UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

[caseball]

I don't know if these people are journalists or bloggers but, whatever they are, their output on this subject does them no favours. They base their positions on several factual inaccuracies, refuse to revise their claims and insult anyone who challenges the claims. But there is a bigger problem than their loose attachment to fact. They have recently shifted the focus of their outrage from City's financial misdeeds to City's association with human rights abuses. Concern for human suffering is praiseworthy but do they really believe that a football team has any influence on an armed conflict or on a country's customs and more sinister ways? What's the point in attaching a football team's name to these problems? It isn't going to ease the pain of starving children, it isn't going to liberate political prisoners, it isn't going to change a country's attitude to homosexuality. So what's the point? What change do they think this approach can bring about in the Middle East? If they succeeded in driving ADUG out of English football, or City fans away from their team, the issues they've raised will still remain. The whole exercise seems pointless. But what damns them in my eyes is their willingness to see the Twitter debate they generate degenerate into name calling by fans of different football teams. Why do the authors participate in the trivialization of the serious issues they claim to be addressing? I can only draw the conclusions that their motives are not honest and that they don't really give a shit about starving children and political prisoners or that they are such insignificant names in their chosen profession that the only way they can get attention is to attach a famous football team's name to their product.

 

[Rolee]

If they succeeded in driving ADUG out of English football, or City fans away from their team, the issues they've raised will still remain

Yep, I made a similar point in the sportswashing thread yesterday, what do they think it would achieve?

 

[Parisian]

I don't know if these people are journalists or bloggers but, whatever they are, their output on this subject does them no favours. They base their positions on several factual inaccuracies, refuse to revise their claims and insult anyone who challenges the claims. But there is a bigger problem than their loose attachment to fact. They have recently shifted the focus of their outrage from City's financial misdeeds to City's association with human rights abuses. Concern for human suffering is praiseworthy but do they really believe that a football team has any influence on an armed conflict or on a country's customs and more sinister ways? So what's the point in attaching a football team's name to these problems? It isn't going to ease the pain of starving children, it isn't going to liberate political prisoners, it isn't going to change a country's attitude to homosexuality. So what's the point? What change do they think this approach can bring about in the Middle East? If they succeeded in driving ADUG out of English football, or City fans away from their team, the issues they've raised will still remain. The whole exercise seems pointless. But what damns them in my eyes is their willingness to see the Twitter debate they generate degenerate into name calling by fans of different football teams. Why do the authors participate in the trivialization of the serious issues they claim to be addressing? I can only draw the conclusions that their motives are not honest and that they don't really give a shit about starving children and political prisoners or that they are such insignificant names in their chosen profession that the only way they can get attention is to attach a famous football team's name to their product.

Can only been taken seriously if they apply those ethics to everyone. Meaning you go after any contract (not only ownership but sponsorship too) coming from those who are involved in "sport washing". That includes UAE and Qatar monarchies but also a lot of other actors. They should also ask for a ban on those kit manufacturers that are doing slave and child labour but aren't being called out.
I'm all for ethics if they are not used for an hidden agenda, here stopping a rival from being too competitive.

 

[mrbelfry]

In defence of the media the issue isn't just that we take money from Abu Dhabi but that we are owned by Abu Dhabi. Sponsorship deals from Emirates etc aren't the same as the clubs are not 'state owned' but we are. It's a subtle difference but for the media a crucial one . We see them the same but the media want to make the distinction

 

[JGL07]

In defence of the media the issue isn't just that we take money from Abu Dhabi but that we are owned by Abu Dhabi. Sponsorship deals from Emirates etc aren't the same as the clubs are not 'state owned' but we are. It's a subtle difference but for the media a crucial one . We see them the same but the media want to make the distinction

City are no more owned by Abu Dhabi than Liverpool are owned by the USA or Leicester are owned by Thailand.

 

[Neville Kneville]

In defence of the media the issue isn't just that we take money from Abu Dhabi but that we are owned by Abu Dhabi. Sponsorship deals from Emirates etc aren't the same as the clubs are not 'state owned' but we are. It's a subtle difference but for the media a crucial one . We see them the same but the media want to make the distinction

The issue for the media is we keep finishing above Utd & Liverpool.

If we didn't, they wouldn't give a flying fuck.

 

[blueparrot]

In defence of the media the issue isn't just that we take money from Abu Dhabi but that we are owned by Abu Dhabi. Sponsorship deals from Emirates etc aren't the same as the clubs are not 'state owned' but we are. It's a subtle difference but for the media a crucial one . We see them the same but the media want to make the distinction

We aren’t owned by Abu Dhabi though. That’s the subtle difference the media ignore.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

In defence of the media the issue isn't just that we take money from Abu Dhabi but that we are owned by Abu Dhabi. Sponsorship deals from Emirates etc aren't the same as the clubs are not 'state owned' but we are. It's a subtle difference but for the media a crucial one . We see them the same but the media want to make the distinction

Sheikh Mansour owns the club not Abu Dhabi.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I must admit, I've been very tempted recently.

If I was on twitter, I’d give it up.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Sheikh Mansour owns the club not Abu Dhabi.

Nope !