La Liga official complaint about City

Surely if the Sheikh used his own personal wealth to invest in the club no matter the corporate vehicle used then what he does as his day job is irrelevent.

His wealth comes from the oil and gas revenues and what he inherited from his father. Why is that any different to any businessman.
 
Quite so. She has an opinion, it can be firm, and she expresses it, sometimes directly in meetings with the P.M. The whole shift has been towards discretion in royal intervention in politics. But there is intervention.
And the royal family’s intervention is so often damaging. For example, Charles has intervened in planning decisions on the National Gallery and Chelsea barracks, both disastrous. He has encouraged opposition to genetic engineering because it is “god‘s work” and he is the only reason NHS continues to spend millions on homeopathic medicine.
 
If we were owned by a company like Mubadala (a UAE state-owned investement company) you could say we were state owned.

But we aren’t; we are majority owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC (a Mansour bin Zayed - as an individual - owned company), and minority owned by Silver Lake and China Media Capital. Three individual shareholders, none of which are not state entities.
 
Surely if the Sheikh used his own personal wealth to invest in the club no matter the corporate vehicle used then what he does as his day job is irrelevent.

His wealth comes from the oil and gas revenues and what he inherited from his father. Why is that any different to any businessman.

Explain to me the difference between a nation's wealth and ones personal wealth, when you're an absolute monarch?

I think you'll find the clue lies in the word absolute.
 
Last edited:
Surely if the Sheikh used his own personal wealth to invest in the club no matter the corporate vehicle used then what he does as his day job is irrelevent.

His wealth comes from the oil and gas revenues and what he inherited from his father. Why is that any different to any businessman.

He's not a Texan so it's just not right ;)
 
If we were owned by a company like Mubadala (a UAE state-owned investement company) you could say we were state owned.

But we aren’t; we are majority owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC (a Mansour bin Zayed - as an individual - owned company), and minority owned by Silver Lake and China Media Capital. Three individual shareholders, none of which are not state entities.

We have to stop going down this road.

You think like a Brit because you are a Brit, the distinction you make doesn't hold up.

Our detractors come from two distinct camps, the liberal left and from football's big beasts, primarily American owners in the Premier League and the "established" giants of European football. These two groups have one thing in common, their opposition is political.

These camps have very different political aims, even if they borrow talking points from each other, but essentially it all boils down to politics, and labouring on about subtle distinctions between personal and sovereign wealth won't counter it.

We need a robust political counter argument.

We need to tell our detractors to fuck off, it is for the Emirati's to decide their future, not for us to lecture them with a left wing version of the white man's burden.

And the Hateful Eight and Tabas can fuck off as well, our owners play by the rules, we're just better at it than they are.
 
Last edited:
Surely if the Sheikh used his own personal wealth to invest in the club no matter the corporate vehicle used then what he does as his day job is irrelevent.

His wealth comes from the oil and gas revenues and what he inherited from his father. Why is that any different to any businessman.
And the source of the Glazers wealth? Oil company cashed in by the old man.
 
Quite so. She has an opinion, it can be firm, and she expresses it, sometimes directly in meetings with the P.M. The whole shift has been towards discretion in royal intervention in politics. But there is intervention.
She uses influence, but not power.

Theoretically she has some power, but it's not used, and if she tried, it's likely that would be taken away from her.

The influence she has isn't because she could block legislation - it's more that she's incredibly popular and it would be bad PR for the government to be seen to upset the Queen. Better to listen and nod, and pass that on, and if it's not too big an ask, occasionally acquiesce. If she tried it with anything really important, even the most ardent monarchist in govt would quickly put her in her place.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.