La Liga official complaint about City

The monarch convokes and dissolves parliament. Nobody else has authority to do that. It has been a convention since the 19th century that the monarch performs these duties without demurral, but it is exactly that: a convention. It is absolutely true that the monarchy has evolved into a constitutional one, but it is still part of the state, not a free-floating institution. Buckingham Palace, like Balmoral, belongs to the state. Not to Elizabeth II.
 
As you know the Sheikh is vice chairman of Mubadala Investment Group, the Emirati State-owned sovereign wealth fund, he did not buy City with funds from this group. Instead he bought City as owner of the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), an investment company for the Abu Dhabi royal family.
I don't believe that is correct. ADUG, now Newton Investments, is a private company owned 100% by Sheikh Mansour. As far as I'm aware it was a vehicle specifically set up to purchase City and manage all subsequent investments in the area. It's not a sovereign wealth fund or private vehicle for the Abu Dhabi royal family.

It's always maintained that it's completely separate from the state. Der Spiegel tried to create a link between ADUG and the state by saying that state monies were paid to ADUG for sponsorships but we know the truth, which is that state central funds were paid to Etihad.

Your point about constitutional and absolute monarchies isn't relevant, as both sets of monarchs, and their families, own personal property. It's not the property of the state regardless of the type of monarchy.
 
Last edited:
The monarch convokes and dissolves parliament. Nobody else has authority to do that. It has been a convention since the 19th century that the monarch performs these duties without demurral, but it is exactly that: a convention. It is absolutely true that the monarchy has evolved into a constitutional one, but it is still part of the state, not a free-floating institution. Buckingham Palace, like Balmoral, belongs to the state. Not to Elizabeth II.
As we've seen in recent stories, the Queen can and does influence legislation behind the scenes.
 
Excellent.

The ubiquitous use of "state owned" grinds my gears and I totally applaud the intent behind this.

As an aside, you have previously said we are "effectively" state owned and I've run with this on here as well following your lead.

Do you still stand by "effectively state owned"? Or do you have another more suited expression to describe the relationship with Abu Dhabi such as "state funded"?
This is an interesting one. I've changed my view on this slightly. The presence of people like Khaldoon Al Mubarak and Simon Pearce, who are key people in Abu Dhabi, suggests that there is a state element to our ownership (but not necessarily state ownership).

What changed my mind was that, if buying City was a state enterprise, why on earth was Sulaiman Al Fahim the front man? Why would you put a chancer like that in charge of a project supposedly designed to project a positive image of your country? I do think he could have been a mate of Sheikh Mansour's though, which would explain it.

My belief therefore is that this genuinely was a private investment, but that the Abu Dhabi hierarchy quickly saw the potential for both harm to their image with Al Fahim in charge and potential benefits if done properly. Consequently Sheikh Mansour was told to get rid of Al Fahim before he did lasting damage, while the big boys took over and did things properly.

Garry Cook openly said we were a proxy for Abu Dhabi and I think that's probably the right way to describe it. Or you could say there's a clear dependency between the effective running of City, and our success, and the image of Abu Dhabi.
 
Not entirely accurate. Mansour is one of three deputy pm’s who derive that title from their membership of a body called the Cabinet. Each Emirate has one seat.This body, described as the supreme sovereign body of UAE, does not actually legislate at all but nods thru laws that come before it. These laws are proposed by the Executive Council and already have the ruler‘s approval. The ruler is a member of the cabinet. Mansour is not a member of the Executive Council, which is the governing/ministerial body.
What you've posted is pretty much exactly my point, that the royal family and state are linked in a much more complex way. The UAE website even describes the Cabinet as the executive branch of the government - and while I assume you're suggesting that the Deputy is a less active role, there's no doubt that the royal family have power in the UAE. It's certainly not a democracy where the royals have a simple ceremonial role.

If you went back to an earlier time in this country's history, obviously the royal family and state were once the same thing, and for hundreds of years as our system of government gradually became more complex there would still be a close intertwining of who owns what. THE UAE is still clearly at the stage where what the state owns and what the royal family owns are intertwined.

As I said, I think "state owned" is incorrect, but to compare City's ownership to the Queen's racehorses is wrong, and just gives anyone you're arguing with a very easy out.
 
This is an interesting one. I've changed my view on this slightly. The presence of people like Khaldoon Al Mubarak and Simon Pearce, who are key people in Abu Dhabi, suggests that there is a state element to our ownership (but not necessarily state ownership).

What changed my mind was that, if buying City was a state enterprise, why on earth was Sulaiman Al Fahim the front man? Why would you put a chancer like that in charge of a project supposedly designed to project a positive image of your country? I do think he could have been a mate of Sheikh Mansour's though, which would explain it.

My belief therefore is that this genuinely was a private investment, but that the Abu Dhabi hierarchy quickly saw the potential for both harm to their image with Al Fahim in charge and potential benefits if done properly. Consequently Sheikh Mansour was told to get rid of Al Fahim before he did lasting damage, while the big boys took over and did things properly.

Garry Cook openly said we were a proxy for Abu Dhabi and I think that's probably the right way to describe it. Or you could say there's a clear dependency between the effective running of City, and our success, and the image of Abu Dhabi.
Did Cook say we were a proxy for Abu Dhabi, in those exact words? I have heard him say something along the lines of City owner clearly wanting to promote Abu Dhabi through City. He was always pretty good with words (unless they were City or United :)) so I would be surprised if he used the word proxy.
 
I don't believe that is correct. ADUG, now Newton Investments, is a private company owned 100% by Sheikh Mansour. As far as I'm aware it was a vehicle specifically set up to purchase City and manage all subsequent investments in the area. It's not a sovereign wealth fund or private vehicle for the Abu Dhabi royal family.

It's always maintained that it's completely separate from the state. Der Spiegel tried to create a link between ADUG and the state by saying that state monies were paid to ADUG for sponsorships but we know the truth, which is that state central funds were paid to Etihad.

Your point about constitutional and absolute monarchies isn't relevant, as both sets of monarchs, and their families, own personal property. It's not the property of the state regardless of the type of monarchy.

I really can't help you if you fail to see the difference between our constitutional Monarch's personal wealth and the all encompassing executive, legislative and fiscal power of an absolute monarchy.

As I stated in a subsequent post, the funds to purchase City did not come from the sovereign wealth fund but from ADUG now Newton Investment, but read your post back and you'll see where the dilemma exists.

The Sovereign wealth fund is controlled by the Abu Dhabi royal family on behalf on the citizens of the UAE, but the power to invest these funds does not flow from a popular mandate, the royal family have that power because the UAE is an absolute monarchy.

Sheikh Mansour is a member of that absolute monarchy by dint of blood line, he's the President's brother, and one of the very important governmental roles he has is that he is chairman of the only sovereign wealth fund in the UAE, the Emirates Investment Authority.

As we know the Sheikh did not use the Emirates Investment authority to purchase City, he used ADUG, now Newton Investment, to do that.

Our critics will say, and with some justification, that as the Emirati royal family are the only show in town, with the monopoly of all political power and in control of the real wealth of the nation, oil, the fact that the Sheikh used ADUG and not Mubadala to purchase City is an insignificant contrivance, a fig leaf separation between personal investment and state investment, a separation that does not exist, as the source of that wealth is the same for Newton Investment as it is for Mubdala, It's the same pot, just a different scoop taken by the same man.

This is from the City Website...

CFG is majority owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, with significant minority shareholdings held by Silver Lake (14.54%) and China Media Capital (CMC) Consortium (8.24%). From 23rd September 2008 until December 2015, City Football Group was wholly owned by ADUG, a private investment and development company belonging to His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. From 25 July 2021, CFG’s ultimate parent undertaking is Newton Investment and Development LLC, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and also wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.​


The above won't cut any ice with our detractors, for them it's all the same with sprinkles on top.

My criticism of your letter regarding points of fact is really a complete waste of time. The Guardian, WSC, Tabas and the hateful eight would just laugh in your face were you to present it to them in person. The distinction between sovereign wealth fund money and personnel investment money, when the money comes from the same source, and is controlled by the same man and his extended family, is no real distinction at all and to pretend otherwise makes us look foolish.

We need to stop playing by their rules and adopt an entirely different stance on this.
 

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.