Sir Jim Ratcliffe offers Man Utd a way out of uncomfortable questions about Qatar and Hamas

The Manchester United Supporters’ Trust released a statement on Sunday in which they demanded answers to 11 questions around Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s proposed deal for 25 per cent of the club.

There are, in truth, many more questions than that which will need answering about the potential ownership developments at Old Trafford in the weeks and months ahead.

But one thing a successful Ratcliffe bid would at least mean is that United are avoiding uncomfortable questions about Qatar at a time when the Gulf state is walking a tightrope on the issue of Hamas.

Plenty of United fans may be disgruntled about the prospect of a deal that keeps the Glazers in situ, for now at least, not least those who have been calling for a “full sale only”, and wonder how meaningful change can realistically happen with the Americans still at the helm.

But the news that Qatari banker and the son of the former Prime Minister, Sheikh Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, has withdrawn from the negotiation process happens to come at a time of acute political and moral sensitivities.

A Qatari takeover at Old Trafford could have meant many things but there would have been no evading questions about the current scrutiny on the Gulf nation as they continue to host the Hamas leaders who directed the attack on Israel, which have led to calls for the UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to impose sanctions on the oil rich state.

Mark Wallace, a former US ambassador to the UN, has demanded assets linked to the Qatari state and royal family to be frozen “until Qataris turn over the worst of the worst terror leaders in the world”.

Chilling footage appeared last week of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader behind Hamas’ deadliest ever attack on Israelis, watching the horrors unfold on television with delight from the safety of his office in Doha.

Qatar is also home to the former head of Hamas’ political bureau in exile, Khaled Meshaal, and has hosted offices for other groups the West regard as terrorist organisations.

So Qatar’s close connections with Hamas do not sit comfortably with the West. Equally, there is recognition of the influence the desert kingdom wields in the geopolitical landscape as a conduit through which Western countries can do backdoor deals with groups they are unwilling to sit down with.

The Israel-Hamas war is no exception and Qatar, who deny supporting Hamas, could yet have an important role to play in negotiating a way out of the bloody conflict.

Sheikh Jassim, of course, has been at pains to stress his interest in United was in a personal capacity and had nothing to do with the Qatar state, even if mystery surrounded the source of his funds.

His bid for United was thought to have been worth around £5 billion, with a further £1.4 billion earmarked for infrastructure projects including redevelopment of Old Trafford and the club’s Carrington training complex.

What that would have meant for United may never be known now but any association with Qatar would have attracted an intense spotlight for Britain’s biggest football club and all the more so given the events in Israel.

Amidst the many other questions that will be asked, United at least seem likely to be spared those.