If there is any evidence to directly link Sheikh Mansour to it, let that be the article. Not some spurious bollocks about Khaldoon accompanying Sheikh Mohammed to discuss military cooperation and contracts.pinkwheeltrim said:Prestwich_Blue said:We should all be aware of and concerned about human rights abuses and the fact that we're City supporters shouldn't close our eyes to this. All the owners of the big clubs are dubious in some way or other.
The Glazers and their business practices, hiding behind tax havens and entities that restrict disclosure of their financial affairs.
At Arsenal there is Kroenke, part of the Walmart-owning family, a business which is notorious for its exploitation of its workforce. Then there's Usmanov, a friend of the Russian and Uzbek regimes, whose human rights abuses are worse than anything in Abu Dhabi.
Chelsea - for Abramovich see Usmanov.
Conn has written critical articles about all these. Why should he sacrifice his principles just because of the club he supports? It would be as hypocritical as the Catholic hierarchy protecting paedophile priests.
You could also look at it the other way and say that articles like this are more likely to embarrass the UAE and make them change their ways.
Well said PB, sums up my own thoughts on the subject.
That's a nonsensical position in many ways. Sheikh Mansour is part of the Abu Dhabi/UAE establishment. Of course he didn't beat or mistreat prisoners himself but he is part of the regime which does. You cannot deny that.Skashion said:If there is any evidence to directly link Sheikh Mansour to it, let that be the article. Not some spurious bollocks about Khaldoon accompanying Sheikh Mohammed to discuss military cooperation and contracts.pinkwheeltrim said:Prestwich_Blue said:We should all be aware of and concerned about human rights abuses and the fact that we're City supporters shouldn't close our eyes to this. All the owners of the big clubs are dubious in some way or other.
The Glazers and their business practices, hiding behind tax havens and entities that restrict disclosure of their financial affairs.
At Arsenal there is Kroenke, part of the Walmart-owning family, a business which is notorious for its exploitation of its workforce. Then there's Usmanov, a friend of the Russian and Uzbek regimes, whose human rights abuses are worse than anything in Abu Dhabi.
Chelsea - for Abramovich see Usmanov.
Conn has written critical articles about all these. Why should he sacrifice his principles just because of the club he supports? It would be as hypocritical as the Catholic hierarchy protecting paedophile priests.
You could also look at it the other way and say that articles like this are more likely to embarrass the UAE and make them change their ways.
Well said PB, sums up my own thoughts on the subject.
Conn has been critical of a number of owners over their links or business models. He's being entirely consistent. It's hypocritical to praise him for exposing the Glazers' financial shenanigans and criticise him when he has a go at our owners.adorado30 said:PhuketBlue said:I assume Russian and US owners will be subject to the same sort of press.
Unfortunately such press only applies to the Muslim owner. All the others are running such perfect and honest business models.
It isn't remotely nonsensical. I have a firm belief in individual responsibility. There are people at Nuremberg who walked free, and rightly so. Being part of a regime should not establish someone's individual guilt. If Sheikh Mansour did not personally order or sanction human rights abuses, there's no reason to concern us.Prestwich_Blue said:That's a nonsensical position in many ways. Sheikh Mansour is part of the Abu Dhabi/UAE establishment. Of course he didn't beat or mistreat prisoners himself but he is part of the regime which does. You cannot deny that.
I've no problem with Abu Dhabi not being particularly democratic as I think that the Western model is not necessarily appropriate for all countries at a given point in time (if ever). But you of all people, one of the most politically aware posters on here, should be able to separate your love for City from justified criticism of human rights issues.
ADUG are very sensitive about bad press. Hopefully something like this will shock them into corrective action and doing the right thing. Surely that's something you should be supporting?
bluenova said:Fantastic replies Prestwich Blue.
Clearly when Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch bring out a report specifically highlighting City then it's quite right it's going to be reported. David Conn is one of the few journalists with the integrity to do so.
However, I am not convinced the point being made by AI/HRW stands. For sure, City are being used to promote a positive image of Abu Dhabi. Hasn't that been made clear from the start? That one of the great benefits of the purchase was to raise the profile of AD when they are trying to move their economy away from reliance on oil.
What I don't agree with is that the City publicity will draw attention away from human rights abuses. On the contrary, I believe that City's name will instead draw attention towards what happens in Abu Dhabi. In fact AI/HRW have used the club to do exactly that.
I'm not a huge fan of the regimes in the middle east, and frankly some of the earlier comments about 'killing dissenters' being ok were offensive (even if they were attempts at humour) - but hopefully we'll be part of a move to a more enlightened regime, rather than apologists for an evil one.