Media coverage 2018/19

[Don Howe]

I think many of us, including me were taken in by the narrative of City's acquisition being part of a PR campaign (couldn't care anyway) when it's an investment company, and had proved to be just that - a very sound investment. Once i cut cord from reading what journalists say, it's easier to get fuller picture.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Great point. Though I'd argue structure of government and how much influence both would have is different, so direct correlation hard, but I'm no expert. You should tell Miguel Delaney this, but you might lose a couple of days.

I’m of the opinion that the world, certainly the western world, is run by big business and global industry.
Arguing that the American or British government don’t own football teams is completely missing the point as far as who influences government policy is concerned.

The likes of the Glazers or Henry have as much opportunity to influence government in my mind, as the Sheik in middle eastern countries.

Billions are made by lobbying the likes of the Republicans for favors.
Donations in the right pockets go a long way. Allegedly.

So for me, the differentiating between our owners investment and the money made from sponsorship from companies who make their profit by using very questionable methods, is totally selective, agenda driven logic.

Not thinking of any company in particular, but money laundering through dodgy regimes is the kind of thing that comes to mind. That sort of dirty money seems far more questionable than clean oil money.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I’m getting increasingly concerned that, because Prince Charles is head of duchy originals, not a single journalist has made the link between him, as a member of the royal family and the possibility that those lovely oaty biscuits you get down at Waitrose are in fact a state owned and subsidised confection.
Are they cooking the books as well as the biscuits??

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

He doesn't own us

Surely semantics. He’s the club chairman!

 

[squirtyflower]

My apologies. Abu Dhabi. My point was that if you accept - and you may or may not - the primary reason for the purchase of Manchester City was to promote Abu Dhabi, then it’s not hard to understand why journalists feel that it is reasonable for them to link our owners to AD

I think the primary reason for the purchase of Manchester City was to get a foothold in the richest football league in the world and to make money in a sport with worldwide appeal.

 

[squirtyflower]

I’m if the opinion that the world, certainly the western world, is run by big business and global industry.
Arguing that the American or British government don’t own football teams is completely missing the point as far as who influences government policy is concerned.

The likes of the Glazers or Henry have as much opportunity to influence government in my mind, as the Sheik in middle eastern countries.

Billions are made by lobbying the likes of the Republicans for favors.
Donations in the right pockets go a long way. Allegedly.

So for me, the differentiating between our owners investment and the money made from sponsorship from companies who make their profit by using very questionable methods, is totally selective, agenda driven logic.

Not thinking of any company in particular, but money laundering through dodgy regimes is the kind of thing that comes to mind. That sort of dirty money seems far more questionable than clean oil money.

And illegal as evidenced by the billion dolllar fines handed out to these crooks who also sponsor football clubs.

 

[lust overlord]

It is unreasonable because they are supposed to research what they write,trouble is it just doesn't suit their agenda to write the facts

One of their main areas of research is to find the next "on trend" scandal to wrap us in.

Animal rights,Environmental disasters?

I'm sure the rspca and Greenpeace will oblige with condemnation and soundbites as and when.

 

[west didsblue]

I think the primary reason for the purchase of Manchester City was to get a foothold in the richest football league in the world and to make money in a sport with worldwide appeal.

I think you’re right.
This sportswashing nonsense is just that. It’s actually totally the opposite. All that’s happened is that the UAE has been scrutinised even more with regards to human rights than they ever would have been. How many people would even be aware of the UAE’s connections to the Yemen war if not for anti-City journalists mentioning it any time they can with little regard to accuracy.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I know, and for the record you’re preaching to the converted. I’m just pointing out that - purely in my opinion - it’s not unreasonable for journalists to link City’s ownership to the UAE government, and I would base that opinion on ADUG having been motivated to buy an English football club for reasons other than altruism - again, purely in my opinion

There’s no such thing as altruism, according to ‘The Sefish Gene’.

They are all expanding and diversifying their investment portfolios for when the oil runs out. Doing well on his investment in City too or so it seems.

 

[hello]

But he isn’t trying to represent the viewpoint of a journalist.
He states quite clearly above that we are owned by a country.
Then admits that he’s wrong about the UAE bit but we are owned by Abu Dhabi.
Without evidence to the contrary his opinion is inaccurate.

So basic evidence like page 36 of the last financial accounts filed at companies house you mean?

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/...abc39c9cf61939ceda39f37478488f67eb09ac763a7ab