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

[Marvin]

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.

Western oil companies were major beneficiaries. It was not until the 1970s that Arab National Oil companies were established.

 

[shemnel]

Western oil companies were major beneficiaries. It was not until the 1970s that Arab National Oil companies were established.

yup, no doubting that. But the Royal Family of the UAE has a historic wealth source from natural resources. The way it is.

 

[SilverFox2]

yup, no doubting that. But the Royal Family of the UAE has a historic wealth source from natural resources. The way it is.

Presumably the investment in City brings profit to our owner to join the majority of non oil related wealth ?

 

[gkmcfc]

Might have been said earlier in the thread, but the wealth is hardly from the proceeds of crime or questionable privatisation of a countries assets. There is no legal question surrounding the generation of wealth in my view. In terms of the extent of financial backing, no rules were broken there until Uefa, shit scared of an emerging unstoppable financial powerhouse, invented Financial Fair Play.

 

[cheekybids]

Ask people what emirates make up the UAE & you tend to hear bollox like Bahrain, Qatar etc but they are experts on the Middle East & human rights. I don’t want to make light of it but I’ve travelled & although that isn’t a window to human rights issues, I want to know what they are, the media say “the human rights” without ever giving a single incident so what are the issues?



The issues I can see is capital punishment & homosexuality being illegal but I’m sure in time they will change & our owners have embraced & supported LGBTQ community at City. It’s a powder keg over in the Middle East & you’ve only got to look at history to see the country’s that displayed a liberal attitude ended up in carnage. Think Persia, Beiruit, Afghanistan before civil wars.



Worth noting that Homosexuality was illegal until 1967 & hanging was 1969 in UK, remind me again when did Rags & Dippers get their investment.



On another note when I was last in Abu Dhabi it was front page headlines about workers rights & how they were trying to make sure migrants know their rights & a story criticising someone for complaining that their Pilipino maid has been given rights.

 

[Jazzman]

Ask people what emirates make up the UAE & you tend to hear bollox like Bahrain, Qatar etc but they are experts on the Middle East & human rights. I don’t want to make light of it but I’ve travelled & although that isn’t a window to human rights issues, I want to know what they are, the media say “the human rights” without ever giving a single incident so what are the issues?



The issues I can see is capital punishment & homosexuality being illegal but I’m sure in time they will change & our owners have embraced & supported LGBTQ community at City. It’s a powder keg over in the Middle East & you’ve only got to look at history to see the country’s that displayed a liberal attitude ended up in carnage. Think Persia, Beiruit, Afghanistan before civil wars.



Worth noting that Homosexuality was illegal until 1967 & hanging was 1969 in UK, remind me again when did Rags & Dippers get their investment.



On another note when I was last in Abu Dhabi it was front page headlines about workers rights & how they were trying to make sure migrants know their rights & a story criticising someone for complaining that their Pilipino maid has been given rights.

Here in Germany Homosexuality was legalized in 1994 only!

 

[cheekybids]

Here in Germany Homosexuality was legalized in 1994 only!

Well I’m in Australia now & I’m pretty sure you could find plenty of Human rights issues current & in the past but I love it & I don’t think anywhere else is better, but it ain’t without faults.

 

[shemnel]

Presumably the investment in City brings profit to our owner to join the majority of non oil related wealth ?

yeah, City's profits are pretty meaningless to their personal wealth. Consider:

MCFC profits between £10m and £30m for years 14/15, 15/16 & 16/17.
Sheik Mansour profits for his part in 2008 bailout of Barclays (profit in 2010): £2.5bn

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Here in Germany Homosexuality was legalized in 1994 only!

here in Ireland it became compulsary last year.
we had a referendum about it and I think it's like national service in other countries, we have to do a two year stint.

Don't knock it 'til you try it.

Seriously, the human rights argument in this day and age of global sponsorship in football, is not only a red herring but I think it cheapens the real issues by making it tribal oneupmanship.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

yeah, City's profits are pretty meaningless to their personal wealth. Consider:

MCFC profits between £10m and £30m for years 14/15, 15/16 & 16/17.
Sheik Mansour profits for his part in 2008 bailout of Barclays (profit in 2010): £2.5bn

The Sheik makes plenty of profit on his non football related investments in Manchester and has trebled the value of his initial outlay on the club. The oft-repeated claim that he is a "sugar daddy" is absurd. He's doing pretty well.

 

[Metalartin]

Tifo has done another video on City, with another bait-like Anti-City title(much like "Are City the dirtiest PL team?" which I pulled them up on and got them to change). Much like that video the actual video content is a lot more balanced than the title they gave it suggests. Shame really because they make good videos, with well researched data but they are clearly lowering themselves to click baiting and choosing subjects to pander to a certain demographic(City hating boneheads).



I've replied again(couldn't help myself, thank god I don't have a twitter account) and suggested some revisions such as UEFA's amendments to the rules after City had already submitted their accounts in accordance to the original rules. Also suggested they've overlooked that broadcasting views have a greater importance to a sponsor than shirt sales(that's what the kitmaker deal is all about, where City has been shafted the most and where the next revenue boost will hopefully come from) world class, record breaking, title winning players beamed to millions(and millions) of homes wearing the sponsors name vs porky united shirt wearing rags with their arses hanging out the back of their trousers? Which image do they think the shirt sponsors want? They could have offered a full breakdown of what sponsorship revenue other clubs are getting, which may suggest our current deal is possibly still undervalued. Do we even have confirmation how much the renegotiated deal is worth? We could do a United and invent new things to sponsor "short sponsor", "sock sponsor".

Worth a watch anyway, it even has some digs at UEFA in it but we know Rags and Dippers will cover their ears for those bits.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Has any other club managed to regenerate a whole area of a city as much as our owners?

 

[shemnel]

Tifo has done another video on City, with another bait-like Anti-City title(much like "Are City the dirtiest PL team?" which I pulled them up on and got them to change). Much like that video the actual video content is a lot more balanced than the title they gave it suggests. Shame really because they make good videos, with well researched data but they are clearly lowering themselves to click baiting and choosing subjects to pander to a certain demographic(City hating boneheads).



I've replied again(couldn't help myself, thank god I don't have a twitter account) and suggested some revisions such as UEFA's amendments to the rules after City had already submitted their accounts in accordance to the original rules. Also suggested they've overlooked that broadcasting views have a greater importance to a sponsor than shirt sales(that's what the kitmaker deal is all about, where City has been shafted the most and where the next revenue boost will hopefully come from) world class, record breaking, title winning players beamed to millions(and millions) of homes wearing the sponsors name vs porky united shirt wearing rags with their arses hanging out the back of their trousers? Which image do they think the shirt sponsors want? They could have offered a full breakdown of what sponsorship revenue other clubs are getting, which may suggest our current deal is possibly still undervalued. Do we even have confirmation how much the renegotiated deal is worth? We could do a United and invent new things to sponsor "short sponsor", "sock sponsor".

Worth a watch anyway, it even has some digs at UEFA in it but we know Rags and Dippers will cover their ears for those bits.

i thought it was a good video

 

[Bluep*ss]

I hope this is the correct thread to post the following.................and If Ernie Whalley is a poster on Bluemoon....I salute you sir........
Many young fans will not have a clue to our history so please read and digest.

Yesterday, I noticed a response to the Q “What’s the difference between Man City and Man United written by an obviously post–1990 American Plastic Rag. I felt compelled to put the lad right on a few matters. Another City fan made perhaps a more telling observation – “City are in Manchester”

What is the difference between Manchester City and Manchester (United)?

Ernie Whalley
Ernie Whalley, lived in Manchester, UK
Answered 8hours ago

Oh dear. While I do not wish to involve myself in a slanging match with a Rag (Manchester United supporter) I fear that he has no knowledge of the ethos, culture or history of either club in the period before 1990 (the year when Manchester United started to commence its domination, taking over from Liverpool as England’s most successful club) and so I feel bound to address the topic. Both clubs were founded, within a couple of miles of each other, in working class areas in east Manchester. United was founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to its current stadium, Old Trafford in 1910. City were actually founded by a woman, Anna Connell, daughter of the Vicar of St.Mark’s church, West Gorton in 1880, as a social project for local youths. The club was originally named St.Mark’s West Gorton, then Ardwick AFC, changing its name to Manchrester City in 1894. City was the first Manchester club to win a trophy, the FA cup in 1905.

Until World War II City were locally regarded as Manchester’s premier club. United went through difficult financial times. On the first occasion City fans held a collection on match day to help prevent United becoming bankrupt and subsequently another collection to buy new kit for their neighbours – it was in this period that United gained their enduring nickname of ‘The Rags’.

Another financial crisis was averted by an investment from James Gibson, a prominent local businessman, a ‘sugar daddy’ if you like. All of which makes the typical United fan’s abuse of City’s owner, Sheikh Mansoor, faintly ridiculous.

Uo to the 1960s, when hooliganism attached itself to football the relationship between the clubs was fairly cordial. When United’s ground was bombed in WW II, City permitted their rivals to use their ground, Maine Road, for home games.

Up to 1990 the clubs competed on a level playing field, both enjoying periods of success and relative failure. United had the better of the 1960s, City the 70s.

United’s global fan base was largely built during the aftermath of the terrible disaster at Munich airport in 1958 when several team members of a very good young side, known as (after the Manager, Matt Busby, curiously an ex-City player) “The Busby Babes” died when their plane crashed. It has to be said that the club milked the public sentiment in a somewhat undignified, though very successful manner.

The 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s belonged to United who amassed trophy after trophy while City, dogged by managerial failure and financial mismanagement, declined. Ten years ago City was acquired by Sheikh Mansoor, head of the Abu Dhabi United Group. The subsequent capital injection sparked a revival, enabling the club to win three Premier League titles in 7 years.

The period from 1990 to date is well documented on the web and it would be tedious to recount it here. Fact is that both are now wealthy clubs, able to compete with the best from Liverpool and London and, on the European stage, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Paris St.Germain.

I would take with a pinch of salt the jibes of Man United supporters concerning City’s ultimate viability. The evidence is that Sheikh Mansoor is in it for the long haul, building up a network of football clubs. The marketing is exemplary – the club is very much in touch with its supporters and their needs. In addition, Mansoor has invested a considerable amount of resources in the formerly run-down environment in the region of the Etihad Stadium. United’s prosperity also deserves scrutiny. Their owners bought the ground with a series of bank loans and are currently milking the club in order to service the debt. A long term fall off in performance could see their global fan base start to dissipate and financial failure result. In history, nothing is permanent, as fans of Blackburn Rovers, far and away the most successful club in football’s early years, will surely tell you.

A word to my fellow responder, David Barnett. I realise you are American and that you have, presumably, elected to choose Man United because they were the most successful club around the time you became interested in football. Mancunians, people hailing from Manchester UK of whom I am one, do not ‘choose’ their football teams. Most, in deciding which team to support (generally around age 8 or 9), are conditioned by their environment, friends and family. I am proud to be the third generation of five generations of Blues (Manchester City supporters).

Lastly, the “greatness” of a football club, my friend, does not depend on mere success. I have buddies who are Liverpool supporters, Arsenal supporters, Burnley supporters, QPR supporters, even Port Vale supporters. Each thinks his/her club is “The Greatest”. And, know what, they are all of them right.

 

[Metalartin]

i thought it was a good video

I did too but it could have been better(the points I raised were valid, granted they churn out a lot of videos and so some facts are missed but that's what edits are for) and there's no excuse for the clickbait title. The content doesn't match the title, they have done this before in a video about the amount of tactical fouls City do, the content itself was balanced and fine but the comments showed people were clearly swayed by the title(in one ear out the other) "yeah man City are cheats" and so on.

I suppose even the United Glazers one from Jan is not really aimed at United fans. Plenty of ammo for those who hate United to use in their twitter wars, maybe that's their angle? It's quite shocking that leveraged buying has got them so far, it shouldn't be legal, you'd think those creating FFP rules would take a good look at that. Then again the worse state the Rags are in the better for everyone else.

 

[levets]

I hope this is the correct thread to post the following.................and If Ernie Whalley is a poster on Bluemoon....I salute you sir........
Many young fans will not have a clue to our history so please read and digest.

Yesterday, I noticed a response to the Q “What’s the difference between Man City and Man United written by an obviously post–1990 American Plastic Rag. I felt compelled to put the lad right on a few matters. Another City fan made perhaps a more telling observation – “City are in Manchester”

What is the difference between Manchester City and Manchester (United)?

Ernie Whalley
Ernie Whalley, lived in Manchester, UK
Answered 8hours ago

Oh dear. While I do not wish to involve myself in a slanging match with a Rag (Manchester United supporter) I fear that he has no knowledge of the ethos, culture or history of either club in the period before 1990 (the year when Manchester United started to commence its domination, taking over from Liverpool as England’s most successful club) and so I feel bound to address the topic. Both clubs were founded, within a couple of miles of each other, in working class areas in east Manchester. United was founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to its current stadium, Old Trafford in 1910. City were actually founded by a woman, Anna Connell, daughter of the Vicar of St.Mark’s church, West Gorton in 1880, as a social project for local youths. The club was originally named St.Mark’s West Gorton, then Ardwick AFC, changing its name to Manchrester City in 1894. City was the first Manchester club to win a trophy, the FA cup in 1905.

Until World War II City were locally regarded as Manchester’s premier club. United went through difficult financial times. On the first occasion City fans held a collection on match day to help prevent United becoming bankrupt and subsequently another collection to buy new kit for their neighbours – it was in this period that United gained their enduring nickname of ‘The Rags’.

Another financial crisis was averted by an investment from James Gibson, a prominent local businessman, a ‘sugar daddy’ if you like. All of which makes the typical United fan’s abuse of City’s owner, Sheikh Mansoor, faintly ridiculous.

Uo to the 1960s, when hooliganism attached itself to football the relationship between the clubs was fairly cordial. When United’s ground was bombed in WW II, City permitted their rivals to use their ground, Maine Road, for home games.

Up to 1990 the clubs competed on a level playing field, both enjoying periods of success and relative failure. United had the better of the 1960s, City the 70s.

United’s global fan base was largely built during the aftermath of the terrible disaster at Munich airport in 1958 when several team members of a very good young side, known as (after the Manager, Matt Busby, curiously an ex-City player) “The Busby Babes” died when their plane crashed. It has to be said that the club milked the public sentiment in a somewhat undignified, though very successful manner.

The 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s belonged to United who amassed trophy after trophy while City, dogged by managerial failure and financial mismanagement, declined. Ten years ago City was acquired by Sheikh Mansoor, head of the Abu Dhabi United Group. The subsequent capital injection sparked a revival, enabling the club to win three Premier League titles in 7 years.

The period from 1990 to date is well documented on the web and it would be tedious to recount it here. Fact is that both are now wealthy clubs, able to compete with the best from Liverpool and London and, on the European stage, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Paris St.Germain.

I would take with a pinch of salt the jibes of Man United supporters concerning City’s ultimate viability. The evidence is that Sheikh Mansoor is in it for the long haul, building up a network of football clubs. The marketing is exemplary – the club is very much in touch with its supporters and their needs. In addition, Mansoor has invested a considerable amount of resources in the formerly run-down environment in the region of the Etihad Stadium. United’s prosperity also deserves scrutiny. Their owners bought the ground with a series of bank loans and are currently milking the club in order to service the debt. A long term fall off in performance could see their global fan base start to dissipate and financial failure result. In history, nothing is permanent, as fans of Blackburn Rovers, far and away the most successful club in football’s early years, will surely tell you.

A word to my fellow responder, David Barnett. I realise you are American and that you have, presumably, elected to choose Man United because they were the most successful club around the time you became interested in football. Mancunians, people hailing from Manchester UK of whom I am one, do not ‘choose’ their football teams. Most, in deciding which team to support (generally around age 8 or 9), are conditioned by their environment, friends and family. I am proud to be the third generation of five generations of Blues (Manchester City supporters).

Lastly, the “greatness” of a football club, my friend, does not depend on mere success. I have buddies who are Liverpool supporters, Arsenal supporters, Burnley supporters, QPR supporters, even Port Vale supporters. Each thinks his/her club is “The Greatest”. And, know what, they are all of them right.

FA cup win was 1904. I’m assuming this is just a typo.

 

[levets]

I hope this is the correct thread to post the following.................and If Ernie Whalley is a poster on Bluemoon....I salute you sir........
Many young fans will not have a clue to our history so please read and digest.

Yesterday, I noticed a response to the Q “What’s the difference between Man City and Man United written by an obviously post–1990 American Plastic Rag. I felt compelled to put the lad right on a few matters. Another City fan made perhaps a more telling observation – “City are in Manchester”

What is the difference between Manchester City and Manchester (United)?

Ernie Whalley
Ernie Whalley, lived in Manchester, UK
Answered 8hours ago

Oh dear. While I do not wish to involve myself in a slanging match with a Rag (Manchester United supporter) I fear that he has no knowledge of the ethos, culture or history of either club in the period before 1990 (the year when Manchester United started to commence its domination, taking over from Liverpool as England’s most successful club) and so I feel bound to address the topic. Both clubs were founded, within a couple of miles of each other, in working class areas in east Manchester. United was founded as Newton Heath LYR Football Club in 1878, changed its name to Manchester United in 1902 and moved to its current stadium, Old Trafford in 1910. City were actually founded by a woman, Anna Connell, daughter of the Vicar of St.Mark’s church, West Gorton in 1880, as a social project for local youths. The club was originally named St.Mark’s West Gorton, then Ardwick AFC, changing its name to Manchrester City in 1894. City was the first Manchester club to win a trophy, the FA cup in 1905.

Until World War II City were locally regarded as Manchester’s premier club. United went through difficult financial times. On the first occasion City fans held a collection on match day to help prevent United becoming bankrupt and subsequently another collection to buy new kit for their neighbours – it was in this period that United gained their enduring nickname of ‘The Rags’.

Another financial crisis was averted by an investment from James Gibson, a prominent local businessman, a ‘sugar daddy’ if you like. All of which makes the typical United fan’s abuse of City’s owner, Sheikh Mansoor, faintly ridiculous.

Uo to the 1960s, when hooliganism attached itself to football the relationship between the clubs was fairly cordial. When United’s ground was bombed in WW II, City permitted their rivals to use their ground, Maine Road, for home games.

Up to 1990 the clubs competed on a level playing field, both enjoying periods of success and relative failure. United had the better of the 1960s, City the 70s.

United’s global fan base was largely built during the aftermath of the terrible disaster at Munich airport in 1958 when several team members of a very good young side, known as (after the Manager, Matt Busby, curiously an ex-City player) “The Busby Babes” died when their plane crashed. It has to be said that the club milked the public sentiment in a somewhat undignified, though very successful manner.

The 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s belonged to United who amassed trophy after trophy while City, dogged by managerial failure and financial mismanagement, declined. Ten years ago City was acquired by Sheikh Mansoor, head of the Abu Dhabi United Group. The subsequent capital injection sparked a revival, enabling the club to win three Premier League titles in 7 years.

The period from 1990 to date is well documented on the web and it would be tedious to recount it here. Fact is that both are now wealthy clubs, able to compete with the best from Liverpool and London and, on the European stage, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Paris St.Germain.

I would take with a pinch of salt the jibes of Man United supporters concerning City’s ultimate viability. The evidence is that Sheikh Mansoor is in it for the long haul, building up a network of football clubs. The marketing is exemplary – the club is very much in touch with its supporters and their needs. In addition, Mansoor has invested a considerable amount of resources in the formerly run-down environment in the region of the Etihad Stadium. United’s prosperity also deserves scrutiny. Their owners bought the ground with a series of bank loans and are currently milking the club in order to service the debt. A long term fall off in performance could see their global fan base start to dissipate and financial failure result. In history, nothing is permanent, as fans of Blackburn Rovers, far and away the most successful club in football’s early years, will surely tell you.

A word to my fellow responder, David Barnett. I realise you are American and that you have, presumably, elected to choose Man United because they were the most successful club around the time you became interested in football. Mancunians, people hailing from Manchester UK of whom I am one, do not ‘choose’ their football teams. Most, in deciding which team to support (generally around age 8 or 9), are conditioned by their environment, friends and family. I am proud to be the third generation of five generations of Blues (Manchester City supporters).

Lastly, the “greatness” of a football club, my friend, does not depend on mere success. I have buddies who are Liverpool supporters, Arsenal supporters, Burnley supporters, QPR supporters, even Port Vale supporters. Each thinks his/her club is “The Greatest”. And, know what, they are all of them right.

@Bluep*ss where can I find this exchange? Cheers

 

[Shirley]

I seem to recognize the name Ernie Whalley from posts in the MEN?
An excellent poster and a true Blue.

 

[Bluep*ss]

@Bluep*ss where can I find this exchange? Cheers

I understand that the question was from Quora. I did not know of this site until I just 'googled ' it.
It seems as if it was set up some time ago by some American - according to Wiki.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

I seem to recognize the name Ernie Whalley from posts in the MEN?
An excellent poster and a true Blue.

Same here; saw the name but can't remember why I know it