halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,072
If you ask me (which you didn't) we are "owned by a member of the ruling AD family". No-one has a problem with that, I imagine. We are not state-owned or state-funded. Poor @Prestwich_Blue, he made an off-the-cuff remark years ago and it still gets rolled out every few months.Excellent.
The ubiquitous use of "state owned" grinds my gears and I totally applaud the intent behind this.
As an aside, you have previously said we are "effectively" state owned and I've run with this on here as well following your lead.
Do you still stand by "effectively state owned"? Or do you have another more suited expression to describe the relationship with Abu Dhabi such as "state funded"?
As an aside, the power in an absolute monarchy rests with the absolute monarch, not with his brother, so the comparison to Abramovic is the same mistake Tebas is making if he really has referred to Mansour as a oligarch. An oligarch is a member of an oligarchy, AD is an absolute monarchy and so that definition doesn't apply. (I'm surprised no-one has run with oiligarch yet). When AD actively involves itself in destabilising western democracies, then I may have a problem with City's ownership by Mansour, in the same way I have had a problem with Abramovic for years. I don't see that happening in my lifetime though.
There is a reason why no organisation that has any importance to the club has ever tried to claim we are state-owned. It's a shame none of them tried, it would have put the club in a much stronger position with all the other arseholes who throw the phrase around.