Media thread 2022/23

[Paladin]

From the article:

The City takeover in 2008 heralded a new era for soccer. Mansour was not a boyhood fan or even an investor looking for returns. What he wanted was to use soccer to enhance Abu Dhabi’s reputation.

There are two ways of looking at this. The more generous interpretation is that it was an implementation of “soft power.” A less favourable analysis is that this is an exercise in ‘sportswashing,’ an attempt to use the glamour of the game to deflect from unsavoury aspects of life in the Middle East.[/I]

Maybe there are three ways of looking at this. The two he mentions, and the third is the one he dismissed out of hand in his previous paragraph.

1. The more generous interpretation - it's an implementation of soft power.
2. The less generous interpretation, the one that everyone is encouraged to believe is the real motive - sportswashing.
3. The most generous interpretation - Mansour is a football fan and an investor looking to make a return on his investment.

So without any actual evidence to support the concept that was invented purely to denigrate City, he chooses to promote the less generous option until the world is persuaded.

As Rabin and others have pointed out, if his motive was option two, he's not doing a very good job of it. If his motive was option three, he's doing an excellent job.

 

[Paladin]

Care to explain how he is wrong ?

He's wrong because he writes about kleptocracies and then says that gulf states are good examples of kleptocracies. When I read his link to a description of a kleptocracy, it bore very little resemblance to the way Abu Dhabi is run.

Now I'm no political expert, but a kleptocracy to me sounds very much like Russia. Gulf states aren't run as kleptocracies and are not in any way like Russia.

The full definition of a kleptocracy he referred to is here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/07/what-kleptocracy-and-how-does-it-work. McGeehan has picked one phrase from the article and used it to label the gulf states as kleptocracies.

He could have used another paragraph from the article. "Money is also invested in ‘safe’ assets, such as real estate overseas, or simply hoarded in foreign bank accounts to be used in emergencies – a war chest for a political campaign." How many countries are now kleptocracies because they reflect this cherry picked statement?

 

[Manchester_lalala]

McGeehan is the go to "human rights expert" and widely quoted by the usual suspects.

rabin has questioned his credentials and motivations several times which led to an unsavioury episdoe and rabin being accused of being a UAE bot.

If you've not seen previously there is a great flavour here:

Rabin really was going on a one man army against the whatsapp bellends, imagine the flapping going on in that group!

I wonder which one of them is behind the Twitter account Rabisnt, upset them that much that they had to make an account to counter him.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Maybe there are three ways of looking at this. The two he mentions, and the third is the one he dismissed out of hand in his previous paragraph.

1. The more generous interpretation - it's an implementation of soft power.
2. The less generous interpretation, the one that everyone is encouraged to believe is the real motive - sportswashing.
3. The most generous interpretation - Mansour is a football fan and an investor looking to make a return on his investment.

So without any actual evidence to support the concept that was invented purely to denigrate City, he chooses to promote the less generous option until the world is persuaded.

As Rabin and others have pointed out, if his motive was option two, he's not doing a very good job of it. If his motive was option three, he's doing an excellent job.

If Sheikh Mansour is not an investor looking for returns why did he invest in Barclays Bank and make a £1bn profit? Was this some sort of "bankwashing" exercise. Perhaps Tony Evans can enlighten us all with his knowledge of global investment strategies. Why are huge investment firms from across the world queueing up to invest in the PL? Could it possibly be they just want to make some money for their clients or is it just part of some global sportswashing conspiracy?
Look at Silver Lake. They have invested hundreds of millions in City Football Group and now they are investing in Europe's biggest indoor arena at the Etihad Campus. They have also invested billions in Twitter, Skype, Motorola, and Dell. They also have a 33 per cent stake in the Australian Soccer league. Perhaps they just want to make money.

 

[Blue Mist]

I suspect he’s been hearing those voices in his head again.

@andyhinch they are the only ones that talk to me!

 

[cheekybids]

CFG is majority owned by Newton Investment and Development LLC, with significant minority shareholdings held by Silver Lake (14.54%) and China Media Capital (CMC) Consortium (8.24%). From 23rd September 2008 until December 2015, City Football Group was wholly owned by ADUG, a private investment and development company belonging to His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. From 25 July 2021, CFG’s ultimate parent undertaking is Newton Investment and Development LLC, a company registered in Abu Dhabi and also wholly owned by His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.​

Yeah but you know what that means, nudge wink. It’s bullshit, you know what those Arabs are like, come on, human rights, oil, state funded, spend what they want, expensive lawyers, technicality, time barred, sports washing.

It’s nothing to do with xenophobia, we just know what they are like from there.

 

[WRicko]

He's wrong because he writes about kleptocracies and then says that gulf states are good examples of kleptocracies. When I read his link to a description of a kleptocracy, it bore very little resemblance to the way Abu Dhabi is run.

Now I'm no political expert, but a kleptocracy to me sounds very much like Russia. Gulf states aren't run as kleptocracies and are not in any way like Russia.

The full definition of a kleptocracy he referred to is here: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/07/what-kleptocracy-and-how-does-it-work. McGeehan has picked one phrase from the article and used it to label the gulf states as kleptocracies.

He could have used another paragraph from the article. "Money is also invested in ‘safe’ assets, such as real estate overseas, or simply hoarded in foreign bank accounts to be used in emergencies – a war chest for a political campaign." How many countries are now kleptocracies because they reflect this cherry picked statement?

I still don’t see how gulf states are not run as kleptocracies but then I would say everywhere probably shows signs of it

I agree it applies to Russia tho

If you have states like the UAE Russia where assets are controlled by the state or monarchs then they can be distributed for political rather than merit based reason which is my understanding of kleptocracy

Perhaps better explain why the UAE is not a kleptocracy rather than saying Russia is a better fit

 

[Paladin]

I still don’t see how gulf states are not run as kleptocracies but then I would say everywhere probably shows signs of it

I agree it applies to Russia tho

If you have states like the UAE Russia where assets are controlled by the state or monarchs then they can be distributed for political rather than merit based reason which is my understanding of kleptocracy

Perhaps better explain why the UAE is not a kleptocracy rather than saying Russia is a better fit

Well I'm no expert in politics. McGeehan refers his readers to an article defining a kleptocracy, and that article leads with this, after a brief introduction.

"Definition of a kleptocracy

Most explanations of kleptocracy – derived from the Greek for ‘thief’ and ‘rule’ – stress the aspect of ‘grand corruption’ whereby high-level political power is abused to enable a network of ruling elites to steal public funds for their own private gain using public institutions.

Kleptocracy is therefore a system based on virtually unlimited grand corruption coupled with, in the words of American academic Andrew Wedeman, ‘near-total impunity for those authorized to loot by the thief-in-chief’ – namely the head of state."

It goes on to explain other features of kleptocracies, all of which seem to describe the current Russian system.

This is the only definition of kleptocracy that I have read, so my understanding is based on this. Abu Dhabi is not governed in this way and I do not think it is fair to refer to it as a kleptocracy.

For a description of the political system of the UAE, have a look here: https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/the-uae-government/political-system-and-government.

 

[halfcenturyup]

More from our friend. It's bizarre. Simon Pearce is definitely on the Board and I can imagine, in his position, Pearce has done some things he doesn't like. But does he really think he sits around all day thinking up responses to people like Jurgen fucking Klopp. It's insane. He has been dealing with international issues in a volatile region on a daily basis. I doubt he has the time or the inclination. "Jurgen who?" I expect would be his response if asked.

I am thinking he is using City as a marketing tool, using whatever experience he has in his relevant field, to keep himself relevant. It's a bit sad, really.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well I'm no expert in politics. McGeehan refers his readers to an article defining a kleptocracy, and that article leads with this, after a brief introduction.

"Definition of a kleptocracy

Most explanations of kleptocracy – derived from the Greek for ‘thief’ and ‘rule’ – stress the aspect of ‘grand corruption’ whereby high-level political power is abused to enable a network of ruling elites to steal public funds for their own private gain using public institutions.

Kleptocracy is therefore a system based on virtually unlimited grand corruption coupled with, in the words of American academic Andrew Wedeman, ‘near-total impunity for those authorized to loot by the thief-in-chief’ – namely the head of state."

It goes on to explain other features of kleptocracies, all of which seem to describe the current Russian system.

This is the only definition of kleptocracy that I have read, so my understanding is based on this. Abu Dhabi is not governed in this way and I do not think it is fair to refer to it as a kleptocracy.

For a description of the political system of the UAE, have a look here: https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/the-uae-government/political-system-and-government.

Whether a country is run as a kleptocracy or not is something of an intellectual argument which is irrelevant in the geo-political world, imo. And it surely must have a negative connotation bearing in mind its etymology. But at the end of the day, labels are of no import. What is important is how that country behaves internally, and externally. Has the ruling elite in the UAE become very wealthy in the last 50 years? Yes, surely. Are they running the country with a view to betterment for its people and improved conditions in areas we in the west think are important. Probably, on the whole, if not as fast as some impatient types would like.

And to conclude, this has fuck all to do with football anyway.