on that.
I suppose it comes down to what you care about. If it's just success then the Qatar route isn't guaranteed success because nothing is so certain but it's as close as you will ever get to it. I can see why people might feel that way.
However having our great clubs name being used as a propaganda machine for Doha is not something I particularly care for tbh.
It's actually a pretty sad state of affairs that this is now what football looks like. Several ME states having a d*** measuring contest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a sad state of affairs either way, the majority of pl clubs are owned by already rich Americans who sit there and get increasingly richer off the asset growth with no risk at all to themselves.
I’ll keep saying it but reintroduce some of the measures we had in pre PL and neither will be as attracted to it. The ship has long sailed though, the damage was done the moment the clubs themselves took control over the FA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.
The Glazers obviously haven't been good owners for us but they could have been had they not lumbered us with their debt and appointed the best people in the boardroom. They didn't though. Transfer funds has never been the issue for us. It's been everything else.
Having clubs used to sportswash and promote the ME is definitely a whole new level to the PL era and obviously one I have been very vocal about. I think you're right though that it's happened now and it's too late to undo it. I know you don't like it but City's takeover should never have been allowed. Neither should PSG despite that being in a different country and federation. It's just not ethical at all.
I ultimately don't get a say on who buys United and we will end up with whoever the highest bidder is and that could very well be Qatar.
posted on 28/2/23
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or they are Muslim.
posted on 28/2/23
And neither should the Glazers takeover. The PL should have blocked it because they were lumbering a debt free club with 550m of their debt.
I see that they now don't think these type of takeovers are good for it's brand. Typical that.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Yorkshire Red (U22022)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 seconds ago
Yorkshire Red feels no solidarity with the brown-skinned people abused and exploited by the Qatari laws that treat migrant workers as second class citizens. Nor for the pious Muslims who have been imprisoned by the Qatari state for exposing corruption and calling for labourers to be paid withheld wages, in line with the teaching of the Koran. Perhaps Yorkshire Red is a racist and an Islamophobe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true though. Qatar is extremely friendly to the West. Its investments prop up our economy, facilitating the liberal society and tolerance for all those decadent activities that you consider immoral. The only people who are victims of the Qatari ruling elite are migrants primarily from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal who are subject to abuse, wage theft, and dangerous working conditions without the protection of the law, and Qatari citizens who resist corruption and human rights abuses. You're not standing up for Muslims or defending Islamic values. You're being a cheerleader for a clique of plutocrats who maintain control by using brutal techniques used by every dictatorship in Europe or anywhere else in the world, and fundamentally contravening the Koran's teaching on questions of charity, corruption, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
Question for you - do you think that it’s at all likely that the continued exposure to our cultures, our standards et cetera that they might look to improve themselves?
(We all know that probably every country has its own moral failings, in whatever form it may take, but we’re not talking about our country currently that’s a separate matter.)
Could this interaction help in the mid or long term?
I’ve watched about 15 minutes of that interview and he comes across well but it’s definitely a PR piece.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying you’re wrong, you may well be correct, but I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at such an impression. Unless you meant the fan base exclusively on here, of course.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying you’re wrong, you may well be correct, but I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at such an impression. Unless you meant the fan base exclusively on here, of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's my subjective, unscientific perception based on the fans I've interacted with. But I think it's also natural that people who are generally prone to self-criticism, worrying about moral implications of the things done in their name are more likely to be uncomfortable with this than people whose worldview is based on pursuit of self-interest and unburdened by guilt. (Which is different from framing this as a left-right split.)
posted on 28/2/23
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Yorkshire Red (U22022)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 seconds ago
Yorkshire Red feels no solidarity with the brown-skinned people abused and exploited by the Qatari laws that treat migrant workers as second class citizens. Nor for the pious Muslims who have been imprisoned by the Qatari state for exposing corruption and calling for labourers to be paid withheld wages, in line with the teaching of the Koran. Perhaps Yorkshire Red is a racist and an Islamophobe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's true though. Qatar is extremely friendly to the West. Its investments prop up our economy, facilitating the liberal society and tolerance for all those decadent activities that you consider immoral. The only people who are victims of the Qatari ruling elite are migrants primarily from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal who are subject to abuse, wage theft, and dangerous working conditions without the protection of the law, and Qatari citizens who resist corruption and human rights abuses. You're not standing up for Muslims or defending Islamic values. You're being a cheerleader for a clique of plutocrats who maintain control by using brutal techniques used by every dictatorship in Europe or anywhere else in the world, and fundamentally contravening the Koran's teaching on questions of charity, corruption, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well put.
Question for you - do you think that it’s at all likely that the continued exposure to our cultures, our standards et cetera that they might look to improve themselves?
(We all know that probably every country has its own moral failings, in whatever form it may take, but we’re not talking about our country currently that’s a separate matter.)
Could this interaction help in the mid or long term?
I’ve watched about 15 minutes of that interview and he comes across well but it’s definitely a PR piece.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think they actually want to change though?
Equal rights for all, allow gay relationships, Equal opportunities for women, introduce a national minimum wage...the list goes on and on and on.
Would be fantastic to see major change in that part of the world but I think there's more chance of Brexit being a success. 😂
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not saying you’re wrong, you may well be correct, but I’m not sure how you’ve managed to arrive at such an impression. Unless you meant the fan base exclusively on here, of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's my subjective, unscientific perception based on the fans I've interacted with. But I think it's also natural that people who are generally prone to self-criticism, worrying about moral implications of the things done in their name are more likely to be uncomfortable with this than people whose worldview is based on pursuit of self-interest and unburdened by guilt. (Which is different from framing this as a left-right split.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes complete sense that those positions would intersect.
posted on 28/2/23
I don’t think many WANT Qatari ownership, however I think the realistic scenario we are in means we either have good owners for the club, or bad owners for the club.
I guess it depends how bothered you are by having good owners who have a questionable moral compass.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it funny how you don't think City is in anyway similar to Newcastle and PSG.
The UAE is just a bit more complicated as its divided into independentaly ran regions that don't have to take notice of each other. They are free to make their own rules. Your owner is from the Royal family of one of those regions where Abu Dhabi is located.
I fail to see how your situation is any different. State / Royal family.....it's all the same really. Your owner bought your club to plaster 'Etihad' and 'visit Abu Dhabi' all over your club to promote it. And he did it almost immediately.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it funny how you don't think City is in anyway similar to Newcastle and PSG.
The UAE is just a bit more complicated as its divided into independentaly ran regions that don't have to take notice of each other. They are free to make their own rules. Your owner is from the Royal family of one of those regions where Abu Dhabi is located.
I fail to see how your situation is any different. State / Royal family.....it's all the same really. Your owner bought your club to plaster 'Etihad' and 'visit Abu Dhabi' all over your club to promote it. And he did it almost immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because two are state owned and one isn’t, I’m talking from a regulation perspective here - I’m not sure how you can stop the one that isn’t as entity wise and legally they aren’t the same scenario at all.
He also sold investment in the club and will sell more, what he wants to do isn’t dissimilar to the Glazers or FSG, albeit for a different motivation and so he’ll sell it to different investors to those they’d be willing to.
posted on 28/2/23
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
posted on 28/2/23
I still go back to reintroduce the right regulation and redistribution back into football and it’s far less likely to attract either type of investor or states though.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
posted on 28/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
“I think there's a bit of a difference between rich people (wherever they are from) and whole states taking over though. This is where you and I disagree Melts.“
I don’t think that’s the issue as such though as I agree that whole states shouldn’t be able to take over either, I’m against both the Newcastle and PSG models. I can’t think how they’d have stopped the city one though, not sure what rule there could be for that.
It’s more to me around how you allow rich people to purchase them and the rules that should be in place to ensure they don’t place all the risk on the clubs themselves though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it funny how you don't think City is in anyway similar to Newcastle and PSG.
The UAE is just a bit more complicated as its divided into independentaly ran regions that don't have to take notice of each other. They are free to make their own rules. Your owner is from the Royal family of one of those regions where Abu Dhabi is located.
I fail to see how your situation is any different. State / Royal family.....it's all the same really. Your owner bought your club to plaster 'Etihad' and 'visit Abu Dhabi' all over your club to promote it. And he did it almost immediately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because two are state owned and one isn’t, I’m talking from a regulation perspective here - I’m not sure how you can stop the one that isn’t as entity wise and legally they aren’t the same scenario at all.
He also sold investment in the club and will sell more, what he wants to do isn’t dissimilar to the Glazers or FSG, albeit for a different motivation and so he’ll sell it to different investors to those they’d be willing to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought Winston and toor having an argument about the same thing for months was impressive. But you’ve been having this same one with Stretford for nearly 15 years.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
posted on 28/2/23
An argument involves opinions, this is more a continuous (failing) attempt at education
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t be that low surely, Boehly would have seriously overpriced Chelsea!
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it went down by 1.2bn. That's not the actual price.
posted on 28/2/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
My impression is that among our fan base, the people who are more against a takeover by the Qatari state are the ones more likely to be critical of the UK and West, who tend to argue that we must improve society, make it fairer, atone for our historical crimes, and are horrified by the rise of nationalism in Brexit Britain. Conversely, many of the voices that are enthusiastic about Qatari ownership or wanting to shut down ethical concerns are those who are generally hostile to social justice or BLM or confronting the legacy of slavery. I think you should accept that there are some people who are in general more engaged with ethical questions than others, and that some of them try to apply their beliefs consistently. Not everyone is a cheerleader for their tribe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or they are Muslim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m one of the biggest anti Qatari here and I am a muslamic lad
posted on 28/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
An argument involves opinions, this is more a continuous (failing) attempt at education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 28/2/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
I actually think it's too much of a coincidence that team viewer announced they are breaking their sponsorship deal early with us just as the club received takeover bids too.
The sale of the club is probably a lot further ahead than we think it is. They are just negotiating on price. And being realistic Qatar is definitely the favourite just down to funds. I'd personally prefer Jim but it matters not a jot what we all think. Glazers will take the best offer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t the shares significantly dropped?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Financial Times valued the club are around £1.2bn I think.
This scared off investors for obvious reasons, since the Glazers want £5bn-£6bn.
The stock price went up about 40% on the news they plan to sell though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can’t be that low surely, Boehly would have seriously overpriced Chelsea!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haven’t you seen what he’s been like buying players?
Page 3 of 6
6