I don’t think it is either mate. The personal wealth of Sheik Mansour is not as historic as the Queens but so what?Yep, thanks.
I am just trying to understand why a private investment by the Queen in racehorses is different to Mansour's private investment in City.
I am just not getting it. I am not going to try and convince someone like Simon Jordan because I really don't care what they think, but I am just trying to get it straight in my head. I doubt anyone else is interested, though, and that is fair enough, so I will shut up :).
So what about a British cabinet minister who owns a company? Sure they have to hand management over to a trustee while in office, but they still own it. Is that company state property because a member of the gov owns it?Because the Queen is a figurehead of State, she's Head of State, but not head of government. The Queen receives state money from our elected government to perform her duties as constitutional monarch, but she also owns stuff and buys stuff in a private capacity. That is a very real distinction because our monarch is not both government and Head of State
The Sheikh's brother is Head of State and head of government.
Sheikh Mansour and his extended family is the government of the UAE, he is a high ranking member of an absolute monarchy with exclusive executive and legislative power. From what I've read he's a smart well educated man and makes decisions regarding the sovereign wealth fund in a responsible way. Besides I'm sure there are checks and balances in the system that prevent him from splurging the investment fund money on fast cars, villas and yachts should the fancy take him.
That's not to say the Sheikh doesn't spend money on fast cars, villas and yachts, he does, a lot of money, but he does that in a personal capacity, but when he does spend his own money, he just takes one hat off and puts on another, because he is the living embodiment of both the State and the Government by dint of birth, in a way the Queen is not.
In a nutshell our detractors, the Guadianista's and Simon Jordan's are bad faith actors, they see the ruling families of the Gulf as nothing more than gangsters, hoarding the countries wealth for themselves, they have no respect for Sheikh Mansour because they have no respect for the "rigged" system that keeps him in power.
They point at Sheikh Mansour and accuse him of spending State money because he is the State and consequently all his money is State money. The difference between state expenditure and private expenditure, which is very real on the ground in the UAE, cuts no ice with them, they see it as a contrivance, it's all the same money they shout, just in different labelled pots, and while there are holes in this analysis, there is enough of a grain of truth to it to make comparisons with a constitutional monarch, like the Queen, look ludicrous.
I can imagine that if he used state funds for City, he would probably disappear.I understand what you are saying. The ‘grain’ of truth is that Sheik Mansour has more political influence in the UAE than the Queen has in the U.K. So what, would be my challenge. Both have unimaginable historic wealth which they choose to spend how they wish. It is clear to anyone that looks that there is structure and governance around how the UAE reaches its strategic objectives and how the ruling council operate and Manchester City are not part of that. Sheik Mansour is not the state, he is an important part of the ruling elite but to say (Ike some of our naysayers do) that he can divert state funds in whatever way he likes is just wrong, I don’t know for sure, but would imagine, he has a different hat for state investment and personal wealth. neither of us can say for sure.
They could send it to Franny Lee... he has a recycling toilet paper company.What are UEFA supposed to do with this complaint by Tebas/La Liga' that state owned football clubs are creating problems for the structure of the game. Two years ago they tried to sanction City, for disguised owner investment, Sheikh Mansour was funding sponsorship deals, they can hardly turn round now and say we are state owned.
We could have a ‘City bingo’ banner and throw the lot in - unfurl it at the start of every home game!
Fantastic post, never actually looked at it in this manner.I think the thing is, in the Middle East, so much of everything is based on trust. Lines between family, business, personal matters are so blurred to western eyes. It's just part of the culture, and not just at the level of royal families, also at the level of shopkeepers and artists. Everyone.
So when a westerner sees a relationship between parties to a deal, and thinks it's suspicious because the default mode is that everyone is out for a quick buck, Emiratis see a business opportunity on a long-term basis built on trust.
The Etihad deal was a good example. A deal based on the trust between City and Etihad executives. City wouldn't be overcharging Etihad and would deliver what was promised and Etihad would be a loyal long-term partner. Hasn't worked out too bad, but the western response was: what was the losing bid? There wasn't one because there didn't need to be. Trust.
Another example was the joker we originally had representing City. He was embarrassing City, Mansour and Abu Dhabi, so by definition, he was embarrassing family. Mansour changed him and brought in, presumably with the support of, or at the suggestion of his half-brother, two of the most respected business people in AD. Family.
Final example. The number of sponsorships that are linked at business executive level. Big deal according to the Athletic and Gary Neville. Perfectly normal to develop long-term business relationships by integrating personal relationships at executive level, both ways, especially when this is done at Mubadala with such strategic, long-term investments. When a business involvement is required, who else than someone you have a long-term relationship with and whom you trust. Trust and personal relationship.
This misunderstanding of the ME culture is at the heart of the casual racism towards the ME, imo. They don't do it like we do, so they must be up to something. That should change with some education, but I can't see it happening.
It's too bad for our competitors that our management and executives are so well connected. It's too bad they take a long-term view with people they trust. Basically, tough.
Again, open to being corrected if I have anything wrong.
Do the FFP regulations make any distinction between "state" funding and private funding? Is state funding not allowed? Is this why Real Madrid are complaining? They have been fined in the past for receiving illegal state funding I recall.
This is an interesting one. I've changed my view on this slightly. The presence of people like Khaldoon Al Mubarak and Simon Pearce, who are key people in Abu Dhabi, suggests that there is a state element to our ownership (but not necessarily state ownership).
What changed my mind was that, if buying City was a state enterprise, why on earth was Sulaiman Al Fahim the front man? Why would you put a chancer like that in charge of a project supposedly designed to project a positive image of your country? I do think he could have been a mate of Sheikh Mansour's though, which would explain it.
My belief therefore is that this genuinely was a private investment, but that the Abu Dhabi hierarchy quickly saw the potential for both harm to their image with Al Fahim in charge and potential benefits if done properly. Consequently Sheikh Mansour was told to get rid of Al Fahim before he did lasting damage, while the big boys took over and did things properly.
Garry Cook openly said we were a proxy for Abu Dhabi and I think that's probably the right way to describe it. Or you could say there's a clear dependency between the effective running of City, and our success, and the image of Abu Dhabi.
Funding from owners is allowed within limits. I would imagine funding from the state in the form of grants (against infrastructure costs for example) would be allowed as long as they were available to everyone.Do the FFP regulations make any distinction between "state" funding and private funding? Is state funding not allowed? Is this why Real Madrid are complaining? They have been fined in the past for receiving illegal state funding I recall.