So Fenway owns Dunkin-donuts and JetBlue airlines, No more DD breakfasts (Four Steak and Egg Hoagies and a Skinny Latte) funding Liverpool for me then and only Delta left to fly with as United are also out for obvious reasons.Just puzzles me that they are so upset by our "oil money" and consider Liverpool the mighty underdogs, yet neglect to mention the fact that Liverpool have challenged this season because they bought Van Dijk, Alisson, Keita, Fabinho and Shaqiri with the Coutinho money from Barca, who got it from PSG for Neymar, which means the original funds came from Qatar, which means the money is erm...oh wait. Just second-hand.
Or the fact they bought the likes of Firmino with the Suarez money which also came from Barca who funded it at least in part through their Qatar Airways sponsorship, Qatar Airways who are erm...state owned by Qatar, which means that money is erm...erm.
So basically the spine of their team is bought by Qatari money, which as it's Qatari money was obviously "laundered" through Catalunya (as we can't possibly see it as a legitimate source of footballing income) and a large chunk of the rest was funded by their Iranian sanctions breaching (and thus terrorist funding) kit sponsor Standard Chartered, not to mention their share of the £300m beIN Sports pays for PL TV rights, whose boss is the same man who is president of PSG, so again...oops a daisy.
That's before you mention the decades they were bankrolled by people's gambling losses, just a glorified Stoke. Or to mention their Boston kit manufacturer who in no way may have a good rapport with Mr Henry.
Starting to wonder if they have any "legitimate" income. God, no wonder Etihad are falling behind in the airline stakes with their poky contribution.
Liverpool, the most plucky, heroic underdog title challenging squad to be built by gambling debts topped up with second-hand oil money, cushy Massachusetts millions and Iranian sanctions breaching profits ever (TM). Blimey, you'd need a banner the length of the collapsed wall of Heysel to fit all that on.
Hahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.Glad you found it mate. ;)Was about to unleash hell until the bottom of your post came up ;)
I agree, our owner invests in most other sectors of business / industry so just because football sees itself as a special case our owner's business model has proved otherwise.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.
One point that I took from his piece was that he tacitly acknowledges Tebas' fascist leanings and yet denigrates Khaldoon for pointing out that Tebas may indeed have a sinister motive for criticising "Oil money". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then perhaps it's a duck. Just don't mention it's a duck in case you are accused of making a knowing play.Fucking hell i've just read the whole thing
2 things stand out to me the most,even now he is pushing we are owned by a country and the fact that we are wrong to finally hit back after 10yrs of sucking the vile stuff up
"But most telling is their ownership. Even if you don’t have reservations about the human rights and foreign policy of Abu Dhabi (and plenty fans do not), the fact City are funded by an entire, petro-rich country, giving them wealth unparalleled in football’s history, is a dynamic romantics cannot ignore. Abu Dhabi have lavished so much on City as to make Liverpool, with the world’s most expensive defender and briefly goalkeeper, look to neutrals like underdogs."
"But the people spinning for the Abu Dhabi regime are extremely good at what they do. They don't miss a trick. Attacking the critic is their Trumpian way and one of the issues with Tebas is that, outside football, he appears a pretty questionable individual who is a high profile supporter of a Spanish far right party...so the "ethnicity" card by Khaldoon is a knowing play."
Since when have we attacked our critics? it's been 10yrs ffs
Don't even get me going on the rest of it,city bingo at it's finest
****
What the ..
One point that I took from his piece was that he tacitly acknowledges Tebas' fascist leanings and yet denigrates Khaldoon for pointing out that Tebas may indeed have a sinister motive for criticising "Oil money". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then perhaps it's a duck. Just don't mention it's a duck in case you are accused of making a knowing play.