David Conn on Abu Dhabi and Human Rights

[ianw16]

As others have said, I'm not sure that I am comfortable with making sweeping judgements regarding the suitability of someone to run a football club based upon these allegations, as there are very few countries that can hold their heads high on such issues and, despite there being issues in UAE I don't see the country as anywhere near regimes that need totally castigating.

I also think that there is a bit of opportunism in making the name of City the story, again, as others have said.

However, if a high profile sporting institution is owned by someone who is part of the government or ruler of a country then scrutiny of goings on in that country has to be expected, even welcomed, as there are regimes out there who most certainly would not be suitable owners (and I do not mean Abu Dhabi).

For that reason, despite my reservations stated above, I don't really have an issue with the matters in the article being discussed. In fact, as PB has said, there may be more than meets the eye regarding the reasoning for the story. But that's just speculation.

If it is the case that certain abuses have occurred then it's good that it is written about. That's how things change and progress. Although I don't subscribe to the view that such incidents make a place some sort of totalitarian hellhole or people from there unsuitable owners. I don't particularly like looking at it this way but there are comparative issues in all countries that equal and surpass the matters written about in the article.

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this thread though is the strong attitude from many that such issues should either not be discussed or are totally irrelevant. If you are owned by someone with political power then you should welcome all such matters being discussed and transparency. To take the "who cares" or head in the sand attitude is to invite people who are far, far worse than our owners to take control of clubs and significantly tarnish them in the future.

These things should be discussed and written about. Perhaps in a different style. Perhaps without making City the story (although given that we live in a country where Abu Dhabi's involvement is intrinsically linked to City in the minds of the public, I think that might be hoping for too much). Not because this story is necessarily a dramatic scandal that is beyond the pale but because similar matters in the future, not necessarily involving City or Abu Dhabi, might be and might really need exposing.

Someone being involved in the football club you support is not an acceptable reason to want to see any scrutiny or criticism of them modified or suppressed.

I agree with what you say. Conn, though, obviously feels he has an axe to grind. This isn't a sports story. It's about human rights.
The big story here, which he passes over as if it is of little consequence, is that Cameron is prepared to visit the place to promote British business, whilst no doubt being aware of said human rights abuses. Furthermore, the company who stand to gain from this deal are the squeaky clean BAE systems, suppliers of arms to Saudi, Zimbabwe and Indonesia among other places, and formerly producers of cluster bombs.
As a left leaning newspaper surely THAT is the story, with a brief mention that a relative of the ruler owns MCFC.
Bloke seems a bit bitter and twisted to me.

 

[East Level 2]

A few pages back someone said Conn seems to want a return to a golden age of level playing field football that never really existed. I think this is pretty much spot on. He sees our current ownership as part of a major problem within the game and is happy to use any stick to beat those he sees as corrupting the game. The mantra of these people is "it's all about money" to which I usually reply "no shit Sherlock". The game has been all about money for several decades; abolishing the maximum wage, away teams no longer getting a share of gate receipts for league games, increased TV money for Prem teams, guaranteed high levels of TV income for CL teams which is most countries gives those clubs a huge advantage over others, and the Bosman ruling which brought about another shift in power.
Those changes have all occurred in the last fifty or so years, but the fifty before that saw a hell of a lot of changes in the game (though possibly not as many relating to money) and the next fifty could see even more.
The world has also changed in the last fifty years, and it certainly changed a huge amount in the previous fifty. More to the point our standards of acceptable behaviour (as individuals and as nations) have also changed. But not all changes have the same intensity over the same time scale. Is it that long since we treated people badly and would we be prepared to overlook the niceties of law if we found a group genuinely trying to overthrow the government or the royal family.
Comments from those who know Abu Dhabi seem to imply the good things about the country outweigh the bad. Comments on other sites suggest it's a matter of extremes; the good being much better than here, mainland Europe or the USA but the bad being much worse. For those in the middle it's better hence they claim a better standard for life for all those who are just bothered by standard of life.
Foreign ownership brings foreign baggage and it's baggage we aren't accustomed to
I know some people that have known Conn for many years and he's always been a Blue. They also claim he's continued his support (though he has an odd way of showing it) unlike Shindler who appears to have spat out his dummy and done a runner.
Sorry about the rambling post but I thought about contributing while waiting for the postman - hopefully he'll have my season ticket today.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm uncomfortable with the type of foreign owners who have invaded the English game in particular, but also European clubs like PSG and Monaco.

None of them are good for football, and none of them are ethically clean. Whether its the alleged human rights abuses in middle Eastern countries , the alleged criminal activities carried out by owners from the former USSR or the exploitative greed of American owners. It all stinks to high heaven. So does the deeply ingrained corruption of FIFA, the business practices of major sponsors (my own small protest is refusing to buy Nike gear) and abominations like a winter World Cup in Qatar. It's all ugly.

By the same token so is everything else. I work in precious metals and Im aware of the human exploitation and environmental devastation that causes. Ditto for many other industries.

I grew up in an era when football was tarnished by poor facilities, violence and racism. People talked about the need to clean it up. Ironically, despite its ugly flaws, it was much cleaner than it is.

As a fan it's hard to walk away from something that is a major part of who you are and what your background is. That's what clubs are to most fans, so the only real option is to accept things we are powerless to change, but without closing our eyes to what has happened to our game.

As an Arsenal fan I openly admit that I would prefer Usmanov in control to the Yank Kroenke. Morally, I understand the alleged crimes of the former are probably greater than those of the latter, but if you have been put into a situation where you have to get in bed with a crook, you might as well go for the one who offers the most success.

The people who are responsible for this are those who prostituted English football to the world with the creation of the Premiership, and not the fans. The Germans have the right idea keeping certain elements out of their game. It might mean a few million less tv fans in Asia and smaller club budgets, but their game is pure in comparison to ours.

I actually agree with much of what you say and you're right to say that it's not the fans who have prostituted English football, although we've stood by and allowed it. However, where I must take issue is that the people who have allowed it are clubs like Arsenal, Liverpool & the rags, who were part of the G14 and used their power to get more and more money for them at the expense of other clubs. To compete, other clubs needed that foreign ownership. And which is better, an owner who puts money into the game or one just seeking to take money out?

I respect your honesty saying that you'd rather go with Usmanov, for all his dubious background. All the people who say they'd give up if their club was owned by someone like Sheikh Mansour, Abramovich or Usmanov are deluding themselves.

 

[mcmanus]

I thought i'd just read a line that said Osama Bin Laden was an MIB.

 

[City Raider]

I'm out of the country, has this gained much traction with the general media or is it a one man show?

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

I thought i'd just read a line that said Osama Bin Laden was an MIB.

Nah, he used to sit next to Matty the Gooner at Highbury but he binned them when they sold out and built the Emirates; was against his beliefs.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'm out of the country, has this gained much traction with the general media or is it a one man show?

Yes. There's a huge protest outside The Etihad. At least 100,000 there were battling with police and the Army have been called in. The stadium is ringed by tanks and I can smell the tear gas from here.

 

[Oystercatcher28]

I suppose suppliers to UK businesses (including supermarkets) are never guiilty of Human Rights abuses. Banking sector neither.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Bbc taking the moral high ground on human rights, wooooo the irony what about children's rights

Yep, they knew about Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall but they kept it quiet.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

I'm uncomfortable with the type of foreign owners who have invaded the English game in particular, but also European clubs like PSG and Monaco.

None of them are good for football, and none of them are ethically clean. Whether its the alleged human rights abuses in middle Eastern countries , the alleged criminal activities carried out by owners from the former USSR or the exploitative greed of American owners. It all stinks to high heaven. So does the deeply ingrained corruption of FIFA, the business practices of major sponsors (my own small protest is refusing to buy Nike gear) and abominations like a winter World Cup in Qatar. It's all ugly.

By the same token so is everything else. I work in precious metals and Im aware of the human exploitation and environmental devastation that causes. Ditto for many other industries.

I grew up in an era when football was tarnished by poor facilities, violence and racism. People talked about the need to clean it up. Ironically, despite its ugly flaws, it was much cleaner than it is.

As a fan it's hard to walk away from something that is a major part of who you are and what your background is. That's what clubs are to most fans, so the only real option is to accept things we are powerless to change, but without closing our eyes to what has happened to our game.

As an Arsenal fan I openly admit that I would prefer Usmanov in control to the Yank Kroenke. Morally, I understand the alleged crimes of the former are probably greater than those of the latter, but if you have been put into a situation where you have to get in bed with a crook, you might as well go for the one who offers the most success.

The people who are responsible for this are those who prostituted English football to the world with the creation of the Premiership, and not the fans. The Germans have the right idea keeping certain elements out of their game. It might mean a few million less tv fans in Asia and smaller club budgets, but their game is pure in comparison to ours.

I couldn't care less what you think. Your misplaced self righteousness is laughable. You're happy to take the Emirati cash aren't you, and ours. Arsenil - the biggest bunch of hypocrites outisde of Trafford. Just go away.