Highly critical article about Citys' owners

Actually I don’t think it is. After we won the FA Cup there was a thread about ownership of City (can’t remember why). One of the posters quoted an interview with Khaldoon in which the point was made that the process was more the other way round - ie that Sheikh Mansour had (I paraphrase) to talk the AD ruling family into agreeing to him buying a City, because of the potential for adverse publicity regarding AD, and that he wouldn’t have done so had the family not gone along with the idea - not because they would have stopped him or because he wouldn’t have had the funds but because it is important in that circle to proceed on the basis of a consensus and without the consensus he wouldn’t have proceeded.

Don’t forget Khaldoon wasn’t involved at the outset. If from the start it was intended to be an Abu Dhabi PR plug it is surprising that the media savvy Khaldoon wasn’t involved from the start. If you remember the original chairman made a lot of noise and invited a lot of ridicule (some of it perhaps unfair) and was moved on. Perhaps the better analysis is that the trashing that was Abu Dhabi’s reputation was taking at the time as a result of the various unwise statements that were being made from the new chairman made it necessary to parachute in some rather bigger hitters.

Also, when all is said and done I think Khaldoon and Sheikh Mansour have been mates a long time - I think they went to Uni in the states together - and Khaldoon quite apart from City was always deeply interested in football. I suppose when one of your oldest mates says to you “wanna run my football club? It’s an English premier league team” it isn’t exactly a difficult sell.

I read that interview:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/sep/18/manchester-city-abu-dhabi-mubarak

I know what the official line is and it may be that simple but not everyone believes that is the case. If Mansour was being used as a front for AD, KAM would not be broadcasting to the world that was what happened. However, let me be clear: I could give a flying whatsit either way but am quite happy to believe Mansour made a private investment that took on wider implications for AD.

Mansour and KAM went to different universities and are six years apart in age and I don't think KAM's involvement is down to him being best mates with Mansour...
 
And yet the vision of the club with overseas subsidiaries was not Khaldoon’s or that of anyone else in AD - it was Ferran Soriano’s, and Barca’s refusal to run with that vision was one of the reasons he left. I don’t doubt that in AD they grasped the significance of his vision and what it could mean for AD but I don’t think that was always part of the plan - it seems to me that the simple idea of owning a top flight ‘sleeping giant’ football club in England probably started life as a solid business proposition and only after the purchase did it grow into something that could portray AD in a positive light, which in turn that grew into a project that would renovate a huge area of East Manchester, which in turn grew into the City Group, and so on. I agree the potential significance of the project is exactly why they have some very big hitters on the case, but equally I don’t think that necessarily suggests anything more than that the worldwide profile that English premier league football has means that whatever City/ the City Group does has the capacity to show AD up in a good or bad light. It may have greater significance than that, but the article we are all discussing doesn’t persuade me in the slightest.

Nor do I think it is naive to think that Khaldoon’s initial involvement in the project owes as much to his personal relationship with Sheikh Mansour as anything else. I agree that Khaldoon’s involvement from the early days demonstrates that AD understood the need to manage the thing properly, and so Khaldoon was parachuted in when Al Fahim was causing such amusement. But again I think it is a mistake to say ‘these are not Mansour’s men’ of Khaldoon in particular - that ignores the longstanding personal history between the two.

I have never thought that ignoring inconvenient facts was a good way of making your point - it has a tendency to be exposed just when you least want it to. The author of the article appears to take a different view.

KAM is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed's man.
 
The way I see this shit .. imagine your mate hooked up with the hottest bird around and you are stuck with ugly one .
All you can do is look down at your own sad cock and say “ you wish “.
 
No I didn't. Is this I must be a rag time?

For what it's worth I got it off another forum, F365. I've been on there for years.



LOL I read that. It backfired just slightly on the OP there who's had something of a meltdown to say the least. I think that post about United being a dinosaur club sent them over the edge, rags frothing at the mouth.
 
Last edited:
I think what happened is that the association with City was originally a fairly low-key investment entrusted to the youngish Mansour but that the first chairman produced so much bad publicity that they realised things could go very wrong for them and replaced him with the family's most trusted lieutenant. The timing of the takeover was also unfortunate in that it kind of coincided with the financial wrongdoings in the banking world and there was a general antipathy to big money.
Horse racing seems to have avoided any taint from the association with UAE. But there are millions of regular punters in the UK and they can't be categorized easily. Also the interested parties are well-connected and include the owners of the media. The Royal Family and the British Government also seem to avoid all criticism of their attachments. By comparison City are an easy small target with a small easily categorized following.
The writer is also not without self-interest. He bangs the human rights drum and I suppose most of us tend to switch off when confronted with the subject. We know these things are wrong but we also know that we can't do much unless we get together in large numbers and we don't have the time so we switch off. This is his way of gaining people's attention. He's piggybacking on football's appeal to people who wouldn't otherwise show any interest in his article.
Bit like me and this post.
Internet journalism.

The film Death of a Princess kind of put things in their boxes. Men who represented workers' interests came out in favour of censorship to protect those interests. Politicians were both for and against it. Oil companies had their say. And in the end questions were raised over the truth of the film's version of events and whether it was faction or fiction. It's a funny old world. But I think this narrative with City will run and run. Simply because of football's appeal and the ease of polarising those who follow it (Look at Hillsborough.) which is what the media love to do. And the journalists can do it in this case without falling foul of their employers. As a result, it's more of an attack on City than on anyone from Abu Dhabi. It's better that way. So not really brave or edgy work by the writer. The opposite in a way.
 
So if I've read this correctly - Mansour is like a Bond Villain stroking his cat whilst taking over the world whilst everyone admires the brilliance of Spanish Dave & Ginger Kev.

Fcking awesome !

Did the article mention muffin or barm?
 
It doesn't read as a serious expose, rather a bit of rant comprised of some questionable leaps. That's a shame for him as this will no doubt be his most widely read post.

As I understand it, the UAE wants to increase its links with the West, primarily the US, UK and even Israel (tho quietly). It wants to become a global hub. It also wants powerful allies to help guarantee its existence. I obviously don't like some of the more authoritarian elements of its rule (including the Islamic rules - tho I'm sure those in this blogger's sphere -namely some of the disingenuous twats at The Intercept - would label me an "Islamophobe" for that) but there isn't a lack of reason to some of it. It is surrounded by threats, whether it be ISIS-style terrorists who could turn their attentions to the UAE at some point or Muslim Brotherhood-style agitators who would push an "arab spring" there if allowed to do so. This is the Middle East. We're not talking about Cornwall here.
The UAE, as a relatively 'moderate' Arab state, has a tricky job to balance the cultural expectation of some form of Islamic law with its anti-Islamist stance.

The best way to promote a move towards better rights in the UAE and elsewhere is to improve trade links. City could help in that regard.

At the end of the day, if the UAE was an island of perfect egalitarian libertarianism would it mean City were a better club? no. It is run however it is run. From what I've seen it is run very well, regardless of whether we're top of the league (and thus subject to piggybacking articles like this one) or messing about trying to secure 3rd/4th.
 
Last edited:
In other words, an article about Abu Dhabi's rulers and the UAE government, but we'll throw in Manchester City because it will get more views and clicks.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.