Manchester sold itself to Abu Dhabi’s elite - Guardian article

[bluenova]

There are a number of accusations in this piece which should be easy to refute. Was the land sold at less than value? Are the leases provided out of line? Is it true that no affordable housing has been built and are the reasons not correct?
Should be easy for the council to blow this out of the water or at least to provide some explanation. Although it is typical of the Guardian to attack anything to do with City, this is a Labour council they are going after which isn't typical.

I agree - and I think a lot of people on here are oversensitive because of the links to City. The article does talk about the connection, but it's clearly not the reason it was written, and there are legitimate reasons why Manchester residents should care what happened.

As you say, it should be easy to refute, but I suspect that the council may well have been a bit desperate. They had huge plans for the area, but the 2008 crash absolutely devastated them, and if you think of all those half built towers, and office blocks that sat around for years, they may have seen the Abu Dhabi investment as a bit of a lifeline - and it's quite possible they were overly generous. The article does raise quite a few questions that seem to have been brushed away, which isn't really good enough for a democratic institution.

If anyone on this forum can't separate our owners' positive effect on the club from other non-football issues, then maybe they need to step back a little. I'm not convinced that sportswashing is a huge problem, and in some ways the light in shines on other countries actions may even be a positive influence - but if you think any criticism of our owners is an attack on City by fans of rival clubs, then maybe I need to rethink.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I agree - and I think a lot of people on here are oversensitive because of the links to City. The article does talk about the connection, but it's clearly not the reason it was written, and there are legitimate reasons why Manchester residents should care what happened.

As you say, it should be easy to refute, but I suspect that the council may well have been a bit desperate. They had huge plans for the area, but the 2008 crash absolutely devastated them, and if you think of all those half built towers, and office blocks that sat around for years, they may have seen the Abu Dhabi investment as a bit of a lifeline. The article does raise quite a few questions that seem to have been brushed away, which isn't really good enough for a democratic institution.

If anyone on this forum can't separate our owners' positive effect on the club from other non-football issues, then maybe they need to step back a little. I'm not convinced that sportswashing is a huge problem, and in some ways the light in shines on other countries actions may even be a positive influence - but if you think any criticism of our owners is an attack on City by fans of rival clubs, then maybe I need to rethink.

Wait until the Glazers build a shit shopping mall on the outskirts of Manchester that will have to be mothballed a few years later due to exorbitant rents.

 

[Fernster]

I'm looking forward to future articles on the investment that all the American owners have injected around the UK,

I might be waiting a while for that one!!

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I agree - and I think a lot of people on here are oversensitive because of the links to City. The article does talk about the connection, but it's clearly not the reason it was written, and there are legitimate reasons why Manchester residents should care what happened.

As you say, it should be easy to refute, but I suspect that the council may well have been a bit desperate. They had huge plans for the area, but the 2008 crash absolutely devastated them, and if you think of all those half built towers, and office blocks that sat around for years, they may have seen the Abu Dhabi investment as a bit of a lifeline - and it's quite possible they were overly generous. The article does raise quite a few questions that seem to have been brushed away, which isn't really good enough for a democratic institution.

If anyone on this forum can't separate our owners' positive effect on the club from other non-football issues, then maybe they need to step back a little. I'm not convinced that sportswashing is a huge problem, and in some ways the light in shines on other countries actions may even be a positive influence - but if you think any criticism of our owners is an attack on City by fans of rival clubs, then maybe I need to rethink.

Of course the council were desperate and the lad was bought at a knock down price - East MCR/Bradford etc was a fucking post industrial dump

 

[The Pandorica Opened]

I agree - and I think a lot of people on here are oversensitive because of the links to City. The article does talk about the connection, but it's clearly not the reason it was written, and there are legitimate reasons why Manchester residents should care what happened.

As you say, it should be easy to refute, but I suspect that the council may well have been a bit desperate. They had huge plans for the area, but the 2008 crash absolutely devastated them, and if you think of all those half built towers, and office blocks that sat around for years, they may have seen the Abu Dhabi investment as a bit of a lifeline - and it's quite possible they were overly generous. The article does raise quite a few questions that seem to have been brushed away, which isn't really good enough for a democratic institution.

If anyone on this forum can't separate our owners' positive effect on the club from other non-football issues, then maybe they need to step back a little. I'm not convinced that sportswashing is a huge problem, and in some ways the light in shines on other countries actions may even be a positive influence - but if you think any criticism of our owners is an attack on City by fans of rival clubs, then maybe I need to rethink.

Agreed.

It's ironic that the best evidence of sports-washing I've ever seen is the feathers that get spit whenever our fanbase meets any criticism of Mansour, the UAE, or their dealings. It is possible, I would hope, to simultaneously support Manchester City Football Club, despise the regime of the UAE, be well aware of the reality of Mansour's investments and their respective pro's and con's, and react to discussion of these things without going the shade of a beetroot with tremoring rage. The football-isation of politics is an awful thing and the fact that you often can't tell the difference between our reactions to a United fan saying "you're shit and you've got no history" and a journalist saying "this land investment has murky economics behind it and might not be good for the city" is not something that covers us in glory.

Like I said, I do think this deal is a bit of a non-story. If it wasn't an Arab country, and Mansour, I don't think there'd be anything to make it stand out from the exact same things happening to the housing market in the rest of the country. You can talk about it in isolation, if you want, but ultimately you'll have to arrive at the truth that our housing economy is fucked and that neo-liberal economics simply aren't working for it. And that's not Mansour's fault, nor is it the fault of the UAE.

 

[TheBlueDune]

I’m sure MCC sold the land to the highest bidder. Or maybe the only bidder as Ancoats was an absolute shithole 5 years ago.

Affordable housing is an issue whomever the developer is.

I don't remember a queue of people forming up to buy virtually derelict land and buildings with a risk of ages old post-industrial contamination from two centuries of manufacturing.
But now, it's shiny and bright and sour grapes complainants emerge from the shadows.

Maybe the author would be more positive about it if it was Gary Neville who had bought the land.

The only real issue I have with any of it is that when it first came about, I think there was talk of affordable housing but the prices of these properties are out of reach for many people. However, that's just typical of the housing market in general over the past few years. When houses are now changing hands for north of £200,000 in Gorton of all places, then I think it's fair to say that affordable housing is little more than a pipedream in even the poorest areas these days.

Property qualifies as "affordable" if it meets one of four criteria, the easiest being to be 80% of local market value even if there's nobody around who can afford it on their £25k salary.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Agreed.

It's ironic that the best evidence of sports-washing I've ever seen is the feathers that get spit whenever our fanbase meets any criticism of Mansour, the UAE, or their dealings. It is possible, I would hope, to simultaneously support Manchester City Football Club, despise the regime of the UAE, be well aware of the reality of Mansour's investments and their respective pro's and con's, and react to discussion of these things without going the shade of a beetroot with tremoring rage. The football-isation of politics is an awful thing and the fact that you often can't tell the difference between our reactions to a United fan saying "you're shit and you've got no history" and a journalist saying "this land investment has murky economics behind it and might not be good for the city" is not something that covers us in glory.

Like I said, I do think this deal is a bit of a non-story. If it wasn't an Arab country, and Mansour, I don't think there'd be anything to make it stand out from the exact same things happening to the housing market in the rest of the country. You can talk about it in isolation, if you want, but ultimately you'll have to arrive at the truth that our housing economy is fucked and that neo-liberal economics simply aren't working for it. And that's not Mansour's fault, nor is it the fault of the UAE.

Spot on.

 

[Corky]

Maybe the author would be more positive about it if it was Gary Neville who had bought the land.

The only real issue I have with any of it is that when it first came about, I think there was talk of affordable housing but the prices of these properties are out of reach for many people. However, that's just typical of the housing market in general over the past few years. When houses are now changing hands for north of £200,000 in Gorton of all places, then I think it's fair to say that affordable housing is little more than a pipedream in even the poorest areas these days.

That is why affordable housing is needed, as open market housing is becoming even less affordable.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I don't remember a queue of people forming up to buy virtually derelict land and buildings with a risk of ages old post-industrial contamination from two centuries of manufacturing.
But now, it's shiny and bright and sour grapes complainants emerge from the shadows.



Property qualifies as "affordable" if it meets one of four criteria, the easiest being to be 80% of local market value even if there's nobody around who can afford it on their £25k salary.

We don’t know if there was a queue or not, but as you say, they could have bought cheaply and shown others the potential for the sites, which then made the prices rise.

It‘ll probably end up with a piece suggesting that MCC potentially could have got more for the sites they sold first, but the lack of investors, coupled with their ongoing relationship with ADUG allowed that area of Manchester to be redeveloped slightly cheaper than it could have been, but is being made up for by the higher prices they are commanding now.

 

[mat]

Boy of London envy methinks about how the landscape of Manchester has changed dramatically for the better.