La Liga official complaint about City

[bobbyowenquiff]

And the source of the Glazers wealth? Oil company cashed in by the old man.

And this point is so rarely mentioned. The Glazers built their fortune on a Texas-based oil company. Apparently US oil money is not "dirty oil money."

 

[SWP's back]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

Good work Colin

 

[halfcenturyup]

We have to stop going down this road.

You think like a Brit because you are a Brit, the distinction you make doesn't hold up.

We need to to tell our detractors to fuck off, it is for the Emirati's to decide their future, not for us to lecture them with a left wing version of the "White Man's Burden".

And Tabas can fuck off as well, our owners play by the rules, we're just better at it than that corrupt old fucker.

I disagree with so much of the last couple of posts. But on this one, I think @Psychedelic Casual described the situation very well, and that is exactly the road we should be going down.

If the ownership issue gets to court one way or another, we won't get very far telling the court it's for the Emiratis to decide their future. We will stand or fall on clear cut legal issues, UK or European.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I get your point. If City was owned by the sovereign wealth fund the connection with the state would be undeniable. Sovereign wealth funds think strategically, they look to the far horizon and beyond, with the overriding goal of securing the future prosperity of the country once the oil runs dry, that might well have a political as well as economic angle to it, increasing the UAE's soft power might well be one of its aims.

City is not owned by the sovereign wealth fund, it is owned in a private capacity by the Sheikh and Khaldoon runs it in a way indistinguishable from any large investment company, but the Sheikh is the Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE and that cannot be easily brushed aside.

Think on this, Abramovich has had Chelsea snatched away from him not because he ran Chelsea in to the ground, not because of the ownership model, or the behaviour of the parent company, not because as Chelsea owner he did anything illegal, or broke any football governing rules, but because of what he is, a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin.

The origin of his wealth is why he no longer owns Chelsea.

So what is the origin of Sheikh Mansour's wealth?

Even that doofus Simon Jordan made the connection today....



Of course the Sheikh can own any number of things in a personal capacity, but the origin of his wealth and therefore everything he owns, together with the political status he enjoys, is entirely down to his membership of the royal family, the most powerful family in a federation of absolute monarchies.

Like so much of this debate battle lines get drawn and nuance is lost. The UAE is the most liberal of the Gulf States, unlike Saudi there are no religious police. There may not be much political freedom but unlike Saudi there is a great deal of social and economic freedom. The UAE is the destination of choice for guest workers from all over the world and every year it is voted by Arabs as the most desirable place in the Arab world to live.

City is not a sports washing exercise, if it was the Sheikh would have bought a big name sports franchise in the States, besides the UAE has nothing to wash. Universal human rights are nothing of the sort, there's nothing universal about them, only about 20% of the world live in countries you could call liberal democracies, of the 80% the UAE lies pretty near the top of the best of the rest.

The Guardian might scream human rights but it's just a handy tool for them to further an agenda, they protest too much, they know what it's really like in the UAE. As for Tabas we're taking what he believes is rightly his and he doesn't like it, it's football politics with more than a whiff of entitlement and corruption.

Your post got me really thinking.
Why do many people who follow football have a problem with our ownership and how does that ownership differ in material ways from that of clubs that do things ‘the right way’?

it follows that an owner of a premier league club has to be relatively wealthy. So is the source of that owners wealth an important factor?
Obramovich wealth came from his relationship with Putin (allegedly). Sheik Mansour wealth has come from him being a member of the Royal family who’s wealth has been built through the country’s natural resources and subsequent economic diversification. So what? What is the problem with that? Why would that make him anything other than a fit and proper owner of a football team with the means to sustain any Investment?

So what is the problem? Human Rights? Or is it simply down to inherent racism?

lots Of questions I cannot answer. I just wish it could be debated properly and openly with those that seek to run us down which is the best chance of stopping the criticism.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

As usual PB's analysis of City's ownership is fascinating and far more informative than anything we'll read elsewhere. Two of the "charges" made against City are that they are state "owned" and state "backed", in particular by Snr Tebas. Am I right in thinking that this is simply an attempt to raise fury against us for something we haven't done and which is in no way prohibited? What would be against the rules (not the law?) would be state finance, which is another of Tebas's claims, and he would be forced to prove that City are in receipt of funds from revenue streams which are not permitted and come directly from the state. His argument that City are in continuous breach of FFPR would require some proof at least of such finance but am I right that such proof could only come from our accounts, the most analysed accounts in sport? The accounts will be gone over with a fine tooth comb again this summer and again will be found, rightly, to be a full and accurate record of our financial position. In which case hostile elements will rely on finding the trail of £150 million that scousers are convinced was paid to Erling's agent! This would seem rather too tall an order for UEFA and Snr Tebas?

 

[malg]

And this point is so rarely mentioned. The Glazers built their fortune on a Texas-based oil company. Apparently US oil money is not "dirty oil money."

That's white oil money though.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I disagree with so much of the last couple of posts. But on this one, I think @Psychedelic Casual described the situation very well, and that is exactly the road we should be going down.

If the ownership issue gets to court one way or another, we won't get very far telling the court it's for the Emiratis to decide their future. We will stand or fall on clear cut legal issues, UK or European.

There are distinct rules regarding ownership and we comply with them, that is a fact, the leaked emails said we did not and CAS said that's bullshit and exonerated us.

What Tabas is doing looks like this....

But it's not the ramblings of a corrupt old fool, but another move in his political game.

He has nothing on City, he knows that, even the Spanish press know it. Screaming something must be up is not a strong case, it will never get to court coz there is nothing to take to court. If there is then we're in trouble, but I doubt that very much.

What Tabas is really doing is screaming at City and PSG in order to justify the European Super League. To counter the argument that the ESL is a cartel stitch up that would decimate national leagues, by rebranding it as their saviour! Because the ESL is the only effective counter to the dirty oil clubs. The ESL is not the fans enemy! It's our friend! Its only mission is to save the true spirit of football!

In other words it's politics.

 

[DrBlueBob]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

Brilliant. However, the pedant in me has to point out that we have gone from 99.2% to 101% ownership!

 

[DrBlueBob]

no bother. Only mentioned it as some other pedantic arsehole just like me would have clocked it.

I was late to the party but I spotted it.

 

[mrbelfry]

As usual PB's analysis of City's ownership is fascinating and far more informative than anything we'll read elsewhere. Two of the "charges" made against City are that they are state "owned" and state "backed", in particular by Snr Tebas. Am I right in thinking that this is simply an attempt to raise fury against us for something we haven't done and which is in no way prohibited? What would be against the rules (not the law?) would be state finance, which is another of Tebas's claims, and he would be forced to prove that City are in receipt of funds from revenue streams which are not permitted and come directly from the state. His argument that City are in continuous breach of FFPR would require some proof at least of such finance but am I right that such proof could only come from our accounts, the most analysed accounts in sport? The accounts will be gone over with a fine tooth comb again this summer and again will be found, rightly, to be a full and accurate record of our financial position. In which case hostile elements will rely on finding the trail of £150 million that scousers are convinced was paid to Erling's agent! This would seem rather too tall an order for UEFA and Snr Tebas?

Wasn't it UEFAs position that in the CAS case they weren't relying on Der Spiegel stories but on documents we ourselves provided (ie accounts or such)?