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

[jockblue]

Who owns the Daily Express? Richard Desmond. Who happens to be..... Jewish. Coincidence v Sheikh Mansour, an Arab, and the owner of City.

Yes, coincidence. Shame you spoiled what was a really interesting post.

 

[northendenton]

Yep, a brief research of concentration camps would show why the South African Boers and the Irish both hate the English with a passion.

As a Scot I can't let you English take all the blame as we were up to our sporrans in it also.

 

[Steve68]

Compared to Thaksin the current owners are saints.

Any club with a rich Russian involved is as compromised as anyone.

 

[jrb]

Let yourself down there mate. Other people have made this statement. It’s such a lazy analysis and I always challenge it.

For one thing he sold the Express. For another it’s the insinuation that Jews automatically hate Arabs and that this is a key factor in the way some media outlets treat us. The media is driven by the number of hits each story gets as that drives advertising revenue. And currently we don’t get as many hits as the rags or Liverpool. As an example, look at the Metro online football page. There will be 4 teams prominently highlighted - the aforementioned pair, Arsenal & Chelsea. Spurs get a story usually and we may also get one. It’s also a fact that a story involving the rags will generate far more hits than a similar story involving us, up to ten times as many. Stuart Brennan told me this a while ago after I’d written a KOTK article that he proved to be erroneous.

The media therefore tend to ignore us vis-a-vis the rags and Liverpool not for racist reasons but simply because they’re following the money.

PB.

Apologies for not replying yet. Will do.

I'll try and explain my thinking/post.

I will admit the Daily Express part of my post was very lazy posting. As a rule I try and do a bit of resesrch before I post things. On the Daily Express point I used Wikipedia, which I never do as a rule. It was wrong. So I'll apologise for posting that incorrect information.

But let me state one thing. I'm not anti-Semitic or racist. I have black and asian friends. Admitedly I don't have any jewish friends. But that is down to circumstances.

In my previous job I had to deal with people from different backgrounds, races and religions on a personal level, and on a daily basis, and became friends with all of them, to this day.

 

[better dead than red]

I've had the 'oil money' argument on several occasions with fans of other clubs. Fact is oil is a valuable commodity used by every car owner. There really isn't anything 'morally questionable' about oil - it's just a nonsensical argument used by jealous fans and the media.

Not just petrol is made from oil.

They should stfu is they use;
Heating oil
Asphalt/road oil
Lubricants (wa wa wee wa.;) )
Ink
Floor wax
Bicycle tyres
Shampoo

amongst other products

 

[TerryMadeiraRosyBin]

How anyone purporting to be a City fan can start a thread with this title makes me suspect he/she is not a city fan at all. Also why have the mods let the thread title remain. Why?????.
We all know the hacks read all fan forums. I have been expecting a headline from the 'gutter' press along the lines ' City fans agree their funding is morally questionable'
The handle FAME MONSTER says it all really. Must be very disappointed he has not had the 15 minutes of fame.

 

[gkmcfc]

Let yourself down there mate. Other people have made this statement. It’s such a lazy analysis and I always challenge it.

For one thing he sold the Express. For another it’s the insinuation that Jews automatically hate Arabs and that this is a key factor in the way some media outlets treat us. The media is driven by the number of hits each story gets as that drives advertising revenue. And currently we don’t get as many hits as the rags or Liverpool. As an example, look at the Metro online football page. There will be 4 teams prominently highlighted - the aforementioned pair, Arsenal & Chelsea. Spurs get a story usually and we may also get one. It’s also a fact that a story involving the rags will generate far more hits than a similar story involving us, up to ten times as many. Stuart Brennan told me this a while ago after I’d written a KOTK article that he proved to be erroneous.

The media therefore tend to ignore us vis-a-vis the rags and Liverpool not for racist reasons but simply because they’re following the money.

That will continue to be the case for years to come too. It’s just the way it goes. Our profile is getting bigger but it will literally take decades alongside continued success to get to their level.

 

[gkmcfc]

I find some responses on here disappointing. It can be summed up 'as the world is a bad place, we have bad people running our club but so does everyone else. So what!'
I have worked at a senior level, directly for a Royal Family in the middle east and taken the Royal Penny and had an excellent living in that time. I hope SWP can back me up on some of this. Many of the Royals have had an expensive private education in Britain or America, there are strong liberlising elements within them as a result. They, however have to introduce change in an incremental fashion and their ability to do so fluctuates with the national and international climate (Trump is playing into the hands of those that want to resist change and even radicalise). The religious factions are fighting for control and carry a lot of weight. It all adds upto a careful balancing act. The fact that City is a leading light in community projects, womens football and embraces LGBT camaigns is no coincidence. It raise uncomfortable questions in the Arab states, ones which our owners seem happy to have raised in their club. I do care about equalities and would not want to live or visit most middle east countries if i were gay or trans. Football, however is equally backward in these aspects. No opennly gay footballers. What does that say about the culture in ALL football clubs. The treatment of political disadents is equally an issue. Hope no one has been on holiday in Spain recently, or Turkey or Amerca etc... That is a real issue we cannot avoid about our owners but as others have pointed out we live in a global economy and all consume gas, oil, petrol from similar places. So, when asked if we have dirty money, ask the others if they believe sport is a power for good, change and breaking down barriers? I believe it can be.

Wholeheartedly agree. Look at the power vacuum created by regime change in other Arabian countries. Waiting in the wings are various religious clerics intent on implementing their version of a religion and creating a far worse situation. I’ve seen articles about workers rights, treatment of prisoners and so on, but who are we as a country to pontificate about things like that from our own glass house? It takes time for countries to evolve and in Abu Dhabi we’ve seen unprecedented growth particularly for tourism, sport, but also for business and property and so on. In time as the population develops things will change. We know unsavoury things go on, on our own doorstep, and indeed in the name of our country overseas.
The money City and the wider Manchester area has received is legitimate regardless of how people perceive the regime in Abu Dhabi and until such time that changes will remain so.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The question should be has any other club that have owners that hove done SOOOOO much for the community they are in!! But we're talking about this.....

The press have done their job well on City, it's almost become a toxic brand. It's criminal how the big clickbait teams have this media support for their businesses, it helps them soooo much, and makes it so much harder for our owners.

 

[Marvin]

Let yourself down there mate. Other people have made this statement. It’s such a lazy analysis and I always challenge it.

For one thing he sold the Express. For another it’s the insinuation that Jews automatically hate Arabs and that this is a key factor in the way some media outlets treat us. The media is driven by the number of hits each story gets as that drives advertising revenue. And currently we don’t get as many hits as the rags or Liverpool. As an example, look at the Metro online football page. There will be 4 teams prominently highlighted - the aforementioned pair, Arsenal & Chelsea. Spurs get a story usually and we may also get one. It’s also a fact that a story involving the rags will generate far more hits than a similar story involving us, up to ten times as many. Stuart Brennan told me this a while ago after I’d written a KOTK article that he proved to be erroneous.

The media therefore tend to ignore us vis-a-vis the rags and Liverpool not for racist reasons but simply because they’re following the money.

I agree about the motivation, but I think Stu Brennan's information must be very dated.

I read the Guardian Football now. Utd, Liverpool and City are by far the most popular clubs. Typically a Man Utd match report will attract a 1,000 comments and a City match report about 700 and a large number of the Utd hits/comments are from Liverpool and City fans delighting in their demise. I think we underestimate how popular City have become, and how quickly new allegiances are formed. Whether those allegiances mean much in terms of going to the match I doubt, but in terms of the media it probably does, but I doubt the newspaper industry is adept enough to follow the trends in their audience.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I find some responses on here disappointing. It can be summed up 'as the world is a bad place, we have bad people running our club but so does everyone else. So what!'
I have worked at a senior level, directly for a Royal Family in the middle east and taken the Royal Penny and had an excellent living in that time. I hope SWP can back me up on some of this. Many of the Royals have had an expensive private education in Britain or America, there are strong liberlising elements within them as a result. They, however have to introduce change in an incremental fashion and their ability to do so fluctuates with the national and international climate (Trump is playing into the hands of those that want to resist change and even radicalise). The religious factions are fighting for control and carry a lot of weight. It all adds upto a careful balancing act. The fact that City is a leading light in community projects, womens football and embraces LGBT camaigns is no coincidence. It raise uncomfortable questions in the Arab states, ones which our owners seem happy to have raised in their club. I do care about equalities and would not want to live or visit most middle east countries if i were gay or trans. Football, however is equally backward in these aspects. No opennly gay footballers. What does that say about the culture in ALL football clubs. The treatment of political disadents is equally an issue. Hope no one has been on holiday in Spain recently, or Turkey or Amerca etc... That is a real issue we cannot avoid about our owners but as others have pointed out we live in a global economy and all consume gas, oil, petrol from similar places. So, when asked if we have dirty money, ask the others if they believe sport is a power for good, change and breaking down barriers? I believe it can be.

Just seen this post. Fantastic.

One of the points I made in a KOTK piece I did was that it took us from Magna Carta in 1215, via the 1689 Bill of Rights, to the 1928 Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act to establish the supremacy of an elected body and for everyone to get the vote. That's over 700 years yet people expect places like the UAE to change overnight.

Plus, as you say, there are religious and cultural norms in the Middle East that we can't overlook and will take a very long time to change, if they ever do.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I agree about the motivation, but I think Stu Brennan's information must be very dated.

It was last year Marvin. Like it or not the likes of the rags and Liverpool still attract far more attention than we do.

 

[Marvin]

It was last year Marvin. Like it or not the likes of the rags and Liverpool still attract far more attention than we do.

Guardian Match Reports
Wolves v City: 929 comments. Utd v Spurs: 3,078.

That's 1:3. But that's not typical because Utd played Spurs - a popular club, and it was the only game on a Monday night. Typically using the comments as a metric it's about 2 City to 3 Utd.

In summary, I agree they attract more interest, but it's changing rapidly and nowhere near the extent to which Stu Brennan suggested to you. That perhaps was the case 5 years or so ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/aug/25/wolves-manchester-city-premier-league-match-report

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...tottenham-hotspur-premier-league-match-report

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Guardian Match Reports
Wolves v City: 929 comments. Utd v Spurs: 3,078.

That's 1:3. But that's not typical because Utd played Spurs - a popular club, and it was the only game on a Monday night. Typically using the comments as a metric it's about 2 City to 3 Utd.

In summary, I agree they attract more interest, but it's changing rapidly and nowhere near the extent to which Stu Brennan suggested to you. That perhaps was the case 5 years or so ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/aug/25/wolves-manchester-city-premier-league-match-report

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...tottenham-hotspur-premier-league-match-report

You can't look at a small subset of the population & claim a definitive trend. Stuart and me had this discussion last year & Ric also was involved in confirming what Stuart told me iirc. I agree things are changing, particularly in the USA but I have to assume that a large national & regional newspaper group like Trinity Mirror knows its audiences.

 

[Rolee]

Guardian Match Reports
Wolves v City: 929 comments. Utd v Spurs: 3,078.

That's 1:3. But that's not typical because Utd played Spurs - a popular club, and it was the only game on a Monday night. Typically using the comments as a metric it's about 2 City to 3 Utd.

In summary, I agree they attract more interest, but it's changing rapidly and nowhere near the extent to which Stu Brennan suggested to you. That perhaps was the case 5 years or so ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/aug/25/wolves-manchester-city-premier-league-match-report

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...tottenham-hotspur-premier-league-match-report

I guess it depends on where you're looking Marvin. The red tops still try to shoehorn Liverpool or U****d in to every headline possible, for example


'Liverpool are third with Manchester United FIFTH as new Premier League top 10 for IGTV is revealed'

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-third-manchester-united-fifth-13156104

 

[Marvin]

You can't look at a small subset of the population & claim a definitive trend. Stuart and me had this discussion last year & Ric also was involved in confirming what Stuart told me iirc. I agree things are changing, particularly in the USA but I have to assume that a large national & regional newspaper group like Trinity Mirror knows its audiences.

I believe habits and data have changed dramatically.

I just googled Manchester City v Newcastle United Guardian Match reports and found this from 2010.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/03/manchester-city-newcastle-united-premier-league

132 comments. I guarantee that the City v Newcastle game on Saturday will get 5 times the number of comments (even though it's the last game on the Saturday).

This is not entirely scientific but it's a good guide. Too make it more accurate I would have to look at a United match report from the same season and see how it compared, but I am fairly sure in my own mind that interest in City online has surged in last few years so that whilst Utd are still the no. 1 supported club the gap is coming down dramatically. I remember seeing some data from a Digital Trends Survey of social media drawn from across the globe which supports that interpretation. The three most popular English clubs were United, Liverpool and City with City particularly popular in China.

 

[Manchester33]

When you think about it, pretty much everything, everyone does in Britain is morally questionable.

You get up and make breakfast using battery farmed eggs. Drive to work in a car which runs on petrol (funding the middle east) and is built using metal that's bought at significantly reduced rates from poor African countries. The clothes you're wearing have been made by an 8 year old child in India. The electricity keeping the lights on is coal fueled, polluting our atmosphere. We all use gambling apps, these companies manipulate addiction and ruin lives. We throw out gone-off food when there are families a few miles away queuing up at the food bank. We all use social media that's damaging mental health in young people and leading to more suicides then ever before. People are still sexist, racist, homophobic. We eat fast food which is bad for ourselves. We take drugs and drink alcohol. We go on nice holidays or take a gap year when there are children in Africa who're starving to death.

But yeah, HHSM must be especially bad for your whiter than white, stone throwing, glass house smashing football fan who was probably stood on the Kop throwing bananas at black players in the 1980's (before oil money ruined football).

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I believe habits and data have changed dramatically.

I just googled Manchester City v Newcastle United Guardian Match reports and found this from 2010.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/oct/03/manchester-city-newcastle-united-premier-league

132 comments. I guarantee that the City v Newcastle game on Saturday will get 5 times the number of comments (even though it's the last game on the Saturday).

This is not entirely scientific but it's a good guide. Too make it more accurate I would have to look at a United match report from the same season and see how it compared, but I am fairly sure in my own mind that interest in City online has surged in last few years so that whilst Utd are still the no. 1 supported club the gap is coming down dramatically. I remember seeing some data from a Digital Trends Survey of social media drawn from across the globe which supports that interpretation. The three most popular English clubs were United, Liverpool and City with City particularly popular in China.

Things are certainly moving in the right direction so you have a point. As an example, I've just googled "Manchester United" and got about 175m search results. I did the same using "Manchester City" and got 80m results. That latter number would probably have been a lot less a few years ago. SEO's measure these things much more scientifically and the story is that they are still significantly more popular than us but that might not be quite so true in 5 or 10 years.

 

[Marvin]

How many times have we heard the argument that Man City are an oil-club? The argument pre-supposes that City are owned by the U.A.E when in fact the owner is Sheikh Mansour and China Media Capital but taking the argument on its own terms I thought I would check.

Oil and gas represents 16.7% of UAE GDP as at 2016. Source: http://www.economy.ae/EconomicalReportsEn/MOE Annual Report 2017_English.pdf

Both the US and Russia each produce around 3 times as much oil as the UAE. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

 

[shemnel]

i think the 'oil' comments are a little misguided to the current situation in UAE, which has a diversified market (with a healthy share of oil/gas production), but the enormous growth of the the Al Nahyan family's wealth throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s was indeed largely down to oil production, and a lot of that wealth still exists today through investment.