City Ownership

[robbieh]

Look. The British have invaded and exploited foreign lands since time immemorial. The most recent example being the illegal occupation of Iraq. In addition we sell weapons to all sorts of dodgy customers.

While I suspect that Abu Dhabi like many other countries has question marks hanging over it I don't think anyone from this country should be giving lectures.

 

[Silvaslovechild]

What I don't understand is why Damocles hasn't been man enough to admit he got his "assumption" all completely wrong.

It is plainly clear with the posts of Tolmie and Ajay (Of whom is acutally an Abu Dhabi citizen) why Sheikh Mohammed was thanked.

It again has been made plainly certain whom owns the club.

Yet, still Damocles insists on questioning this.

I suggest you write to the club if you still feel so strongly.

 

[jrb]

Haven't had the time to read every post on this thread but judging from the first half dozen pages and selected others, it is a complete embarrassment in parts.

Complete and utter bed wetting clowns are getting their knickers in a twist because a blue dares to have a completely valid, independent thought about something that was suggested last night.

Personally, having thought, and still thinking, that the fact that Shinawatra was the biggest stain ever on the history of this club, I have few concerns regarding the current owners. I also would have thought that Sheik Mohammed would have some sort of input into the strategy of the purchase at some point, even if it is not in an official manner.

What is a joke and a disgrace though are those clowns who have so little regard for the history of this club and so little about them that they see a legitimate question (and one that is very, very, very unlikely to draw negative repercussions, even if it turned out to have some basis) as something that should never be uttered and should be brushed under the carpet by all blues, lest it turn up something they don't like.

These are probably the same disgraces who "couldn't give a fuck" about Thaksin, the most odious man ever to be involved in English football, being associated with our club because they thought, rather stupidly it turns out, that this bastard might have a chance of leading us to success.

The irony is, lots with that attitude think that not giving a fuck about stuff like that makes them "massive blues". To me, not having any concern for the reputation of the club and what it stands for makes you nothing more than a rag-esque, glory hunting, spineless plastic clown, with no feel for the club and the city.

If Sheik Mohammed was proven to be an integral part of the ownership team, nothing bad is likely to come of it anyway. But to give someone grief for raising the question and bleating on about "the press getting hold of this" is pathetic ostrich stuff.

"Don't tell me, don't ask, I might not like the answer."

But really. Who gives a shit about the OP's opinions.

If 2 years of bad press wasn't enough since our owners bought the club, and after the most successful period in the last 35 years, a City fan feels the need to bring the subject matter up because Mancini uttered those words in his celebration speech.

I didn't ask and I didn't want to know. And even though he told me, I couldn't give a f***.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

These are probably the same disgraces who "couldn't give a fuck" about Thaksin, the most odious man ever to be involved in English football, being associated with our club because they thought, rather stupidly it turns out, that this bastard might have a chance of leading us to success.

As one of the "disgraces" that didn't have a problem with Shinawatra, I'm happy to say that we are in a much better position as a football club for his involvement.

I just hope we don't get into the position again where politics and not football becomes the main talking point on a football message board.

Well, "disgraces" is an emotive word and probably wrong of me.

But if you come to a conclusion that he was a suitable character to be the figurehead of this club, then that is just opinion and one anyone is entitled to hold.

But if you were one of the "don't care who he is or what he does, just bothered if there is a chance he might have cash" lot then I don't think the term is too far out of the correct ballpark regarding what would then be a complete disregard for the club as an entity (other than it's balance sheet).

Anyway, my point is, to shout someone down for wanting to know more is really not on imo

 

[Skashion]

because you're just sniping like you normally do.

Damocles is very staunch in his views, the way he goes about expressing them I don't always appreciate.

Whether either of those points makes him right or wrong, "evidence" or no evidence, is an entirely different matter and such judgement should be made on an individual thread basis.

Sniping like I normally do. Interesting perspective. I'd be of the opinion that you fit that description much better than I do. You've been far more negative about the club this year than I have been as well.

I do think you have a point on the way he expresses himself but that's a general issue and we're judging him on an individual thread basis here.

That being the case, what are you doing referring to Damocles' modus operandi? It was you who accused Damocles of dissecting posts and shouting everyone down. He's been subject far more to that kind of treatment (not dissecting - which is not negative behaviour) than he's been responsible for himself on this thread. He asked why Sheikh Mohammed was mentioned when officially he has nothing to do with the club. It's a genuine question. I think fans have a right to be concerned about who owns their club beyond simply the narrow self-interested view of the whether the investment has been beneficial to the club.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

because you're just sniping like you normally do.

Damocles is very staunch in his views, the way he goes about expressing them I don't always appreciate.

Whether either of those points makes him right or wrong, "evidence" or no evidence, is an entirely different matter and such judgement should be made on an individual thread basis.

Sniping like I normally do. Interesting perspective. I'd be of the opinion that you fit that description much better than I do. You've been far more negative about the club this year than I have been as well.

I do think you have a point on the way he expresses himself but that's a general issue and we're judging him on an individual thread basis here.

That being the case, what are you doing referring to Damocles' modus operandi? It was you who accused Damocles of dissecting posts and shouting everyone down. He's been subject far more to that kind of treatment (not dissecting - which is not negative behaviour) than he's been responsible for himself on this thread. He asked why Sheikh Mohammed was mentioned when officially he has nothing to do with the club. It's a genuine question. I think fans have a right to be concerned about who owns their club beyond simply the narrow self-interested view of the whether the investment has been beneficial to the club.

calling a poster a bell-end for example doesn't set a good example to the rest of the users, I agree that there have been those who are summing your last paragraph up perfectly, and I agree with your PoV in that respect.

As for the sniping, well here you are on another thread have a snide little dig about my post, if it isn't you it's SWP Back or mcfcliam with your pitchforks, I only wish Paddy Power would give me the odds on which one of you will be next ;).

Being positive or negative about what the club does isn't sniping if it's a legitimate concern, which I tend to believe(and try to back up) my points are.

That being said, I've found myself being awfully positive about the club in the past few weeks, strange how winning matches breeds confidence and optimism...

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

This thread should be in classic if only for the hilariously inappropriate use of the term glasnost...

As for the rest of it? Amateur Internet conspiracy sleuthery and a desperate search for something to moan about IMO.

 

[Skashion]

calling a poster a bell-end for example doesn't set a good example to the rest of the users, I agree that there have been those who are summing your last paragraph up perfectly, and I agree with your PoV in that respect.

As for the sniping, well here you are on another thread have a snide little dig about my post, if it isn't you it's SWP Back or mcfcliam with your pitchforks, I only wish Paddy Power would give me the odds on which one of you will be next ;).

Being positive or negative about what the club does isn't sniping if it's a legitimate concern, which I tend to believe(and try to back up) my points are.

That being said, I've found myself being awfully positive about the club in the past few weeks, strange how winning matches breeds confidence and optimism...

Have I really done that much to upset you JMW? I think it's all square on who gets the digs in really.

This is true but I'd just thought I'd point it out to show I'm not sniping at the club. Generally I'm very positive about the club. Didsbury Dave even has me down as a tubthumping happy clapper. That's cred right there.

Yes, I've noticed, even Didsbury Dave has been alarmingly positive by his standards over the past few weeks. We need to get that sorted out. Any ideas on the cheese front? Compulsory inflatables day or something?

 

[80s Shorts]

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.

Has Mancini had another "six months and three years" style foot-in-mouth moment? I've been telling you all he's not very bright since he started...

Eh? Do you know what Glasnost means?

LMFAO.

 

[blue order]

I cannot believe how a thread can grow to such gargantuan proportions.Conspiracy on conspiracy ... misplaced statements ... facts quoted that are mere opinions .... panic on the streets of Beswick etc etc.

How so many people overlook the obvious here beggars belief.Then again,you are not like me trained in the arts of the C(L)IA.

Rule one ... go back to the first piece of primary evidence which is usually where the answer lies.

I,ve looked at the video from last night and the answer is there for all to see.

Not anywhere does Roberto make any reference to Sheikh Mohammed in his brief address.

If you play it again though there is however a very quick reference to Sheikh "Marmite".You can hear this clearly.

Half the family love him but half hate him.Because of this and the fact that he is only a distant cousin is why the club thought it best to edit the reference to him from the narrative.

Wars can start when simple things like this are misinterpreted so be more careful and vigilant.

The C(L)IA may not be here to protect you next time!

p.s.Great post Chris (London).