Ticket For Schalke
Well-Known Member
Bigga said:
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Video/Interviews/Homecoming-Mancini-speech
Just for you dave, dont think they've bleeped his name out here, if at first you dont succeed ;)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City Ownership
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
http://www.mcfc.co.uk/Video/Interviews/Homecoming-Mancini-speech
Just for you dave, dont think they've bleeped his name out here, if at first you dont succeed ;)
Michael Corleone
Well-Known Member
Don't know if it's been said and I can't be bothered to look through all 12 pages, but Sheikh Mohammad is also the name of his son. So possibly Mancini just said this to flatter the royal family.
johnmc
Well-Known Member
I heard Etihad means United
dan.j.mcfc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 937
Michael Corleone said:Don't know if it's been said and I can't be bothered to look through all 12 pages, but Sheikh Mohammad is also the name of his son. So possibly Mancini just said this to flatter the royal family.
I'm not one for this conspiracy theory but I hardly think he would be thanking a four year old child.
bluemonkey71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 7,062
Maybe he's given his son the club as a birthday present.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,240
(Long post)
Much as I admire Damocles, I think he’s got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
If you equate ownership with ‘who provided the money that was used to buy the club’ the answer is ‘Sheikh Mansour’ via of course ADUG. There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest anything else, and the Club at the time of the takeover was explicit that ADUG was funded entirely by Sheikh Mansour’s personal wealth – ie not for instance from the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth fund or from other members of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi. Sheikh Mohammed has not parted with a penny towards the purchase of the club or its subsequent funding. To answer Damocles’ question, our investor is Sheikh Mansour, no-one else.
So, why does the manager imply something different? Because I suspect that Sheikh Mohammed has a significant degree of influence over the direction the club takes without actually owning any part of it. And I rather doubt that amongst the Abu Dhabi ruling family, he and Sheikh Mansour are the only ones whose opinion counts. There are a number of influential voices there, even though the club belongs to Sheikh Mansour and Sheikh Mansour alone. (I also suspect that somebody somewhere suggested to RM that it might be a sensible or diplomatic thing to say).
We need to remember that notions of ownership in royal circles, especially middle eastern ones, do not exactly correspond with the ordinary concept of ownership in western societies. I own my house, which means I can mortgage it and sell it if I want. The Queen ‘owns’ Balmoral, Windsor, Buck Pal, etc, but could she sell or mortgage them? No. The reality is that she holds them on trust for her successors, and ultimately for the nation. That trust isn’t set out in writing anywhere, but it is there, nonetheless. Comparing ordinary concepts of ownership with the ownership of assets by royal/ruling families is a bit like comparing apples and pears.
Of course, the Queen does own other assets in her personal capacity, like her dogs and horses, which she can dispose of at will. Sheikh Mansour’s ownership of City perhaps looks on the face of it like a personal investment, not an asset he holds for the greater good of his nation. Yet we all know that City wasn’t purchased as a cash-cow, like the Glazers purchased United, nor was it bought for reasons of personal vanity, like Abramovic bought Chelsea. On this forum we know better than most how naive it is, as many lazy London based journalists have done, to consider City just as being a rich Arab’s plaything that one day he will get bored of. The purchase of City, albeit by one wealthy individual in his private capacity, is part of an extremely long term plan intended to benefit the entire Emirate. Heartening though it is to see pictures of our owner and his children wearing City shirts, the reality is that our club is now a significant publicity machine for the entire Abu Dhabi economy. Etihad Airlines’ logo is beamed to millions of people from Singapore to Buenos Aires. Tourism to Abu Dhabi is on the up.
The ruling family’s ultimate aim of course is to put Abu Dhabi in a position so that when the oil in Abu Dhabi does eventually run out, the Emirate remains an economic power and does not revert to being a strip of land in the desert as it was for all but the last 50 years or so of its existence. If you go there, you will notice other aspects of nation building – infrastructure (roads, hospitals etc), the new financial district they are building there. It is all part of a long term plan and City is a small but important feature of that. The comparison with the Queen owning Balmoral etc is not an exact one, because nobody suggests that City is now owned on trust for the people of Abu Dhabi, but it illustrates that in Sheikh Mansour’s circle, even assets owned personally are not always acquired simply for personal satisfaction.
Given the very long-term nature of the plan, and the nature of the dynamics within the ruling family, it is inconceivable that this is not a plan which the very highest echelons of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed included, have not had significant involvement with. I grant you, it stretches belief to imagine that Sheikh Mohammed is involved to the level of deciding that we should go for Dzeko in January rather than Torres, but the idea that he has had nothing to do with the project is it seems to me equally inconceivable. Is anybody suggesting that one day Sheikh Mansour woke up and decided to buy City, the club he’d been following since he was a lad? No – we were chosen carefully as being the club who was (a) available (thanks, Frank) and (b) the best option to provide the long-term success story that the owner and his family want it to be. Who else did they (I emphasise ‘they’) look at – Villa? Spurs? Everton? Who knows, who cares – they chose us. Sheikh Mohammed was undoubtedly part of that process just as the various other influential figures in the ruling family were. Neither the owner nor the others in the decision-making circle were driven by a desire to see City succeed for the sake of the club, but because of what that success and exposure will bring to Abu Dhabi in the wider context.
All this of course, is what makes Sheikh Mansour the perfect football club owner. The one thing he is not doing it for is to make money. The sovereign wealth fund does that. As has been said elsewhere, there is not a scrap of evidence or even the whisper of a suspicion about him in terms of human rights abuses. He bought City because his Emirate, Abu Dhabi, needs is to put itself on the map – and owning the most successful football club in Europe will certainly do that. His uncle is part of the decision making process, not part of the ownership structure. Sheikh Mansour craves success in the EPL and the Champions League because the world has an insatiable appetite for those two competitions. Abu Dhabi wants success, and has virtually unlimited resources to achieve it. We are the vehicle for that success, so let’s enjoy the ride.
Much as I admire Damocles, I think he’s got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
If you equate ownership with ‘who provided the money that was used to buy the club’ the answer is ‘Sheikh Mansour’ via of course ADUG. There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest anything else, and the Club at the time of the takeover was explicit that ADUG was funded entirely by Sheikh Mansour’s personal wealth – ie not for instance from the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth fund or from other members of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi. Sheikh Mohammed has not parted with a penny towards the purchase of the club or its subsequent funding. To answer Damocles’ question, our investor is Sheikh Mansour, no-one else.
So, why does the manager imply something different? Because I suspect that Sheikh Mohammed has a significant degree of influence over the direction the club takes without actually owning any part of it. And I rather doubt that amongst the Abu Dhabi ruling family, he and Sheikh Mansour are the only ones whose opinion counts. There are a number of influential voices there, even though the club belongs to Sheikh Mansour and Sheikh Mansour alone. (I also suspect that somebody somewhere suggested to RM that it might be a sensible or diplomatic thing to say).
We need to remember that notions of ownership in royal circles, especially middle eastern ones, do not exactly correspond with the ordinary concept of ownership in western societies. I own my house, which means I can mortgage it and sell it if I want. The Queen ‘owns’ Balmoral, Windsor, Buck Pal, etc, but could she sell or mortgage them? No. The reality is that she holds them on trust for her successors, and ultimately for the nation. That trust isn’t set out in writing anywhere, but it is there, nonetheless. Comparing ordinary concepts of ownership with the ownership of assets by royal/ruling families is a bit like comparing apples and pears.
Of course, the Queen does own other assets in her personal capacity, like her dogs and horses, which she can dispose of at will. Sheikh Mansour’s ownership of City perhaps looks on the face of it like a personal investment, not an asset he holds for the greater good of his nation. Yet we all know that City wasn’t purchased as a cash-cow, like the Glazers purchased United, nor was it bought for reasons of personal vanity, like Abramovic bought Chelsea. On this forum we know better than most how naive it is, as many lazy London based journalists have done, to consider City just as being a rich Arab’s plaything that one day he will get bored of. The purchase of City, albeit by one wealthy individual in his private capacity, is part of an extremely long term plan intended to benefit the entire Emirate. Heartening though it is to see pictures of our owner and his children wearing City shirts, the reality is that our club is now a significant publicity machine for the entire Abu Dhabi economy. Etihad Airlines’ logo is beamed to millions of people from Singapore to Buenos Aires. Tourism to Abu Dhabi is on the up.
The ruling family’s ultimate aim of course is to put Abu Dhabi in a position so that when the oil in Abu Dhabi does eventually run out, the Emirate remains an economic power and does not revert to being a strip of land in the desert as it was for all but the last 50 years or so of its existence. If you go there, you will notice other aspects of nation building – infrastructure (roads, hospitals etc), the new financial district they are building there. It is all part of a long term plan and City is a small but important feature of that. The comparison with the Queen owning Balmoral etc is not an exact one, because nobody suggests that City is now owned on trust for the people of Abu Dhabi, but it illustrates that in Sheikh Mansour’s circle, even assets owned personally are not always acquired simply for personal satisfaction.
Given the very long-term nature of the plan, and the nature of the dynamics within the ruling family, it is inconceivable that this is not a plan which the very highest echelons of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed included, have not had significant involvement with. I grant you, it stretches belief to imagine that Sheikh Mohammed is involved to the level of deciding that we should go for Dzeko in January rather than Torres, but the idea that he has had nothing to do with the project is it seems to me equally inconceivable. Is anybody suggesting that one day Sheikh Mansour woke up and decided to buy City, the club he’d been following since he was a lad? No – we were chosen carefully as being the club who was (a) available (thanks, Frank) and (b) the best option to provide the long-term success story that the owner and his family want it to be. Who else did they (I emphasise ‘they’) look at – Villa? Spurs? Everton? Who knows, who cares – they chose us. Sheikh Mohammed was undoubtedly part of that process just as the various other influential figures in the ruling family were. Neither the owner nor the others in the decision-making circle were driven by a desire to see City succeed for the sake of the club, but because of what that success and exposure will bring to Abu Dhabi in the wider context.
All this of course, is what makes Sheikh Mansour the perfect football club owner. The one thing he is not doing it for is to make money. The sovereign wealth fund does that. As has been said elsewhere, there is not a scrap of evidence or even the whisper of a suspicion about him in terms of human rights abuses. He bought City because his Emirate, Abu Dhabi, needs is to put itself on the map – and owning the most successful football club in Europe will certainly do that. His uncle is part of the decision making process, not part of the ownership structure. Sheikh Mansour craves success in the EPL and the Champions League because the world has an insatiable appetite for those two competitions. Abu Dhabi wants success, and has virtually unlimited resources to achieve it. We are the vehicle for that success, so let’s enjoy the ride.
Michael Corleone
Well-Known Member
Surely the most notable part of this issue is the fact that the club have done a glasnost on it and edited the content of his speech.
DD - Glasnost means openess and transparency. So editing content would be somewhat the opposite of Glasnost.
I'm not one for this conspiracy theory but I hardly think he would be thanking a four year old child.
Either do I to be honest, but still more realistic than half the things on this thread.
Michael Corleone said:Surely the most notable part of this issue is the fact that the club have done a glasnost on it and edited the content of his speech.
DD - Glastnost means openess and transparency. So editing content would be somewhat the opposite of Glasnost.
I'm not one for this conspiracy theory but I hardly think he would be thanking a four year old child.
Either do I to be honest, but still more realistic than half the things on this thread.
if your gonna correct someone its best to not make a typo on the next line ;-)
gio's side step
Well-Known Member
Chris in London said:(Long post)
Much as I admire Damocles, I think he’s got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
If you equate ownership with ‘who provided the money that was used to buy the club’ the answer is ‘Sheikh Mansour’ via of course ADUG. There is not a scrap of evidence to suggest anything else, and the Club at the time of the takeover was explicit that ADUG was funded entirely by Sheikh Mansour’s personal wealth – ie not for instance from the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth fund or from other members of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi. Sheikh Mohammed has not parted with a penny towards the purchase of the club or its subsequent funding. To answer Damocles’ question, our investor is Sheikh Mansour, no-one else.
So, why does the manager imply something different? Because I suspect that Sheikh Mohammed has a significant degree of influence over the direction the club takes without actually owning any part of it. And I rather doubt that amongst the Abu Dhabi ruling family, he and Sheikh Mansour are the only ones whose opinion counts. There are a number of influential voices there, even though the club belongs to Sheikh Mansour and Sheikh Mansour alone. (I also suspect that somebody somewhere suggested to RM that it might be a sensible or diplomatic thing to say).
We need to remember that notions of ownership in royal circles, especially middle eastern ones, do not exactly correspond with the ordinary concept of ownership in western societies. I own my house, which means I can mortgage it and sell it if I want. The Queen ‘owns’ Balmoral, Windsor, Buck Pal, etc, but could she sell or mortgage them? No. The reality is that she holds them on trust for her successors, and ultimately for the nation. That trust isn’t set out in writing anywhere, but it is there, nonetheless. Comparing ordinary concepts of ownership with the ownership of assets by royal/ruling families is a bit like comparing apples and pears.
Of course, the Queen does own other assets in her personal capacity, like her dogs and horses, which she can dispose of at will. Sheikh Mansour’s ownership of City perhaps looks on the face of it like a personal investment, not an asset he holds for the greater good of his nation. Yet we all know that City wasn’t purchased as a cash-cow, like the Glazers purchased United, nor was it bought for reasons of personal vanity, like Abramovic bought Chelsea. On this forum we know better than most how naive it is, as many lazy London based journalists have done, to consider City just as being a rich Arab’s plaything that one day he will get bored of. The purchase of City, albeit by one wealthy individual in his private capacity, is part of an extremely long term plan intended to benefit the entire Emirate. Heartening though it is to see pictures of our owner and his children wearing City shirts, the reality is that our club is now a significant publicity machine for the entire Abu Dhabi economy. Etihad Airlines’ logo is beamed to millions of people from Singapore to Buenos Aires. Tourism to Abu Dhabi is on the up.
The ruling family’s ultimate aim of course is to put Abu Dhabi in a position so that when the oil in Abu Dhabi does eventually run out, the Emirate remains an economic power and does not revert to being a strip of land in the desert as it was for all but the last 50 years or so of its existence. If you go there, you will notice other aspects of nation building – infrastructure (roads, hospitals etc), the new financial district they are building there. It is all part of a long term plan and City is a small but important feature of that. The comparison with the Queen owning Balmoral etc is not an exact one, because nobody suggests that City is now owned on trust for the people of Abu Dhabi, but it illustrates that in Sheikh Mansour’s circle, even assets owned personally are not always acquired simply for personal satisfaction.
Given the very long-term nature of the plan, and the nature of the dynamics within the ruling family, it is inconceivable that this is not a plan which the very highest echelons of the ruling family in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed included, have not had significant involvement with. I grant you, it stretches belief to imagine that Sheikh Mohammed is involved to the level of deciding that we should go for Dzeko in January rather than Torres, but the idea that he has had nothing to do with the project is it seems to me equally inconceivable. Is anybody suggesting that one day Sheikh Mansour woke up and decided to buy City, the club he’d been following since he was a lad? No – we were chosen carefully as being the club who was (a) available (thanks, Frank) and (b) the best option to provide the long-term success story that the owner and his family want it to be. Who else did they (I emphasise ‘they’) look at – Villa? Spurs? Everton? Who knows, who cares – they chose us. Sheikh Mohammed was undoubtedly part of that process just as the various other influential figures in the ruling family were. Neither the owner nor the others in the decision-making circle were driven by a desire to see City succeed for the sake of the club, but because of what that success and exposure will bring to Abu Dhabi in the wider context.
All this of course, is what makes Sheikh Mansour the perfect football club owner. The one thing he is not doing it for is to make money. The sovereign wealth fund does that. As has been said elsewhere, there is not a scrap of evidence or even the whisper of a suspicion about him in terms of human rights abuses. He bought City because his Emirate, Abu Dhabi, needs is to put itself on the map – and owning the most successful football club in Europe will certainly do that. His uncle is part of the decision making process, not part of the ownership structure. Sheikh Mansour craves success in the EPL and the Champions League because the world has an insatiable appetite for those two competitions. Abu Dhabi wants success, and has virtually unlimited resources to achieve it. We are the vehicle for that success, so let’s enjoy the ride.
That is probably the best description of the 'project' that I have read to date.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Nothing moves or is done in Abu Dhabi, without the knowledge and permission of the Crown Prince.
Sheikh Mansour gets the green light from his bro, and the resources that may come of that.
He has given us Khaldoon, a big mate of Sheikh Mansour, but the eyes and ears of the ultimate boss.
It can be dressed up in a variety of ways, but Mancini was merely playing good politics, acknowledging the crown prince.
We only have to look at our various sponsorship deals to see our relationship is for the betterment of Abu Dhabi, not just Sheikh Mansour's pocket.
No biggie.
Sheikh Mansour gets the green light from his bro, and the resources that may come of that.
He has given us Khaldoon, a big mate of Sheikh Mansour, but the eyes and ears of the ultimate boss.
It can be dressed up in a variety of ways, but Mancini was merely playing good politics, acknowledging the crown prince.
We only have to look at our various sponsorship deals to see our relationship is for the betterment of Abu Dhabi, not just Sheikh Mansour's pocket.
No biggie.