City Ownership

[inbetween]

Sheikh Mohammed owns no part of City nor is he related in any form to ADUG or Aabar, no idea why he was referenced though.

Generally when you talk about someone in a Royal Family you address all of them through respect so i can understand why Mancini mentioned them but i don't really know what Sheikh Mohammed has to do with anything, he is part of the Dubai brigade.

 

[neil jung]

Something jumped out at me immediately last night, and I must admit that I was confused by it.

Mancini, on the pitch, said "I would like to give credit to the Royal Family of Abu Dhabi; Sheikh Mansour, Sheikh Mohammed and Khaldoon Al-Mubarak..."

It is interesting that Mancini even knows Sheikh Mohommed's name but I'm not sure we can read much into it. Maybe he has met Sheikh Mohammed on his trips to Abu Dhabi see Sheikh Mansour?

I was never worried about this type of thing when Sheikh Mansour was seen as the 100% owner of City. Although his wealth did come from oil originally, he's made billions in smart business moves. He was a personal owner using his personal wealth, and whilst he certainly does have power in Abu Dhabi, he isn't the guy in charge so these abuses cannot be laid at his door.

I don't really get this part, Sheikh Mansour isn't just another private citizen over there, he's a central figure in the Abu Dhabi regime.

 

[Project]

Why does it say on the OS that Mansour 100% owns the club, when we have our manager thanking a completely different guy as part of our "owners"? Why was this edited out of the comment on the OS?

Mancini never thanked them as "owners". He just thanked them. Khaldoon included who doesn't own the club.

As an earlier poster says Mansours wealth is by defacto sovereign oil money, so I am not sure the distinction between personal and State ownership holds any merit.

 

[Blue Haze]

If I were you, I'd be really careful in implying that the al Nahyans engage in any human rights abuses. There is no basis to this whatsoever, just a report that they are assembling a personal army. The US military is guilty of severe human rights abuses and has no doubt played a significant role in training/outfitting the UAE's armed forces.

We are owned de facto by the royal family of Abu Dhabi. The pool of wealth we draw from mostly comes from oil and natural gas wealth.

Yes, that would be silly. On an unrelated note, here's a video of Sheikh Issa, Sheikh Mohammed's brother, torturing somebody:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.buzzchow.com/crime/sheikh-issa-bin-zayed-al-nahyan-torture-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.buzzchow.com/crime/sheikh-is ... ure-video/</a>

Do you really think Mancini is privy to the ownership details of the club? And do you think that if he became aware of some secret that wasn't public, he'd make such a gaffe at a stadium?

No, of course he wouldn't.

There is no reason to believe that a simple slip of the tongue would indicate a secret ownership arrangement.

So why are you implying this with no evidence?

I cannot believe you have posted something that is potentially defaming against our ownership on a forum that the media can read.

 

[pissedagain]

you are aware lads its not even ten o clock in the morning yet

 

[Damocles]

Sheikh Mohammed owns no part of City nor is he related in any form to ADUG or Aabar, no idea why he was referenced though.

Generally when you talk about someone in a Royal Family you address all of them through respect so i can understand why Mancini mentioned them but i don't really know what Sheikh Mohammed has to do with anything, he is part of the Dubai brigade.

No he isn't. Sheikh Mohammed is the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and the next President. You're talking about Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum, instead of Sheikh Mohammed Al Nayhan.

Mancini never thanked them as "owners". He just thanked them. Khaldoon included who doesn't own the club.

As an earlier poster says Mansours wealth is by defacto sovereign oil money, so I am not sure the distinction between personal and State ownership holds any merit.

He thanked the owner in Mansour, the Chairman in Khaldoon, but why Sheikh Mohammed? Any why was it edited out? Why did he constantly say "owners" instead of "owner"?

On the latter point, because there's a difference between coming from ill gotten gains, and generating ill gotten gains. I'm a realist, I'm not expecting him to shun all oil money because of principles, but I squared his ownership within myself as he was also a competent businessman who made billions for himself through investment.

 

[gio's side step]

Excellent post Damocles, and indeed fair questions posed. Noticed the same thing myself last night, and I was a little curious as to why Sheikh Mohammed was mentioned

 

[inbetween]

Why does it say on the OS that Mansour 100% owns the club, when we have our manager thanking a completely different guy as part of our "owners"? Why was this edited out of the comment on the OS?

Mancini never thanked them as "owners". He just thanked them. Khaldoon included who doesn't own the club.

As an earlier poster says Mansours wealth is by defacto sovereign oil money, so I am not sure the distinction between personal and State ownership holds any merit.

There is a massive amount of misunderstanding regarding the oil money, Sheikh Mansour may of made his money from oil but it is HIS money, he owns 100% of city through his money.

The soverign wealth fund is often VASTLY misquoted and misunderstood because it is not cold hard cash sat in a pot, it's millions of pounds invested in assets, ie actual real things that have value.. Companies, buildings etc. The soverign wealth fund is controlled in Abu Dhabi by the ADIA of which Mansour is only a director and has no access to for personal use.

ADUG also does not exist it was a buying front for Sheikh Mansour, as an investment vehicle(company) it is better known now as Aabar.

 

[johnmc]

After this revelation I don't think I can support City any more

 

[Damocles]

Do you really think Mancini is privy to the ownership details of the club? And do you think that if he became aware of some secret that wasn't public, he'd make such a gaffe at a stadium?

No, of course he wouldn't.

There is no reason to believe that a simple slip of the tongue would indicate a secret ownership arrangement.

So why are you implying this with no evidence?

Evidence? Thin on the ground in either circumstance:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/mansour-to-replace-man-city-directors" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news ... -directors</a>

The team led by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed in the takeover of Manchester City is preparing to introduce new directors to the board of the English Premier League club as it moves towards finalising a deal worth more than Dh1.3 billion

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/01/manchestercity.premierleague1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008 ... ierleague1</a>

"This is all the Abu Dhabi royal family," explained Anil Bhoyrul, the former Mirror journalist who broke the story for his Dubai-based magazine Arabian Business. "This [Adug] is essentially an investment vehicle set up for Man City and funded by sheikhs in the royal family. It's not exactly clear which sheikhs it is yet but this is the Abu Dhabi royal family."