Are City the only club to have received ‘controversial’ finance?

[Prestwich_Blue]

Fixed.

Knew I could rely on you Christopher.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Louis Edwards was accused of selling meat unfit for human consumption to schools.

I think the case went unproven after his death?

He was scheduled for a crown court trial when he died.

The case was then obviously dropped.

 

[M18CTID]

Simon Hattenstone long ago went down the path of Colin Schindler and David Conn. He’s done nothing but snipe since the takeover. City fan my arse

Hattenstone did nothing but snipe before the takeover too so I wouldn't take anything he says as an attack on the current ownership. He was at it before Thaksin's takeover as well. Get a load of this utter disgrace of an article in the wake of Ben Thatcher's elbow on Pedro Mendes. There are many things in it that are utterly laughable but picking just one of them out, to say that he felt nothing when we beat Arsenal a few days later - our first win over them in 15 years - because of what Thatcher did tells you all you need to know about his City-supporting credentials (or lack of them):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/aug/30/comment.gdnsport3

 

[goatinho]

Two words - Michael Knighton.

That ended well. That 1989 summer United spent £2.3m on Pallister, £2m on Neil Webb, £1.8m on Paul Ince and some Tiger Tokens on Danny Wallace on the strength of that crook taking over.

Whenever United fans bring up our owners' debate just remind them of the time the Stretford Bell Ends cheered and clapped as Knighton came out all full kit wanker and did keepy uppies for their delight.

where did knighton get his money from? id forgotten all about him!

 

[Magicpole]

I would love to be in a position that my teams detractors could point at what they saw as, morally questionable big bags of cash, and I would say to them, what you should say to yours.

Go fuck yourselves.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Hattenstone did nothing but snipe before the takeover too so I wouldn't take anything he says as an attack on the current ownership. He was at it before Thaksin's takeover as well. Get a load of this utter disgrace of an article in the wake of Ben Thatcher's elbow on Pedro Mendes. There are many things in it that are utterly laughable but picking just one of them out, to say that he felt nothing when we beat Arsenal a few days later - our first win over them in 15 years - because of what Thatcher did tells you all you need to know about his City-supporting credentials (or lack of them):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/aug/30/comment.gdnsport3

There’s loads of ‘em mate.....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/jan/16/manchestercity-kaka

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/11/manchestercity.premierleague

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/feb/22/manchester-city-fa-cup-team-selection-chelsea

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

He was scheduled for a crown court trial when he died. The case was then obviously dropped.

The story of the Edwards family is an interesting one. Martin is now a very wealthy individual following the sale to the Glazers but it wasn't always so. The story of how Louis wormed his way into United involves some luck and a lot of dodgy dealing.

His association started in the early 1950's when his business was doing well and he had plenty of money in his pocket. He became close to Busby and many of the other key figures around the club but wasn't a director. But in the week leading up to the Munich disaster, he had two strokes of luck. The first was when a board member called Whittaker died in his sleep the night before their last league match before going to Belgrade. The obvious candidate to replace him on the board was a man called Willie Satinoff. My uncle was a director at the Satinoff family firm, Alligator Rainwear, so we knew the family well. Unfortunately Willie was on the plane at Munich and died in the crash so the board invited Edwards to join them.

He started with just a few shares but when he floated the meat business on the stock market in the early 1960's he began a process of quietly buying up more shares with his newly acquired wealth. The other directors eventually got a bit concerned that too much control could be gathered in a single pair of hands and put together an agreement that the three main directors - Edwards, Harold Hardman & Alan Gibson - wouldn't buy any more shares. Despite agreeing to this, Edwards carried on, getting associates to secretly buy up small shareholdings for him until he had acquired over 50%. This involved falsifying share register entries of course as although it was his money that had bought these shares, he couldn't be seen as the owner.

The 1960's were a great time for United but in the following decade their fortunes declined, as did Edwards', with his business doing poorly. At the time, there were FA rules about dividends which limited the amount per share that could be paid. I think it was 2 old pence per share. That was no problem to Edwards as he arranged a rights issue of 208 shares for each one currently held. This had two benefits to him; the first was that he could now pay himself two hundred times as much via dividends and it also allowed him to buy up more shares on top of the ones he was entitled to, giving him the vast majority of the shares. Martin also got "invited" to join the board, despite him not even being a big football fan. He had to borrow hundreds of thousands of pounds to take up the rights issue but he could then be a paid director.

By the end of the 1970's the business was in trouble and the World In Action programme that revealed his alleged venality caused it to collapse completely, followed by Edwards' death in 1980. Martin then became the effective owner and was allegedly cash poor, with a significant overdraft. Over the next few years he tried to sell the club, first to Robert Maxwell then to Michael Knighton. Eventually they floated on the stock market, which certainly enriched Edwards but probably did little for United's finances. There was a final attempt to sell the club in 1998, involving Sky, but that wasn't carried through, possibly due to the threat of an investigation about conflict of interests. Finally dear old Uncle Malc and his boys came along in 2005 and Edwards made a further pile.

 

[mayo31]

Who cares, I certainly do not and I guarantee on our way to Wolves tomorrow and in the pub / ground it will not be of concern to many there.

Let them jibber jabber all they want. I like the fact it gets supposed grown adults all in a state that they feel the need to go on social media and in effect cry.

Every last one of them given the opportunity we have would go bat shit crazy if their club refused based on 'moral' grounds

 

[berryblue]

where did knighton get his money from? id forgotten all about him!

He didn't have the money. Was borrowing from the banks but they pulled out.

 

[Jack Hackett]

I would question the premise of the opening post.

I disagree with the notion of 'morally questionable'. I think it's a meaningless concept. All that matters is whether the funding is legal or not.

All else is neither here nor there.

 

[inchy14]

Hattenstone did nothing but snipe before the takeover too so I wouldn't take anything he says as an attack on the current ownership. He was at it before Thaksin's takeover as well. Get a load of this utter disgrace of an article in the wake of Ben Thatcher's elbow on Pedro Mendes. There are many things in it that are utterly laughable but picking just one of them out, to say that he felt nothing when we beat Arsenal a few days later - our first win over them in 15 years - because of what Thatcher did tells you all you need to know about his City-supporting credentials (or lack of them):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/aug/30/comment.gdnsport3

There’s loads of ‘em mate.....

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2009/jan/16/manchestercity-kaka

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/jun/11/manchestercity.premierleague

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/feb/22/manchester-city-fa-cup-team-selection-chelsea

Reminds me why i don't read the Guardian.

What a first class wanker.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Is Sheikh Mansour really our owner? Have the UAE used him as a face as he was more of a squeaky clean character than the rest of them?

There are open videos on YouTube showing torture methods by a Sheikh and the Police from UAE but does that really have anything to do with Manchester City Football Club?

Louis Edwards sold poisonous meat to schools and in direct association bought players and paid wages with that money.

We are told though that City’s money originally came from ADUG who did not earn money from abuses to fund City. That’s where the dullards can’t reason properly because they associate ADUG’s money with human rights abuses when the two or not linked.

However I’m sure the “links” will be long forgotten once the UAE get their investment into Liverpool (which will happen at some point whether by just % investments or a whole takeover).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...iled-world-record-2bn-takeover-Liverpool.html

 

[denislawsbackheel]

The scum are owned by Yanks

citizens of a country that waterboards, executes by electrocution, gas and poison and that is ruled by an insane megalomaniac.

As are the dippers.

Chelski is owned by a Russian mafia gangster.

Fuck em all.

 

[SilverFox2]

The scum are owned by Yanks

citizens of a country that waterboards, executes by electrocution, gas and poison and that is ruled by an insane megalomaniac.

As are the dippers.

Chelski is owned by a Russian mafia gangster.

Fuck em all.

The Chelsea link includes direct protected links to Russia's Mr Putin.

 

[mccity]

Is Sheikh Mansour really our owner? Have the UAE used him as a face as he was more of a squeaky clean character than the rest of them?

There are open videos on YouTube showing torture methods by a Sheikh and the Police from UAE but does that really have anything to do with Manchester City Football Club?

Louis Edwards sold poisonous meat to schools and in direct association bought players and paid wages with that money.

We are told though that City’s money originally came from ADUG who did not earn money from abuses to fund City. That’s where the dullards can’t reason properly because they associate ADUG’s money with human rights abuses when the two or not linked.

However I’m sure the “links” will be long forgotten once the UAE get their investment into Liverpool (which will happen at some point whether by just % investments or a whole takeover).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...iled-world-record-2bn-takeover-Liverpool.html

You know, all these years and I've never thought about that. Good point

 

[crazyg]

The scum are owned by Yanks

citizens of a country that waterboards, executes by electrocution, gas and poison and that is ruled by an insane megalomaniac.

As are the dippers.

Chelski is owned by a Russian mafia gangster.

Fuck em all.

Ditto Arsenal. But don't mention their shirt/ground sponsors.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The story of the Edwards family is an interesting one. Martin is now a very wealthy individual following the sale to the Glazers but it wasn't always so. The story of how Louis wormed his way into United involves some luck and a lot of dodgy dealing.

His association started in the early 1950's when his business was doing well and he had plenty of money in his pocket. He became close to Busby and many of the other key figures around the club but wasn't a director. But in the week leading up to the Munich disaster, he had two strokes of luck. The first was when a board member called Whittaker died in his sleep the night before their last league match before going to Belgrade. The obvious candidate to replace him on the board was a man called Willie Satinoff. My uncle was a director at the Satinoff family firm, Alligator Rainwear, so we knew the family well. Unfortunately Willie was on the plane at Munich and died in the crash so the board invited Edwards to join them.

He started with just a few shares but when he floated the meat business on the stock market in the early 1960's he began a process of quietly buying up more shares with his newly acquired wealth. The other directors eventually got a bit concerned that too much control could be gathered in a single pair of hands and put together an agreement that the three main directors - Edwards, Harold Hardman & Alan Gibson - wouldn't buy any more shares. Despite agreeing to this, Edwards carried on, getting associates to secretly buy up small shareholdings for him until he had acquired over 50%. This involved falsifying share register entries of course as although it was his money that had bought these shares, he couldn't be seen as the owner.

The 1960's were a great time for United but in the following decade their fortunes declines, as did Edwards', with his business doing poorly. At the time, there were FA rules about dividends which limited the amount per share that could be paid. I think it was 2 old pence per share. That was no problem to Edwards as he arranged a rights issue of 208 shares for each one currently held. This had two benefits to him; the first was that he could now pay himself two hundred times as much via dividends and it also allowed him to buy up more shares on top of the ones he was entitled to, giving him the vast majority of the shares. Martin also got "invited" to join the board, despite him not even being a big football fan. He had to borrow hundreds of thousands of pounds to take up the rights issue but he could then be a paid director.

By the end of the 1970's the business was in trouble and the World In Action programme that revealed his alleged venality caused it to collapse completely, followed by Edwards' death in 1980. Martin then became the effective owner and was allegedly cash poor, with a significant overdraft. Over the next few years he tried to sell the club, first to Robert Maxwell then to Michael Knighton. Eventually they floated on the stock market, which certainly enriched Edwards but probably did little for United's finances. There was a final attempt to sell the club in 1998, involving Sky, but that wasn't carried through, possibly due to the threat of an investigation about conflict of interests. Finally dear old Uncle Malc and his boys came along in 2005 and Edwards made a further pile.

I can provide couple of personal insights into Louis Edwards. Around a decade ago I was acquainted with the owner of a midlands-based, long-established, family-owned commercial butchers that had previously had the meat accounts for many of the councils in Derbyshire and Staffordshire (including the schools, obviously) They lost the most of the business in a very short timeframe to Edwards (I think in the late 60’s) and the strong suspicion (based on circumstantial evidence) was that it had all been secured via a series of bungs (much easier to effectuate by those means back then). The business faltered as a consequence (although not quite terminally) and the father of the guy I knew went on to drink himself to death - which my chap blamed (wrongly or rightly) on Edwards and his MO. He says his dad never got over it.

Another is from my old man. fwiw he’s told me that Edwards had lunch pretty much every day in the French at the Midland Hotel and was known as the best tipper among the waitresses, by some distance. Overly generous tipping is often a sign of a severe egomaniac imo.

 

[BrianW]

I have just been reading a book about the British Empire. In a nutshell, this country has no business preaching to anyone about human rights. You name it, "we've" done it. Or rather, our ruling class have. Under Tory, Liberal and Labour governments.

 

[bobom]

The answer to the question you've asked is pretty clear. Obviously other clubs have. But as a moral statement, that's not much of a conclusion. It doesn't make it better that plenty of other clubs have also received morally dubious investment. It's still broadly dodgy.

Don't get me wrong, I love our club, and i'd rath erthe club was rich and successful than poor and underperforming. But I'd rather still we were rich and successful and that the money came from another source. There's no looking past that, and it does make me uncomfortable, to be honest.

Whether other clubs are in the same boat is neither here nor there.

 

[BlueAnorak]

where did knighton get his money from? id forgotten all about him!

What money? He was borrowing cash to buy Utd. He could see the future and it nearly came off for him.