Not really.Feels a bit of a non-story? Two embassies talking to one another about a shared interest? You'd be surprised if that wasn't the case?
Or am I missing something?
Yes. It's not UAE and UK diplomatic channels talking to each other. It's simply the UK Foreign Office and our man in our UAE Embassy talking to each other, as you'd expect about an issue that involved someone senior in the UAE government, and which might possibly impact the UAE's relations with the UK. .Feels a bit of a non-story? Two embassies talking to one another about a shared interest? You'd be surprised if that wasn't the case?
Or am I missing something?
No.Feels a bit of a non-story? Two embassies talking to one another about a shared interest? You'd be surprised if that wasn't the case?
Or am I missing something?
Fair enough mate. I’d say this was a fairly exceptional circumstance though. If Mansour believes the club are being treated unjustly, as he clearly does, then it was perhaps inevitable that he’d use whatever leverage available to him. He was never going to just stand back and let a multi billion pound asset potentially get fucked over.
That’s not possible now the premier league has attacked Mansour’s credibility as owner of MCFC. The discussions taken place between both countries does not make the club state owned in any shape or form. His role in Abu Dhabi and his ownership can be both interlinked but also independent.Because it shouldn’t be discussed at all at that level, to me that being an inevitability helps the argument for anyone saying not just a state but anyone with links or direct association to a state or ruling body also shouldn’t be owning a football club.
I’ve never agreed with that, but that’s because I believe their private ownership should be completely separated from their state role.
In a recent post you highlighted King Charles as a business partner to our owner. I think it involved land used for wind farms for electricity generation.One assumes that the Athletic are not cognisant of 30 or more major projects in the UK funded and/or managed by AbuDhabi companies.
Yeah, but if the Abu Dhabi Government contacted the British government, in order to influence an ongoing investigation or to make it go away, then that doesn't look very good, does it?
Especially if we are adamant that City are not state owned, so why is the Abu Dhabi government getting involved in a football matter?
If the intention was to have their day in court, you wouldn't be knocking on the door of number 10, as some people on here have mentioned, threatening to cancel Billions of investment.
If that is the case, then the charges have to have some merit.
The UK and the UAE have a pretty close relationship and have for many years. If one of the most high ranking and powerful people in the UAE is being stitched up, along with his business interests, by an entity based in the UK, then of course it's going to go diplomatic at Government level. It's naive to think otherwise.Because it shouldn’t be discussed at all at that level, to me that being an inevitability helps the argument for anyone saying not just a state but anyone with links or direct association to a state or ruling body also shouldn’t be owning a football club.
I’ve never agreed with that, but that’s because I believe their private ownership should be completely separated from their state role.
Got corrected shortly after. Had misread the original headline.Has the UAE gov held talks about this?