I bet the Qatari's are looking more and more attractive by the day
Anyone who thought any scenario in which the Glazers remained in charge was gonna end in a net positive for United are absolute fools or completely naive...
comment by Onana_banana_fi_fa_fofana (U20611)
posted 1 second ago
I bet the Qatari's are looking more and more attractive by the day
Anyone who thought any scenario in which the Glazers remained in charge was gonna end in a net positive for United are absolute fools or completely naive...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely
Those who oppose are often the same people who casually throw around accusations of clubs being "oil clubs." The uncomfortable truth is that if the tables were turned and we became one, it would force them to confront their own hypocrisy. That’s part of the issue.
If Utd were on the verge of collapse and a Qatari group came forward with an offer, would those making moral arguments really oppose? Not a chance. Football fans rarely think deeply before invoking morality, all the while breaching those same moral standards when it suits them. It’s this double standard that undermines the moral argument and makes it a weak premise to stand on.
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when were football fans, especially those from colonising countries, qualified to judge others on morality? It's a laughable stance given our own colourful history on the world stage, SE85. Even more laughable how we are willing to support a war criminal in Israel while Palestine is razed to the ground defenceless. Where's your morality? You should take a moment to reflect and engage in deeper thought before making such lofty claims.
Our country, across every sector driving the economy, is heavily reliant on Middle Eastern investment. If they were to divest, the impact would cripple us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn’t a laughable stance for those who have consistently challenged human rights abuses whenever and wherever they have occurred, is it?
I mean, tens of thousands of people turned out in Manchester to protest even before the Iraq War started. Tens of thousands have been out protesting against Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza in recent months.
There are an awful lot of Manchester United fans - in Manchester, across the country, and beyond - opposed to seeing their club used as a sports washing vehicle by a brutal regime, who at the same time have also protested and campaigned loudly and consistently against their own (and other) countries’ governments, militaries, companies and other institutions involved in human rights abuses.
Rosso, meet vengeance, he’s a facking tool of monumental proportions.
I still don't want to be owned by a state. Any state from anywhere. Don't think it's the right way to go. Also, and I'll happily admit this, I don't want to be seen as a hypocrite and I like wr at least have the moral high ground on City etc by not going down that route.
On the face of it Ineos and Co are not having a great time of it PR wise but this is still all on the Glazers IMO. It's curious to me why it seems Ineos has had as much bad press in a year as the Glazers have had in near enough twenty.
Let's see where we are going into 2026 before jumping to any conclusions on the new regime.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 15 seconds ago
I still don't want to be owned by a state. Any state from anywhere. Don't think it's the right way to go. Also, and I'll happily admit this, I don't want to be seen as a hypocrite and I like wr at least have the moral high ground on City etc by not going down that route.
On the face of it Ineos and Co are not having a great time of it PR wise but this is still all on the Glazers IMO. It's curious to me why it seems Ineos has had as much bad press in a year as the Glazers have had in near enough twenty.
Let's see where we are going into 2026 before jumping to any conclusions on the new regime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said diafol.
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
Football clubs are businesses. There is no room for sentiment in business. Finally someone with a backbone to take the club forward.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
Tbh I don't think it really matters what any of us want. The way things have been going well are probably heading that way anyway as they are doing a truly terrible job.
Qatar, Kuwait and god knows who else is probably watching in glee as they continue to make a mess of one of the biggest sports companies in the world. The price might even come down substantially too.
Nobody can confess to say they knew that Jim would be stripping trivial amounts like this so don't pretend you
did.
I will concede though that given how morally bankrupt this first year has been from Jim it really doesn't put them in a better light than the sports washers so shame on him. Hasn't bought the remaining shares yet either has he? Still time I realise until the 2026 deadline for this to happen.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when were football fans, especially those from colonising countries, qualified to judge others on morality? It's a laughable stance given our own colourful history on the world stage, SE85. Even more laughable how we are willing to support a war criminal in Israel while Palestine is razed to the ground defenceless. Where's your morality? You should take a moment to reflect and engage in deeper thought before making such lofty claims.
Our country, across every sector driving the economy, is heavily reliant on Middle Eastern investment. If they were to divest, the impact would cripple us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn’t a laughable stance for those who have consistently challenged human rights abuses whenever and wherever they have occurred, is it?
I mean, tens of thousands of people turned out in Manchester to protest even before the Iraq War started. Tens of thousands have been out protesting against Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza in recent months.
There are an awful lot of Manchester United fans - in Manchester, across the country, and beyond - opposed to seeing their club used as a sports washing vehicle by a brutal regime, who at the same time have also protested and campaigned loudly and consistently against their own (and other) countries’ governments, militaries, companies and other institutions involved in human rights abuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral argument on human rights abuses is fair and Middle Eastern countries have a long way to go to meet the same standards of the West.
The reality is that Utd, like many other clubs, already operates within a global system that relies on Middle Eastern money. We’re not really in a position to separate the club from that system without completely isolating it. Middle Eastern investment is deeply woven into sports, media, and business worldwide, and Utd, like many others, benefits from these connections.
To truly disassociate, we’d have to step away from the entire system, something that’s not feasible or realistic in today’s world.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you quite understood what the moral but was then reading that reply.
It's the human rights abuses, modern day slavery, homophobia, women's rights impeding practices etc that people were talking about.
Your response seems to focus on them building a new college and training complex outside the ground so that balances it all out.
It wasn't a bollox argument at all and still isn't. You just didn't understand it clearly.
However as I said.....Jim is muddying the lines between what's moral and right and what isn't anyway.
Qatar was always the better financial option. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. Of course it is. They have more money than sense.
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude is tight, look at what he’s done with Nice
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude is tight, look at what he’s done with Nice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Man needs a new yacht
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly dont remember everybody wanting Jim
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you quite understood what the moral but was then reading that reply.
It's the human rights abuses, modern day slavery, homophobia, women's rights impeding practices etc that people were talking about.
Your response seems to focus on them building a new college and training complex outside the ground so that balances it all out.
It wasn't a bollox argument at all and still isn't. You just didn't understand it clearly.
However as I said.....Jim is muddying the lines between what's moral and right and what isn't anyway.
Qatar was always the better financial option. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. Of course it is. They have more money than sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I understood it fine, I just don't buy it. Any time any arab is mentioned they are automatically treated as beimg human rights abusers. It's always the lazy narrative. Meanwhile we send arms to the Saudi's because it's good business, provides lucrative contracts to our arms industry, creates jobs, but results in hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen being killed over a decade.
The reason why I referenced the City owners and what they've done for the local community beyond the club was to show you not all arabs are advacating human rights abuses, modern day slavery homophobia, women's rights impeding practices. It's you who's not understood mate.
Perhaps we should judge individuals on their actions rather than making sweeping assumptions?
Looks like Wolves has put the final nail in the coffin of what used to be Man Utd.
Read that and weep Stupidson 😂
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you quite understood what the moral but was then reading that reply.
It's the human rights abuses, modern day slavery, homophobia, women's rights impeding practices etc that people were talking about.
Your response seems to focus on them building a new college and training complex outside the ground so that balances it all out.
It wasn't a bollox argument at all and still isn't. You just didn't understand it clearly.
However as I said.....Jim is muddying the lines between what's moral and right and what isn't anyway.
Qatar was always the better financial option. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. Of course it is. They have more money than sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I understood it fine, I just don't buy it. Any time any arab is mentioned they are automatically treated as beimg human rights abusers. It's always the lazy narrative. Meanwhile we send arms to the Saudi's because it's good business, provides lucrative contracts to our arms industry, creates jobs, but results in hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen being killed over a decade.
The reason why I referenced the City owners and what they've done for the local community beyond the club was to show you not all arabs are advacating human rights abuses, modern day slavery homophobia, women's rights impeding practices. It's you who's not understood mate.
Perhaps we should judge individuals on their actions rather than making sweeping assumptions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they do employ these practices. They do it even today in their own countries. They don't control the UK so can't do anything about what we do.
You are aware of the Qatar world cup scandal aren't you and what went on? They did employ loads of migrant slaves essentially to build the infrastructure for them and lots of people are said to have died doing so given the terrible conditions they had to endure there. Amnesty International have ran several harrowing programmes on what went on there.
So no it isn't me is it?
comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly dont remember everybody wanting Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most were opposed to Middle Eastern investment on JA and were open to anything, not necessarily just Jim, the reality was Jim was the only alternative!
comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly dont remember everybody wanting Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologise. Not all but the majority of this place (Ja) were against the Qataris taking over.
The way many are presenting the argument makes it seem as though Middle Eastern money would suddenly arrive in isolation, as if the club and its supporters haven’t already benefited from their involvement in the global financial system. The truth is, we’re already part of that system. Whether directly or indirectly, Middle Eastern money is deeply embedded in many sectors such as sports, media, business and Utd are no exception.
Opposing a takeover from one specific source becomes somewhat meaningless when we already operate within a financial system that relies on this kind of investment. It’s a bit of a double standard to reject Middle Eastern money at the club level, while also enjoying the benefits of it elsewhere in the economy. If we’re serious about disassociating from this influence, it would require much more than rejecting one potential investor, it would mean stepping back from the entire global system.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did say this and some refused to see it.
I know Jim and I know Ineos well. I did tell people he would be problematic
Sign in if you want to comment
Chemical Jim cuts again
Page 2 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted 1 week ago
I bet the Qatari's are looking more and more attractive by the day
Anyone who thought any scenario in which the Glazers remained in charge was gonna end in a net positive for United are absolute fools or completely naive...
posted 1 week ago
comment by Onana_banana_fi_fa_fofana (U20611)
posted 1 second ago
I bet the Qatari's are looking more and more attractive by the day
Anyone who thought any scenario in which the Glazers remained in charge was gonna end in a net positive for United are absolute fools or completely naive...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely
Those who oppose are often the same people who casually throw around accusations of clubs being "oil clubs." The uncomfortable truth is that if the tables were turned and we became one, it would force them to confront their own hypocrisy. That’s part of the issue.
If Utd were on the verge of collapse and a Qatari group came forward with an offer, would those making moral arguments really oppose? Not a chance. Football fans rarely think deeply before invoking morality, all the while breaching those same moral standards when it suits them. It’s this double standard that undermines the moral argument and makes it a weak premise to stand on.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when were football fans, especially those from colonising countries, qualified to judge others on morality? It's a laughable stance given our own colourful history on the world stage, SE85. Even more laughable how we are willing to support a war criminal in Israel while Palestine is razed to the ground defenceless. Where's your morality? You should take a moment to reflect and engage in deeper thought before making such lofty claims.
Our country, across every sector driving the economy, is heavily reliant on Middle Eastern investment. If they were to divest, the impact would cripple us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn’t a laughable stance for those who have consistently challenged human rights abuses whenever and wherever they have occurred, is it?
I mean, tens of thousands of people turned out in Manchester to protest even before the Iraq War started. Tens of thousands have been out protesting against Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza in recent months.
There are an awful lot of Manchester United fans - in Manchester, across the country, and beyond - opposed to seeing their club used as a sports washing vehicle by a brutal regime, who at the same time have also protested and campaigned loudly and consistently against their own (and other) countries’ governments, militaries, companies and other institutions involved in human rights abuses.
posted 1 week ago
Rosso, meet vengeance, he’s a facking tool of monumental proportions.
posted 1 week ago
I still don't want to be owned by a state. Any state from anywhere. Don't think it's the right way to go. Also, and I'll happily admit this, I don't want to be seen as a hypocrite and I like wr at least have the moral high ground on City etc by not going down that route.
On the face of it Ineos and Co are not having a great time of it PR wise but this is still all on the Glazers IMO. It's curious to me why it seems Ineos has had as much bad press in a year as the Glazers have had in near enough twenty.
Let's see where we are going into 2026 before jumping to any conclusions on the new regime.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 15 seconds ago
I still don't want to be owned by a state. Any state from anywhere. Don't think it's the right way to go. Also, and I'll happily admit this, I don't want to be seen as a hypocrite and I like wr at least have the moral high ground on City etc by not going down that route.
On the face of it Ineos and Co are not having a great time of it PR wise but this is still all on the Glazers IMO. It's curious to me why it seems Ineos has had as much bad press in a year as the Glazers have had in near enough twenty.
Let's see where we are going into 2026 before jumping to any conclusions on the new regime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said diafol.
posted 1 week ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
posted 1 week ago
Football clubs are businesses. There is no room for sentiment in business. Finally someone with a backbone to take the club forward.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
posted 1 week ago
Tbh I don't think it really matters what any of us want. The way things have been going well are probably heading that way anyway as they are doing a truly terrible job.
Qatar, Kuwait and god knows who else is probably watching in glee as they continue to make a mess of one of the biggest sports companies in the world. The price might even come down substantially too.
Nobody can confess to say they knew that Jim would be stripping trivial amounts like this so don't pretend you
did.
I will concede though that given how morally bankrupt this first year has been from Jim it really doesn't put them in a better light than the sports washers so shame on him. Hasn't bought the remaining shares yet either has he? Still time I realise until the 2026 deadline for this to happen.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
posted 1 week ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when were football fans, especially those from colonising countries, qualified to judge others on morality? It's a laughable stance given our own colourful history on the world stage, SE85. Even more laughable how we are willing to support a war criminal in Israel while Palestine is razed to the ground defenceless. Where's your morality? You should take a moment to reflect and engage in deeper thought before making such lofty claims.
Our country, across every sector driving the economy, is heavily reliant on Middle Eastern investment. If they were to divest, the impact would cripple us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn’t a laughable stance for those who have consistently challenged human rights abuses whenever and wherever they have occurred, is it?
I mean, tens of thousands of people turned out in Manchester to protest even before the Iraq War started. Tens of thousands have been out protesting against Netanyahu’s genocide in Gaza in recent months.
There are an awful lot of Manchester United fans - in Manchester, across the country, and beyond - opposed to seeing their club used as a sports washing vehicle by a brutal regime, who at the same time have also protested and campaigned loudly and consistently against their own (and other) countries’ governments, militaries, companies and other institutions involved in human rights abuses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The moral argument on human rights abuses is fair and Middle Eastern countries have a long way to go to meet the same standards of the West.
The reality is that Utd, like many other clubs, already operates within a global system that relies on Middle Eastern money. We’re not really in a position to separate the club from that system without completely isolating it. Middle Eastern investment is deeply woven into sports, media, and business worldwide, and Utd, like many others, benefits from these connections.
To truly disassociate, we’d have to step away from the entire system, something that’s not feasible or realistic in today’s world.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you quite understood what the moral but was then reading that reply.
It's the human rights abuses, modern day slavery, homophobia, women's rights impeding practices etc that people were talking about.
Your response seems to focus on them building a new college and training complex outside the ground so that balances it all out.
It wasn't a bollox argument at all and still isn't. You just didn't understand it clearly.
However as I said.....Jim is muddying the lines between what's moral and right and what isn't anyway.
Qatar was always the better financial option. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. Of course it is. They have more money than sense.
posted 1 week ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude is tight, look at what he’s done with Nice
posted 1 week ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude is tight, look at what he’s done with Nice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Man needs a new yacht
posted 1 week ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly dont remember everybody wanting Jim
posted 1 week ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you quite understood what the moral but was then reading that reply.
It's the human rights abuses, modern day slavery, homophobia, women's rights impeding practices etc that people were talking about.
Your response seems to focus on them building a new college and training complex outside the ground so that balances it all out.
It wasn't a bollox argument at all and still isn't. You just didn't understand it clearly.
However as I said.....Jim is muddying the lines between what's moral and right and what isn't anyway.
Qatar was always the better financial option. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. Of course it is. They have more money than sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I understood it fine, I just don't buy it. Any time any arab is mentioned they are automatically treated as beimg human rights abusers. It's always the lazy narrative. Meanwhile we send arms to the Saudi's because it's good business, provides lucrative contracts to our arms industry, creates jobs, but results in hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen being killed over a decade.
The reason why I referenced the City owners and what they've done for the local community beyond the club was to show you not all arabs are advacating human rights abuses, modern day slavery homophobia, women's rights impeding practices. It's you who's not understood mate.
Perhaps we should judge individuals on their actions rather than making sweeping assumptions?
posted 1 week ago
Looks like Wolves has put the final nail in the coffin of what used to be Man Utd.
Read that and weep Stupidson 😂
posted 1 week ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Playmaker (U22780)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It probably wouldn't VC and tbh the main argument for me not wanting Qatar was the morally bankrupt element.
However Jim seems to be taking care of the morally bankrupt element anyway so it's getting harder and harder to justify them over Qatar now.
Wanted to believe he'd be different to the parasites. Already convinced he's not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I must admit I didn't care whether it was INEOS or the Qataris as long as the Glazers were booted out and those taking over were responsible.
The so-called moral argument was bollox. You look at what the City owners have down to rejuvenate the area around the stadium and they deserve credit for improving the lives of residents and businesses with their redevelopments and investment in infrastructure.
I wonder whether the "morally bankrupt" argument was a smokescreen for the underlying feeling of not becoming another City or Chelsea with a fatcat billionaire owner coming in and tainting and success that followed...or at the very least prevent fans from accusing City's success as being artificially manufactured.
Not saying I favoured the Qataris, just that I was open-minded to either. Having said that I'm not sure whether they were truly interested. There was some evidence the Raine Grp with their contacts with the sheikh had asked him to bid in order to drum up interest so not sure if they really were fully committed to the takeover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you quite understood what the moral but was then reading that reply.
It's the human rights abuses, modern day slavery, homophobia, women's rights impeding practices etc that people were talking about.
Your response seems to focus on them building a new college and training complex outside the ground so that balances it all out.
It wasn't a bollox argument at all and still isn't. You just didn't understand it clearly.
However as I said.....Jim is muddying the lines between what's moral and right and what isn't anyway.
Qatar was always the better financial option. Nobody ever said it wouldn't be. Of course it is. They have more money than sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I understood it fine, I just don't buy it. Any time any arab is mentioned they are automatically treated as beimg human rights abusers. It's always the lazy narrative. Meanwhile we send arms to the Saudi's because it's good business, provides lucrative contracts to our arms industry, creates jobs, but results in hundreds of thousands of children in Yemen being killed over a decade.
The reason why I referenced the City owners and what they've done for the local community beyond the club was to show you not all arabs are advacating human rights abuses, modern day slavery homophobia, women's rights impeding practices. It's you who's not understood mate.
Perhaps we should judge individuals on their actions rather than making sweeping assumptions?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they do employ these practices. They do it even today in their own countries. They don't control the UK so can't do anything about what we do.
You are aware of the Qatar world cup scandal aren't you and what went on? They did employ loads of migrant slaves essentially to build the infrastructure for them and lots of people are said to have died doing so given the terrible conditions they had to endure there. Amnesty International have ran several harrowing programmes on what went on there.
So no it isn't me is it?
posted 1 week ago
comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly dont remember everybody wanting Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most were opposed to Middle Eastern investment on JA and were open to anything, not necessarily just Jim, the reality was Jim was the only alternative!
posted 1 week ago
comment by RB&W - Our representative on the pitch (U21434)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by scholayScholes (U13961)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 🏴 JA606 Class Act (U2462)
posted 3 minutes ago
Also, the Qatari that was stated to want to buy United was usurped by Ineos. Would we really want those guys in charge when we don't know anything about them. It'd be typical if we had the only Arab owners not to have unlimited wealth!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn’t that more about the Glazers wanting to keep control?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, but if the Qataris were really serious I reckon they'd have got it done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well reported the Glazers never wanted to sell the whole thing. They took the pis* with the Qataris.
You all wanted Jim you got Jim. Deal with it and move on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly dont remember everybody wanting Jim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologise. Not all but the majority of this place (Ja) were against the Qataris taking over.
posted 1 week ago
The way many are presenting the argument makes it seem as though Middle Eastern money would suddenly arrive in isolation, as if the club and its supporters haven’t already benefited from their involvement in the global financial system. The truth is, we’re already part of that system. Whether directly or indirectly, Middle Eastern money is deeply embedded in many sectors such as sports, media, business and Utd are no exception.
Opposing a takeover from one specific source becomes somewhat meaningless when we already operate within a financial system that relies on this kind of investment. It’s a bit of a double standard to reject Middle Eastern money at the club level, while also enjoying the benefits of it elsewhere in the economy. If we’re serious about disassociating from this influence, it would require much more than rejecting one potential investor, it would mean stepping back from the entire global system.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 17 minutes ago
There's been way too many negative stories now with INEOS
- Womens team being decimated again after making positive strides and finally winning a trophy
- Staff redundancies
- Fergie role being taken away
- ETH fiasco
- Dan Ashworth fiasco
- Ticket Price fiasco
- Christmas party cancelled
- Bonuses more than halved for background staff
- Now the Charity being cut off
Yeah this isn't at all what we signed up for and what we wanted. He's every bit as bad as the Glazers sadly and I hoped he wouldn't be.
If these cuts don't lead to relative success in the next 12-18 months then what was the point? A lot of our players earn £40k in a day or every 2 days so it's just anothet PR disaster.
What's worse is this is all being done whilst he's still not bought out the Glazers so it's a double whammy.
The whole club is just one depressing story after another at the moment. No wonder morale is at an all time low.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This wouldn’t be happening under the Qatar ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We did say this and some refused to see it.
I know Jim and I know Ineos well. I did tell people he would be problematic
Page 2 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10