David Conn on Abu Dhabi and Human Rights

[Skashion]

You'd just lynch him there presumably.

No, we'd take him to Abu Dhabi first.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

He should be taken to court

What for? Writing about a press release? You'd just lynch him there presumably.

Human rights? What human rights? :))

For maligning the image of mcfc

 

[Zabbasbeard]

He should be taken to court

What for? Writing about a press release? You'd just lynch him there presumably.

Steady on PB. I'm no defender of Pakistan but let's not tar the whole country with the same brush.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Steady on PB. I'm no defender of Pakistan but let's not tar the whole country with the same brush.[/quote]

What has pakistan has to do with it?:/

 

[levets]

Isn't he supposed to be a city fan? Strange way of showing it at times

He's a first class fuckwit who harks back to the day of stinking of piss in the kippax toilets and jumpers for goal posts! He has done as much to demonise the 'new' city as any of the journo's.

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Steady on PB. I'm no defender of Pakistan but let's not tar the whole country with the same brush.

[quote="What has pakistan has to do with it?:/[/quote]


Ask PB in reference to your location and "lynching"!

 

[bobom]

Abu Dhabi has a dodgy human rights record? Bear shits in woods. We took Thaksin's money, too. Ultimately, I'm not sure any money in football is clean. Abramovich? Don't make me laugh.

 

[pinkwheeltrim]

david conn on usmanov <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/sep/26/topstories3.mainsection?guni=Article:in%20body%20link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/se ... ody%20link</a>

david conn on liverpool's blighting of anfield area
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jun/24/liverpool-houses-landlord" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... s-landlord</a>

david conn on the glazers
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-glazers-shares-debt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/blo ... hares-debt</a>

david conn on abramovich
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/sports-breakfast/130702/conn-abramovichs-ten-years-chelsea-owner-200759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/sports ... ner-200759</a>


This isn't a vendetta against us and whilst I've enjoyed our success these past few years, I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel uncomfortable about where our money has come from. All fans with this kind of ownership should.

Why in the world would be uncomfortable ? If it's one thing you should be grateful for everything they have done so far for the club.

As an environmental campaigner I have felt deeply uncomfortable ever since the takeover. Our riches come from oil, that bothers me, we are sponsored by an airline, that bothers me and now these links (whether spurious or not)to human rights abuses bother me. I love my club and still go to games but a part of me feels a bit of a hypocrite for doing so. Having said that I've tried to assuage my guilt by not buying any Etihad sponsored kits, (it's retro shirts for me) and by reminding myself of all the money the owners are pouring into a very run down part of the city. May 13th 2012 was one of the best days of my life and I thank the sheik wholeheartedly for that but if I'm honest I wouldn't really mind too much if ADUG pulled out now and we went back to mediocrity. At least Swales and his tele's never killed anyone!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting this. I initially assumed this was a press release that he'd just picked up on but I can't find anything from HRW or Amnesty since April. So he's suddenly decided to write a story about this out of the blue. Journalists rarely write things for no reason. They do it because a story breaks, they've been following something and have enough to go to press with or someone briefs them.

I said last night, almost as a joke, that he could have been briefed by elements connected to Abu Dhabi who are perhaps more liberal and want to see changes happen faster than they otherwise might. I'm not so sure this was such a daft idea now.

 

[The Flash]

david conn on usmanov <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/sep/26/topstories3.mainsection?guni=Article:in%20body%20link" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/se ... ody%20link</a>

david conn on liverpool's blighting of anfield area
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jun/24/liverpool-houses-landlord" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... s-landlord</a>

david conn on the glazers
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/jul/04/manchester-united-glazers-shares-debt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/football/blo ... hares-debt</a>

david conn on abramovich
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/sports-breakfast/130702/conn-abramovichs-ten-years-chelsea-owner-200759" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/sports ... ner-200759</a>


This isn't a vendetta against us and whilst I've enjoyed our success these past few years, I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel uncomfortable about where our money has come from. All fans with this kind of ownership should.

Why in the world would be uncomfortable ? If it's one thing you should be grateful for everything they have done so far for the club.

As an environmental campaigner I have felt deeply uncomfortable ever since the takeover. Our riches come from oil, that bothers me, we are sponsored by an airline, that bothers me and now these links (whether spurious or not)to human rights abuses bother me. I love my club and still go to games but a part of me feels a bit of a hypocrite for doing so. Having said that I've tried to assuage my guilt by not buying any Etihad sponsored kits, (it's retro shirts for me) and by reminding myself of all the money the owners are pouring into a very run down part of the city. May 13th 2012 was one of the best days of my life and I thank the sheik wholeheartedly for that but if I'm honest I wouldn't really mind too much if ADUG pulled out now and we went back to mediocrity. At least Swales and his tele's never killed anyone!

Do you feel this same guilt when you put petrol in your car?

Why do you not buy an Etihad sponsored kit? The profit goes to the kit manufacturer, not Etihad.

And your retro kit is produced using by-products of the oil industry.

Human rights abuses are happening in this very country, just look at the treatment, or lack of it, in your nearest NHS hospital...

Your stance is laudible, PWT, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[bluenose45]

Interesting this. I initially assumed this was a press release that he'd just picked up on but I can't find anything from HRW or Amnesty since April. So he's suddenly decided to write a story about this out of the blue. Journalists rarely write things for no reason. They do it because a story breaks, they've been following something and have enough to go to press with or someone briefs them.

I said last night, almost as a joke, that he could have been briefed by elements connected to Abu Dhabi who are perhaps more liberal and want to see changes happen faster than they otherwise might. I'm not so sure this was such a daft idea now.

Israeli - Palestinian talks maybe?

 

[Skashion]

As an environmental campaigner I have felt deeply uncomfortable ever since the takeover. Our riches come from oil, that bothers me, we are sponsored by an airline, that bothers me and now these links (whether spurious or not)to human rights abuses bother me. I love my club and still go to games but a part of me feels a bit of a hypocrite for doing so. Having said that I've tried to assuage my guilt by not buying any Etihad sponsored kits, (it's retro shirts for me) and by reminding myself of all the money the owners are pouring into a very run down part of the city. May 13th 2012 was one of the best days of my life and I thank the sheik wholeheartedly for that but if I'm honest I wouldn't really mind too much if ADUG pulled out now and we went back to mediocrity. At least Swales and his tele's never killed anyone!

Oil and airlines bother you? Thank fuck I'm not an ecomentalist.

 

[nomorethaksintimes]

I've know nowhere near enough to hold a worthwhile opinion on human rights in Abu Dhabi - but a quick Google search reveals there's clearly a debate to be had.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/ ... b-emirates</a>

That debate isn't really happening on this thread as everyone is all too happy to lay into Conn (which I can understand as he does seem an opportunist) whilst ignoring the wider issue. It's a bit cringeworthy that people don't want to look at whether our owners have been involved in very unethical practices or not. Again I'm not saying that he has, but I worry that many Bluemooners would have zero interest in finding out.

Mansour has been the best thing to ever happen to City as far as I'm concerned but at the end of the day he's just a very very very rich guy putting a tiny fraction of his wealth into our club and it could easily have been someone else or another club. He doesn't deserve a free ride on human rights just because he's bought a few football players with his sparecash.

 

[Blue Haze]

I've know nowhere near enough to hold a worthwhile opinion on human rights in Abu Dhabi - but a quick Google search reveals there's clearly a debate to be had.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/ ... b-emirates</a>

That debate isn't really happening on this thread as everyone is all too happy to lay into Conn (which I can understand as he does seem an opportunist) whilst ignoring the wider issue. It's a bit cringeworthy that people don't want to look at whether our owners have been involved in very unethical practices or not. Again I'm not saying that he has, but I worry that many Bluemooners would have zero interest in finding out.

Mansour has been the best thing to ever happen to City as far as I'm concerned but at the end of the day he's just a very very very rich guy putting a tiny fraction of his wealth into our club and it could easily have been someone else or another club. He doesn't deserve a free ride on human rights just because he's bought a few football players with his sparecash.

Why would it matter to me? Some of us view the ruling family as a lot better than the alternatives. Look at Egypt.

I didn't realise that by supporting City, I had to become a world democracy advocate. Living in a democracy wholly owned and run by corporations myself, I've little zeal to go preaching about it to others. Let the Al Nahyans, the Russians and the Chinese run their countries as they wish, it has nothing to do with me. I just want to watch football, that's it.

 

[pinkwheeltrim]

Why in the world would be uncomfortable ? If it's one thing you should be grateful for everything they have done so far for the club.

As an environmental campaigner I have felt deeply uncomfortable ever since the takeover. Our riches come from oil, that bothers me, we are sponsored by an airline, that bothers me and now these links (whether spurious or not)to human rights abuses bother me. I love my club and still go to games but a part of me feels a bit of a hypocrite for doing so. Having said that I've tried to assuage my guilt by not buying any Etihad sponsored kits, (it's retro shirts for me) and by reminding myself of all the money the owners are pouring into a very run down part of the city. May 13th 2012 was one of the best days of my life and I thank the sheik wholeheartedly for that but if I'm honest I wouldn't really mind too much if ADUG pulled out now and we went back to mediocrity. At least Swales and his tele's never killed anyone!

Do you feel this same guilt when you put petrol in your car?

Why do you not buy an Etihad sponsored kit? The profit goes to the kit manufacturer, not Etihad.

And your retro kit is produced using by-products of the oil industry.

Human rights abuses are happening in this very country, just look at the treatment, or lack of it, in your nearest NHS hospital...

Your stance is laudible, PWT, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I don't own a car for environmental reasons.

I don't buy an Etihad branded kit kit because I don't want to be seen to be advertizing an airline Last year I spent months travelling by land and sea to see the in laws in Australia rather than fly.

I know the retro kit is produced with oil by products, hell, most things are including the computer I am typing this on, that's the modern world, doesn't mean I'm happy or wholly comfortable with it. I don't have a tele or a fridge, I live off grid, if the solar panel doesn't produce enough power to run the computer then I have no computer, and yes I know the solar panel is made using oil by products but I really do try as much as is humanly possible to be aware of my energy consumption at all times.

I know human rights abuses happen in this country, Jesus Christ, my friend was having a five year relationship with someone who turned out to be an undercover police officer! State sanctioned rape! My home was bugged by same officer. Believe me when it comes to human rights abuses this country is probably a damned sight worse than the UAE!


I'm a realist and I know much of what I do is pissing in the wind but hey, at least I'm aware of when I'm being hypocritical, and when all said and done my continued support of City is hypocritical (for many reasons) and completely incongruous with both my ideals and my lifestyle choice. I still go though, and I still love it but it does bother me on some level, that's all I was saying!

 

[nomorethaksintimes]

I've know nowhere near enough to hold a worthwhile opinion on human rights in Abu Dhabi - but a quick Google search reveals there's clearly a debate to be had.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/ ... b-emirates</a>

That debate isn't really happening on this thread as everyone is all too happy to lay into Conn (which I can understand as he does seem an opportunist) whilst ignoring the wider issue. It's a bit cringeworthy that people don't want to look at whether our owners have been involved in very unethical practices or not. Again I'm not saying that he has, but I worry that many Bluemooners would have zero interest in finding out.

Mansour has been the best thing to ever happen to City as far as I'm concerned but at the end of the day he's just a very very very rich guy putting a tiny fraction of his wealth into our club and it could easily have been someone else or another club. He doesn't deserve a free ride on human rights just because he's bought a few football players with his sparecash.

Why would it matter to me? Some of us view the ruling family as a lot better than the alternatives. Look at Egypt.

I didn't realise that by supporting City, I had to become a world democracy advocate. Living in a democracy wholly owned and run by corporations myself, I've little zeal to go preaching about it to others. Let the Al Nahyans, the Russians and the Chinese run their countries as they wish, it has nothing to do with me. I just want to watch football, that's it.

Because it belies a selfish attitude where your default position is just not to give a shit or show any interest in the treatment of a fellow human being because you 'just want to watch football' (of a very high quality paid for by the same people) which could potentially be funded by an unethical regime.

Again I'm not saying Abu Dhabi is an unethical regime - I have no idea - but you want to have your cake and eat it. Would you say the same if we were funded by the 3rd Reich and have a similar 'I'm alright jack' view of the whole thing? Again I'm not comparing our owners to the Nazis! - but I hope you see where I'm coming from.

There's also a lot of moral relativism on this thread (with which you can justify pretty much everything) by people who just don't want to properly consider whether this is an issue.

 

[Judge Roughneck]

"....bought a few footballers with his spare cash" ?????

Are you for real? He's in the process of transforming east Manchester FFS! For mutual benefit no doubt, but more so than any government since the industrial revolution.

If the leadership of his country has some truck with Islamic fundamentalist dissidents in his own state then frankly I'm all for it. At least they're dealing with their own affairs and not trying cajole everyone else into the vortex like Syria.
I don't see how the Sheik or Manchester City should be held accountable for regime policy.

The Sheik is good for Manchester and good for Manchester City and if I ever see Conn at The Etihad he's getting told what I think of his opinion in no uncertain terms.

 

[Graceyboy]

Well said PB, sums up my own thoughts on the subject.

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.

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?

PB are you seriously thinking that this article by Conn will reverse the guilty verdicts, let them all out and send them on their way with a bucket of money, all from one Journo. and they didn't bat an eyelid when Amnesty etc were protesting at the time. You must be smoking something

-- Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:15 pm --

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.

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.

 

[Blue Haze]

Because it belies a selfish attitude

And BOOM! Someone claims selfishness because I don't do as they do.

This reminds me of people shaming women who don't desire children as 'selfish'. If you really believe in those freedoms you're going on about, then respect those of us who are not crusaders for world democracy.

This is a football site, I'm interested in football. I don't come here to be shamed into joining your advocacy group. I didn't come here to talk about your morality, I don't personally care about your opinions on it.

 

[nomorethaksintimes]

Because it belies a selfish attitude

And BOOM! Someone claims selfishness because I don't do as they do.

This reminds me of people shaming women who don't desire children as 'selfish'. If you really believe in those freedoms you're going on about, then respect those of us who are not crusaders for world democracy.

This is a football site, I'm interested in football. I don't come here to be shamed into joining your advocacy group. I didn't come here to talk about your morality, I don't personally care about your opinions on it.

Do you want to read what I said and actually respond to that? I don't want my point to get lost in a shouty argument but you didn't really address what I said. Or are you just going to write 'I don't care' again?