Media coverage 2018/19

[manimanc]

 

[manimanc]

Just got those from Google.
Which clubs have American owners?
Which journalists, papers, outlets have mentioned human rights whenever describing the club's owners?

A big fat zero?

Why not?

Same circumstances isn't it?

 

[paulchapo]

In terms of human rights abuses you don’t have to look far beyond the good ‘ole US of A.
Just reading a history of the Middle East conflicts and the British and the Americans have their mucky paws all over them. Ours mainly during the rise of Empire, but theirs much more recently from the late 70s with the weaponising and support of Saddam who was gassing his own people as well as the Kurds to the present day.

Funny none seem to want to link American owners to their country’s atrocities, even when Liverpool are bank rolled by a sponsor who is actively involved in real laundering and not a made up sport washing.

Spot on mate.

 

[Silvas' left eyebrow]

Disagree
Martin Samuel is one of the best journos out there

Martin Samuel is the best. Reports the facts and allows the reader to make up their own mind.............rather than Journowashing

 

[urban genie]

Northcrofts turn today I see. Wonder who is on the rota for tomorrow.

Just read that, fucking mard arse, they are closing ranks and all defending each other lest thay are all exposed for the ****s they are.

 

[Don Howe]

Just got those from Google.
Which clubs have American owners?
Which journalists, papers, outlets have mentioned human rights whenever describing the club's owners?

A big fat zero?

Why not?

Same circumstances isn't it?

It's not the same circumstances if the US government don't own a football club. But there's so much "arab" money in all areas of UK life and in many football clubs that i don't see why City would be singled out for ownership links whilst sponsorship deals with such countries receive scant media coverage. Manchester regeneration pretty much depends on this foreign investment right now , so we can't have it both ways. I've never looked to football for moral guidance anyway, it's been corrupt and dodgy since the day i was born. It's the singling out of one club that goes beyond the pale.

 

[squirtyflower]

It's not the same circumstances if the US government don't own a football club. But there's so much "arab" money in all areas of UK life and in many football clubs that i don't see why City would be singled out for ownership links whilst sponsorship deals with such countries receive scant media coverage. Manchester regeneration pretty much depends on this foreign investment right now , so we can't have it both ways. I've never looked to football for moral guidance anyway, it's been corrupt and dodgy since the day i was born. It's the singling out of one club that goes beyond the pale.

Are Manchester City owned by a foreign government?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Just got those from Google.
Which clubs have American owners?
Which journalists, papers, outlets have mentioned human rights whenever describing the club's owners?

A big fat zero?

Why not?

Same circumstances isn't it?

In fact Barney Ronay has been defending Russia, with Chelsea owned by someone as closely connected to the Russian regime as Sheik Mansour is to the UAE leadership. Russia has directly killed thousands of people in the Middle East and indirectly killed hundreds of thousands. Putin has even poisoned and murdered people in this country. His abuses are off the scale compared to Abu Dhabi.
City have been singled out by the racists in the UK media because of the ethnicity of our owners. I am still waiting to hear from people like Ronay and Glendinning as precisely what abuses Abu Dhabi is guilty of. The UAE doesn't even feature in a list of over 100 countries (mostly in Africa and Asia) with terrible human rights records according to Amnesty International.
According to yesterday's Times more than 2,500 dissidents are in death row in Egypt, another one of the UK's allies. I don't expect the press to give City a free pass but what's wrong with balanced and fair coverage, based on facts, all reported in the correct context.

 

[manimanc]

It's not the same circumstances if the US government don't own a football club. But there's so much "arab" money in all areas of UK life and in many football clubs that i don't see why City would be singled out for ownership links whilst sponsorship deals with such countries receive scant media coverage. Manchester regeneration pretty much depends on this foreign investment right now , so we can't have it both ways. I've never looked to football for moral guidance anyway, it's been corrupt and dodgy since the day i was born. It's the singling out of one club that goes beyond the pale.

Ah right of course.

 

[Don Howe]

Are Manchester City owned by a foreign government?

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

 

[kaz7]

It's not the same circumstances if the US government don't own a football club. But there's so much "arab" money in all areas of UK life and in many football clubs that i don't see why City would be singled out for ownership links whilst sponsorship deals with such countries receive scant media coverage. Manchester regeneration pretty much depends on this foreign investment right now , so we can't have it both ways. I've never looked to football for moral guidance anyway, it's been corrupt and dodgy since the day i was born. It's the singling out of one club that goes beyond the pale.

We aren't owned by a country either

 

[VOOMER]

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

Sniff *ucking sniff.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

The fact that Sheikh Mansour wields influence and can affect policy in Abu Dhabi is not the same as City being owned by a foreign country. If you use that logic then John Henry is a good friend of Donald Trump and so Liverpool are owned by the USA.

 

[kaz7]

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

Effects government policy is not The same as being owned by that government,i'm disappointed you believe that

 

[squirtyflower]

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

See I would say, essentially not. Which immediately puts a hole under their waterline.
The rest of your post is accurate, but is drowned out by those espousing their paid for agendas. Take away the first bit and the rest is on foundations of sand

 

[laserblue]

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

Sheikh Mansour doesn't even have a seat on the UAE's executive council so I can't see how he's instrumental in shaping the UAE's polices.

 

[Don Howe]

Effects government policy is not The same as being owned by that government,i'm disappointed you believe that

Fair enough, was a rushed post. Trying to get across point of journalists as to how we are linked to UAE's actions. Do you see no link whatsoever?

 

[urban genie]

Essentially, yes. We could argue the technicalities. But our owner certainly effects UAE policy. But as i said, i ain't that bothered at the extent. All clubs have funding from similar sources, be it ownership or stadium naming rights.

So if Philip Hammond bought say villa, would the british government own them?

As he influences and affects UK policy.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Sadly, for the sake of this particular argument, the US Government does not own any British football clubs. The UAE does, albeit by proxy. There are plenty of things we can criticise American club owners and sponsors for - Standard Chartered being a case in point - but holding them to account for US foreign policy isn’t really a starter IMO. It’d be like pinning illegal whaling operations by the Japanese government on Chelsea, because they’re sponsored by Yokohama Tyres

 

[laserblue]

The fact that Sheikh Mansour wields influence and can affect policy in Abu Dhabi is not the same as City being owned by a foreign country. If you use that logic then John Henry is a good friend of Donald Trump and so Liverpool are owned by the USA.

You can add the Glazers who are big Trump supporters. I read a little while ago that one or more members of the family are even organising fund raising events for Trump's 2020 re-election campaign.