La Liga official complaint about City

[Saddleworth2]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

Brilliant mate. Every one of us should copy that first para and use it to refute whoever or whatever calls us ‘state owned’. We should use it every time we see that slur.

 

[bluealf]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

Eloquently put, well said indeed

 

[Saddleworth2]

This is a fine letter, but there are two areas where it's a tad weak.

Our monarchy is a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while our sovereign is head of state, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected parliament.

The UAE is a federation of absolute monarchies, it is a "tribal autocracy" where the seven constituent monarchies are led by tribal rulers.There are no democratically elected institutions in the UAE.

So comparing the Queen to the Sheikh doesn't really work, she has no political power by dint of royal blood, the Sheikh does.

As you know the Sheikh is vice chairman of Mubadala Investment Group, the Emirati State-owned sovereign wealth fund, he did not buy City with funds from this group. Instead he bought City as owner of the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), an investment company for the Abu Dhabi royal family.

You and I might consider this distinction to be of paramount importance, I very much doubt WSC will.

I get that but both The Queen and HRH Sheik Mansour have significant personal wealth which they choose to invest in sport so the comparison does work.
Its also a comparison that the man on the street can understand therefore it’s powerful.
I think your point about the difference in political power is nuanced and I think I know what you are getting at but it’s not for a direct refute that City is state owned.

 

[cheekybids]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

Beautifully written. Now I think the best delivery method is to print it & wrap it around a brick & launch it through the window.

 

[manimanc]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

 

[bluenova]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

I definitely agree up to a point, but clearly there's a difference between the Abu Dhabi royal family and the British royal family. One rules their country, and the other one eats a lot of fancy food, cuts ribbons and shakes hands with people.

Mansour is a Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, and his brother is the ruler. While I agree that Man City are not simply state owned, the relationship between the state and the royal family in the UAE is a hell of a lot more intertwined than any horses the Queen has bought.

It's the kind of stretch that makes it easy to dismiss the rest, even if it's a well balanced argument.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I get that but both The Queen and HRH Sheik Mansour have significant personal wealth which they choose to invest in sport so the comparison does work.
Its also a comparison that the man on the street can understand therefore it’s powerful.
I think your point about the difference in political power is nuanced and I think I know what you are getting at but it’s not for a direct refute that City is state owned.

I get your point. If City was owned by the sovereign wealth fund the connection with the state would be undeniable. Sovereign wealth funds think strategically, they look to the far horizon and beyond, with the overriding goal of securing the future prosperity of the country once the oil runs dry, that might well have a political as well as economic angle to it, increasing the UAE's soft power might well be one of its aims.

City is not owned by the sovereign wealth fund, it is owned in a private capacity by the Sheikh and Khaldoon runs it in a way indistinguishable from any large investment company, but the Sheikh is the Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE and that cannot be easily brushed aside.

Think on this, Abramovich has had Chelsea snatched away from him not because he ran Chelsea in to the ground, not because of the ownership model, or the behaviour of the parent company, not because as Chelsea owner he did anything illegal, or broke any football governing rules, but because of what he is, a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin.

The origin of his wealth is why he no longer owns Chelsea.

So what is the origin of Sheikh Mansour's wealth?

Even that doofus Simon Jordan made the connection today....



Of course the Sheikh can own any number of things in a personal capacity, but the origin of his wealth and therefore everything he owns, together with the political status he enjoys, is entirely down to his membership of the royal family, the most powerful family in a federation of absolute monarchies.

Like so much of this debate battle lines get drawn and nuance is lost. The UAE is the most liberal of the Gulf States, unlike Saudi there are no religious police. There may not be much political freedom but unlike Saudi there is a great deal of social and economic freedom. The UAE is the destination of choice for guest workers from all over the world and every year it is voted by Arabs as the most desirable place in the Arab world to live.

City is not a sports washing exercise, if it was the Sheikh would've bought a big name sports franchise in the States, besides the UAE has nothing to wash. Universal human rights are nothing of the sort, there's nothing universal about them, only about 20% of the world live in countries you could call liberal democracies, of the 80% the UAE lies pretty near the top of the best of the rest.

The Guardian might scream human rights but it's just a handy tool for them to further an agenda, they protest too much, they know what it's really like in the UAE. As for Tabas we're taking what he believes is rightly his and he doesn't like it, it's football politics with more than a whiff of entitlement and corruption.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Just about to write a letter to When Saturday Comes, who have referred to us in the last couple of editions as 'state owned'. I'm going to quote, verbatim, the paragraph in the published CFG accounts where it details the ownership as 75.1% Sheikh Mansour, with the remaining 24.1% held by various Chinese groups. (Silver Lake's original 10% holding was converted to preference shares, which are classed as debt rather than equity).

Im probably wasting my time but this is something I feel the club should publicise.

It is wrong to say 24.9% (corrected from 24.1%) of shares are controlled by various Chinese groups.

Also, Preference shares can be debt, equity or a combination.

The shareholding spit from the confirmation statement filed on 13/2/2020 and correspond with the rounded figures in the paragraph from the CFG accounts:

448,280,782 - ADUG - Ordinary shares 75.12175%
73,734,993 - CMC - Ordinary Share 12.35632% s
62,160,314 - SLA CM MARCUS HOLDINGS A Preference Shares 10.41667%
12,562,927 - VEGA FZ LLC - Ordinary Shares 2.10526%

TOTALS:
596,739,016 100.00000%

SLA is an abbreviation for SilverLake and the company is registerd in Delamere. Vega is UAE based.

HOWEVER, the equity percentages have been updated on the CFG site:

CFG is majority owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, with significant minority shareholdings held by Silver Lake (14.54%) and China Media Capital (CMC) Consortium (8.24%). From 23rd September 2008 until December 2015, City Football Group was wholly owned by ADUG, a private investment and development company belonging to His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. From 25 July 2021, CFG’s ultimate parent undertaking is Newton Investment and Development LLC, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and also wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

 

[WestGorton]

What is the difference between state owned and owned I wonder. You are still owned.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Here's what I've sent:

In issue 422 and on several previous occasions, you’ve referred to Manchester City as ‘state owned’. This is completely inaccurate and taints your reputation as a serious football publication. Manchester City’s immediate parent is City Football Group and in CFG’s accounts, their own ownership is set out in Note 13 and which states (and I quote verbatim) “City Football Group is a company incorporated in England and Wales. The Company is 75.1% owned by its parent undertaking Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The remaining 25.9% is owned by China Media Capital Football Holdings Limited (12.4%), SLA CM Marcus Holdings, L.P. (10.4%), and Vega FZ, LLC (2.1%).”

Sheikh Mansour, the majority owner, is undeniably a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family but owns the club in a private capacity. That doesn’t make City “state owned” any more than the Queen’s racehorses or Prince Andrew’s well-publicised ski chalet are “state owned”.

And then in your article on foodbanks, you highlight the great work Alex Timperley and other fans are doing but spoil the article completely by comparing what they’re doing to Erling Haaland’s wages. City isn’t the only club who pay fees and wages and nor is East Manchester the only area that suffers above average deprivation. It would have been better to showcase the work Alex and his team are doing with the vast improvements made in the area around the Etihad Stadium, which include the City Football Academy, the only sixth form college in East Manchester and the building of a huge indoor arena that will bring economic benefits to the area. All of those have been built by the club’s owner. It involved the cleaning up of what was a toxic land environment from the coal mine and dye works that previously occupied it. It also ignores the fantastic work done over many years by City In The Community to improve the lives of young adults and children in the surrounding area.

As a fan, I’m very proud of all my club does, globally and in that local community, and also in the little kindnesses it quietly but regularly shows to fans who need a bit of support in difficult times. WSC is seemingly proud of how it highlights football’s links with local communities so it would be nice to redress the balance by both being accurate in your reporting and doing an article showing that even a leading Premier League club hasn’t forgotten its roots in, and responsibilities to, those communities. But I suspect that anything that might show Manchester City in any other light than football’s pantomime villain will be off WSC’s agenda.

Let's see if they publish it (although I won't hold my breath).

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"?