City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[VOOMER]

Looking at the players we've been linked with, stunned is a word I'd use to describe the way I'll feel too. 'Subdued' is another word that could fit in there nicely.

The press have no idea, not one who it is we are after and even if they did, they wouldn't bring themselves to admitting it, rather trot out the usual lines that the rags are getting him or Chelsea are nailed on etc etc.

Do you know something though?

On Monday JM had already signed for the dippers now they are saying he won't go if there's no CL football on offer. Their not journalist, their just PR agent's for the rags, dippers, gooners and chavs, their *uucking reptiles.

 

[Stephenhakin]

Does anyone know when a decision/announcement will be made with regards the legal action being taken again FFP which was heard by the courts late February?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

Does anyone know when a decision/announcement will be made with regards the legal action being taken again FFP which was heard by the courts late February?

It was said that a decision could take up to 60 days so I'd expect that we'll hear something very soon.

 

[Dribble]

Let me make this as simple as I can as you are seemingly to struggle with this incredibly basic concept. I swear to God if you can't pick this up then you're not even trying.

Sheikh Mansour owns Manchester City lock, stock. 100% share ownership. The investment into the club is derived from his personal wealth.

Etihad Airways is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi just like General Motors were owned by your Government or these other 146 airlines that are Government owned.

A Government consists of many different people in many different roles. The UAE Government has somewhere in the region of ~500 employees across its various ministries and departments. One of those 500 people is Sheikh Mansour, who is Joint Deputy Prime Minister which is mainly ceremonial and also runs the Department of Presidential Affairs which looks after protocols for the President.

You are suggesting that Manchester City and Etihad are owned by the same people. This is because Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi Government, which is the Government of the Emirate, and Sheikh Mansour is from that Emirate but works for the Government of the UAE which is the country.

This is like suggesting that because the state of Hawaii owns Honolulu Airport and Barack Obama is the US President, than Barack Obama actually owns Honolulu Airport.

As I pointed out earlier, the reason you have gotten this wrong is because it's an Arab country and you couldn't give a shit about the details because all Arabs are the same person to you lot. Thanks, and bye bye.

Even I don't believe that Sheikh Mansour's ownership is entirely separate from the aims and objectives of the UAE. He's a legal front, nothing more. I'd already told you how the Etihad sponorship was funded, which is one clue, plus the fact that Khaldoon is the chairman being another. He's possibly even more important in Abu Dhabi than Sheikh Mansour, being effectively Sheikh Mohammed's right-hand man.

Yes it's all legally separate but no one should be under any illusion that we're anything more than a PR front for the Abu Dhabi Executive Council.

And may I add, this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for Gill and his murky G14 cronies implementing FFP to stop City.

Rich benefactors have always funded clubs since football became a professional sport, so why is there a problem now? Fear that others may follow City's lead and buy other clubs outside of the elite who have potential, thus changing the football landscape forever, that's why.

No way were the G14 ever going to sit back and watch the foundations of their power base be eroded by the Manchester City tide, no way...... As for Manchester City, let's not angry, let's get even.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Hmmm.....pixie Scott has a certain whiff.......

stinks to high heaven.

Err, ok. Not sure what I did wrong except discuss in civil manner but that's not welcome?

Mansour owns City. Not the UAE government.

Sheikh Mansour is a member of the government. The government is a dynastic rule by the Al Nahyan Family. You think he funds City from his personal savings jar? ADUG just like Etihad are proxy vehicles by the government to create exposure,brand awareness,positive image overseas for Abu Dhabi ( and UAE )and also serve as alternative investment/income sources to lower reliance on oil. All are funded by the government's wealth or the Al Nahyan royal family's wealth because it is one and the same. Maybe the clue is in the name - Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment. Also realise that ADUG is investing in Manchester. What purpose would that serve Sheikh Mansour if his investment in City is in a private capacity only. Obviously he is doing to build goodwill around Abu Dhabi for the nature of investment across is part of the government policy.

EDIT: Either way it's a shame that football is reduced to a swinging contest of who has the most generous sponsor. :/

He funded the Barclays money out of his own personal savings jar and kept the £3billion profit as a result.

Just as Hakkassan Group is also funded out of the businesses he decides to invest it.

He has since lost a personal shitload on Virgin Galactic.

And he invested in MCFC well before FFP was suddenly rushed through on the requests of Berlusconi and Abramovich.

It was publicly announced at the time that this was a private investment for Mansour.

Not the Abu Dhabi government.

With no FFP in circulation at the time, there was absolutely nothing to prevent others at that time taking the acclaim, certainly those with more power than our owner.

Mansour has been very litigious when some reports have crossed the line and assert the club is owned by a state.

Keep up.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I think there's another murky dimension to the muddy waters of the origins of FFP that we haven't really mentioned. The traditional powerhouses of European football (ie those clubs in prime position to take full advantage of the business opportunities offered by football in the late '80s and 90s) either were already in the hands of, or fairly soon fell into the hands of, very rich owners. Real were already massively rich as a football club, Barcelona had to wait until the first decade of this millenium to monetize Catalan nationalism but got there belatedly and Berlusconi was super rich by the standards of the time, as was his counterpart at Inter. The real revolution was in England where "businessmen" made a fortune out of buying into clubs and some clubs really did benefit: United grew massively when it became a plc, Blackburn benefitted from Jack Walker and other clubs enjoyed mixed fortunes from investors of differing abilities and sincerity. Arsenal found themselves with Kroenke as largest shareholder, Liverpool fell to two grubby Americans, Villa went to Lerner and West Ham passed to an Icelandic bank.This has been a rapid overview of at least a decade's change, but the point is that by 2003 the financial doninance of Manchester United, with Arsenal a long way second, in English football was well established and seemed to have seen off the only credible threat (from Jack Walker) long since. Italian football still ruled the roost in Europe, Real were still splashing out on galacticos and the outlook seemed calm; football was richer than ever and the big clubs seemed the only ones able to take advantage.

Then Abramovitch came on the scene, after buying a club with only one league title to its name and that nearly 50 years before. Chelsea had been pretty good in the years before, now Abramovitch's massive spending catapulted the club into the big league. Liverpool were almost sold to Dubai and then Manchester City were actually bought by Sheikh Mansour. English football had been too successful - revenues growing, a worldwide audience - and was now attracting interest from people far richer than the Glazers and the other Americans, and this at a time when the crash was making money for investment very hard to come by for all but friends of Putin and Abu Dhabi businessmen. And they were showing already that Manchester United's success was not at all due to their history an tradition, or their genes or some mysterious magic in the club badge. Sheikh Mansour has shown that running a successful football club is rather easy when business is what you're really good at.

Part of the trick was knowing which club to buy. City had won nothing since 1976, had a loyal fan base crying out to settle a few scores with the rags and were in a deprived, polluted desert - an unrivalled opportunity for development to the Sheikh. This is what alarmed the dominant clubs of the day - that small, contemptible clubs were the ones attracting the big money. No-one was going to spend a king's ransom to buy United and fail to improve their trophy haul! They looked to UEFA to stick by them or they would secede. And what they wanted was not to spend money they didn't have, but to stop the new investors spending money they did have. Platini gave in all down the line. So Villa's proposed Arab takeover has fallen through, Spurs billion pound takeover has died the death and Platini's cartel think for the moment that they are safe. But we know better.....

 

[PixieScott]

Okay, firstly I have some apologies to met out. I wasn't aware of the related party definition as specified by UEFA and I kept harping about the relation between the owners based on family ties. My Bad. I can see why that there was friction and frustration since I was consistently using the "related to" in a personal sense and not business. Sorry.

Secondly, I am against FFP in principle. We're on the same page here once again and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything. Clubs have to do what they have to do get around. It's not like Chelsea's hands are clean in this entire matter.

I think Drizzle and Prestwich_Blue perfectly summarized my thoughts on this matter much better than I could so far. These thoughts of mine are just opinion and I am not trying to masquerade them as facts. Someone mentioned this structure was put in place long before FFP, in which case my logic might be fundamentally flawed as well.

Even I don't believe that Sheikh Mansour's ownership is entirely separate from the aims and objectives of the UAE. He's a legal front, nothing more. I'd already told you how the Etihad sponorship was funded, which is one clue, plus the fact that Khaldoon is the chairman being another. He's possibly even more important in Abu Dhabi than Sheikh Mansour, being effectively Sheikh Mohammed's right-hand man.

Yes it's all legally separate but no one should be under any illusion that we're anything more than a PR front for the Abu Dhabi Executive Council.

And may I add, this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for Gill and his murky G14 cronies implementing FFP to stop City.

Rich benefactors have always funded clubs since football became a professional sport, so why is there a problem now? Fear that others may follow City's lead and buy other clubs outside of the elite who have potential, thus changing the football landscape forever, that's why.

No way were the G14 ever going to sit back and watch the foundations of their power base be eroded by the Manchester City tide, no way...... As for Manchester City, let's not angry, let's get even.

 

[SilverFox2]

I think there's another murky dimension to the muddy waters of the origins of FFP that we haven't really mentioned. The traditional powerhouses of European football (ie those clubs in prime position to take full advantage of the business opportunities offered by football in the late '80s and 90s) either were already in the hands of, or fairly soon fell into the hands of, very rich owners. Real were already massively rich as a football club, Barcelona had to wait until the first decade of this millenium to monetize Catalan nationalism but got there belatedly and Berlusconi was super rich by the standards of the time, as was his counterpart at Inter. The real revolution was in England where "businessmen" made a fortune out of buying into clubs and some clubs really did benefit: United grew massively when it became a plc, Blackburn benefitted from Jack Walker and other clubs enjoyed mixed fortunes from investors of differing abilities and sincerity. Arsenal found themselves with Kroenke as largest shareholder, Liverpool fell to two grubby Americans, Villa went to Lerner and West Ham passed to an Icelandic bank.This has been a rapid overview of at least a decade's change, but the point is that by 2003 the financial doninance of Manchester United, with Arsenal a long way second, in English football was well established and seemed to have seen off the only credible threat (from Jack Walker) long since. Italian football still ruled the roost in Europe, Real were still splashing out on galacticos and the outlook seemed calm; football was richer than ever and the big clubs seemed the only ones able to take advantage.

Then Abramovitch came on the scene, after buying a club with only one league title to its name and that nearly 50 years before. Chelsea had been pretty good in the years before, now Abramovitch's massive spending catapulted the club into the big league. Liverpool were almost sold to Dubai and then Manchester City were actually bought by Sheikh Mansour. English football had been too successful - revenues growing, a worldwide audience - and was now attracting interest from people far richer than the Glazers and the other Americans, and this at a time when the crash was making money for investment very hard to come by for all but friends of Putin and Abu Dhabi businessmen. And they were showing already that Manchester United's success was not at all due to their history an tradition, or their genes or some mysterious magic in the club badge. Sheikh Mansour has shown that running a successful football club is rather easy when business is what you're really good at.

Part of the trick was knowing which club to buy. City had won nothing since 1976, had a loyal fan base crying out to settle a few scores with the rags and were in a deprived, polluted desert - an unrivalled opportunity for development to the Sheikh. This is what alarmed the dominant clubs of the day - that small, contemptible clubs were the ones attracting the big money. No-one was going to spend a king's ransom to buy United and fail to improve their trophy haul! They looked to UEFA to stick by them or they would secede. And what they wanted was not to spend money they didn't have, but to stop the new investors spending money they did have. Platini gave in all down the line. So Villa's proposed Arab takeover has fallen through, Spurs billion pound takeover has died the death and Platini's cartel think for the moment that they are safe. But we know better.....

Many thanks for that resume BlueSinceHR. I am grateful to all who share their background knowledge to the rest of us.

I particularly like the sentence re Sheik M.. The concentration on the commercial side of the business this year that Mr K. promised will be interesting I am sure.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Okay, firstly I have some apologies to met out. I wasn't aware of the related party definition as specified by UEFA and I kept harping about the relation between the owners based on family ties. My Bad. I can see why that there was friction and frustration since I was consistently using the "related to" in a personal sense and not business. Sorry.

Secondly, I am against FFP in principle. We're on the same page here once again and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything. Clubs have to do what they have to do get around. It's not like Chelsea's hands are clean in this entire matter.

I think Drizzle and Prestwich_Blue perfectly summarized my thoughts on this matter much better than I could so far. These thoughts of mine are just opinion and I am not trying to masquerade them as facts. Someone mentioned this structure was put in place long before FFP, in which case my logic might be fundamentally flawed as well.

Even I don't believe that Sheikh Mansour's ownership is entirely separate from the aims and objectives of the UAE. He's a legal front, nothing more. I'd already told you how the Etihad sponorship was funded, which is one clue, plus the fact that Khaldoon is the chairman being another. He's possibly even more important in Abu Dhabi than Sheikh Mansour, being effectively Sheikh Mohammed's right-hand man.

Yes it's all legally separate but no one should be under any illusion that we're anything more than a PR front for the Abu Dhabi Executive Council.

And may I add, this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for Gill and his murky G14 cronies implementing FFP to stop City.

Rich benefactors have always funded clubs since football became a professional sport, so why is there a problem now? Fear that others may follow City's lead and buy other clubs outside of the elite who have potential, thus changing the football landscape forever, that's why.

No way were the G14 ever going to sit back and watch the foundations of their power base be eroded by the Manchester City tide, no way...... As for Manchester City, let's not angry, let's get even.

Takes guts to eat humble pie. Respect.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Okay, firstly I have some apologies to met out. I wasn't aware of the related party definition as specified by UEFA and I kept harping about the relation between the owners based on family ties. My Bad. I can see why that there was friction and frustration since I was consistently using the "related to" in a personal sense and not business. Sorry.

Secondly, I am against FFP in principle. We're on the same page here once again and I am not trying to accuse anyone of anything. Clubs have to do what they have to do get around. It's not like Chelsea's hands are clean in this entire matter.

I think Drizzle and Prestwich_Blue perfectly summarized my thoughts on this matter much better than I could so far. These thoughts of mine are just opinion and I am not trying to masquerade them as facts. Someone mentioned this structure was put in place long before FFP, in which case my logic might be fundamentally flawed as well.

And may I add, this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for Gill and his murky G14 cronies implementing FFP to stop City.

Rich benefactors have always funded clubs since football became a professional sport, so why is there a problem now? Fear that others may follow City's lead and buy other clubs outside of the elite who have potential, thus changing the football landscape forever, that's why.

No way were the G14 ever going to sit back and watch the foundations of their power base be eroded by the Manchester City tide, no way...... As for Manchester City, let's not angry, let's get even.

Takes guts to eat humble pie. Respect.

+1