THE RAG CONN(MAN) SPEAKS

[flb]

On a different note though, the Guardian do their level best to find fault with our owners and I wondered if it has anything to do with their political allegiance.

Yes I think that has something to do with it. I would much prefer it if we had a British owner who was pumping in this money but the cold hard reality is, there are none out there. City are really really lucky that we got a Randy Lerner type but with shedloads of cash. We could quite easily have ended up with a Hicks & Gillett or Glazer problem.

My biggest fear would have been the debt loading yanks, I'm just amazed how many people on here don't see what is really happening in Trafford and Liverpool and still think that they are the same strength as before. It's as if they haven't seen what's happened to the banking sector.

Very true,those two clubs are getting shat on from a great height-Conns a wanker,end of chat.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/jul/14/manchestercity-carlos-tevez


All he needs to know is the FA and The Premier League have OK'd everything .....rag shit stirring twat ....

Firstly I actually know David and he's a passionate blue so your "rag" comment is completely out of line and frankly moronic. David's mission is to investigate and write about what he sees as the unattractive and seamy side of football. And there's plenty of that.

As it happens, I think he's wrong on this to a large degree but his logic is entirely consistent with his philosophy. Knowing who is benefitting from Tevez is the same as them knowing who are the actual people behind Sulaiman Al Fahim's Potrsmouth bid. The Premier League sees itself as a global brand but doesn't always do enough to protect that brand from reputational damage.

The FA & Premier League also decided that Shinawatra was a fit and proper person to own our club until it even became clear to that cretin Scudamore that they were wrong. They also thought that Sacha Gaydamak was a fit and proper owner for Portsmouth, even though it's clear he's little more than a front for his father, who has an international arrest warrant outstanding against him. They have never taken any action against Alisher Usmanov at Arsenal, even though he has served a jail term for corruption and probably also controls Moscow Dinamo (although he claims he has no shares).

The FA and Premier League are also OK with a refereeing set-up that screams corruption but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Balti]

What a boring article.

Yawn.

 

[tmouseman]

Just because it criticises someone we have done business with does not make the article wrong.
It may be dull but I think he is right.
What happened with Tevez and Masc was wrong from the start. Not blaming Tevez but all this third party ownership has to go.
It is good that this has all been cleared up and we own him lock stock and barrel.
My only bitch is that it wasn't pulled apart when the rags signed him on loan and he was still owed by a third party. That stuck and only the scum would have got away with it.
Masc at Liverpool seems to have got away with all this very lightly. Not sure if he had a different deal but his sale to the scousers didn't take long.

 

[Daz_Blue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/jul/14/manchestercity-carlos-tevez


All he needs to know is the FA and The Premier League have OK'd everything .....rag shit stirring twat ....

Firstly I actually know David and he's a passionate blue so your "rag" comment is completely out of line and frankly moronic. David's mission is to investigate and write about what he sees as the unattractive and seamy side of football. And there's plenty of that.

As it happens, I think he's wrong on this to a large degree but his logic is entirely consistent with his philosophy. Knowing who is benefitting from Tevez is the same as them knowing who are the actual people behind Sulaiman Al Fahim's Potrsmouth bid. The Premier League sees itself as a global brand but doesn't always do enough to protect that brand from reputational damage.

The FA & Premier League also decided that Shinawatra was a fit and proper person to own our club until it even became clear to that cretin Scudamore that they were wrong. They also thought that Sacha Gaydamak was a fit and proper owner for Portsmouth, even though it's clear he's little more than a front for his father, who has an international arrest warrant outstanding against him. They have never taken any action against Alisher Usmanov at Arsenal, even though he has served a jail term for corruption and probably also controls Moscow Dinamo (although he claims he has no shares).

The FA and Premier League are also OK with a refereeing set-up that screams corruption but that doesn't make it right.

Well if I was a journo and a passionate blue the first article I would of had printed after we signed Tevez would of been Blue Moon Rising ... City on the up etc etc, Tevez great signing etc etc, but his first article was questioning the deal ..... seems a bit odd that a blue would in a roundabout way be inviting an investigation ....

 

[Uwe Rosler's Grandad]

Well if I was a journo and a passionate blue the first article I would of had printed after we signed Tevez would of been Blue Moon Rising ... City on the up etc etc, Tevez great signing etc etc, but his first article was questioning the deal ..... seems a bit odd that a blue would in a roundabout way be inviting an investigation ....

He's not questioning the deal as such, he is questioning who actually sold Tevez. City have nothing to fear on that front as they own Tevez lock, stock and barrel. The reason why Conn probably didn't write an article about City on the up etc is probably because he's one of those who is worried about foreign owners and big money in the Premier League.

 

[bluemanc]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/jul/14/manchestercity-carlos-tevez


All he needs to know is the FA and The Premier League have OK'd everything .....rag shit stirring twat ....

Firstly I actually know David and he's a passionate blue so your "rag" comment is completely out of line and frankly moronic. David's mission is to investigate and write about what he sees as the unattractive and seamy side of football. And there's plenty of that.

As it happens, I think he's wrong on this to a large degree but his logic is entirely consistent with his philosophy. Knowing who is benefitting from Tevez is the same as them knowing who are the actual people behind Sulaiman Al Fahim's Potrsmouth bid. The Premier League sees itself as a global brand but doesn't always do enough to protect that brand from reputational damage.

The FA & Premier League also decided that Shinawatra was a fit and proper person to own our club until it even became clear to that cretin Scudamore that they were wrong. They also thought that Sacha Gaydamak was a fit and proper owner for Portsmouth, even though it's clear he's little more than a front for his father, who has an international arrest warrant outstanding against him. They have never taken any action against Alisher Usmanov at Arsenal, even though he has served a jail term for corruption and probably also controls Moscow Dinamo (although he claims he has no shares).

The FA and Premier League are also OK with a refereeing set-up that screams corruption but that doesn't make it right.

The FA and Premier League are also OK with a refereeing set-up that screams corruption but that doesn't make it right.

Spot on,the FA & PL aren't fit to govern fuck all.

 

[bluealf]

I loved the implication that Fergiscum let Tevez go because he wasnt convinced by him.

He did offer him a 5 year deal that Tevez turned down, did he not ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2009/jul/14/manchestercity-carlos-tevez


All he needs to know is the FA and The Premier League have OK'd everything .....rag shit stirring twat ....

Firstly I actually know David and he's a passionate blue so your "rag" comment is completely out of line and frankly moronic. David's mission is to investigate and write about what he sees as the unattractive and seamy side of football. And there's plenty of that.

As it happens, I think he's wrong on this to a large degree but his logic is entirely consistent with his philosophy. Knowing who is benefitting from Tevez is the same as them knowing who are the actual people behind Sulaiman Al Fahim's Potrsmouth bid. The Premier League sees itself as a global brand but doesn't always do enough to protect that brand from reputational damage.

The FA & Premier League also decided that Shinawatra was a fit and proper person to own our club until it even became clear to that cretin Scudamore that they were wrong. They also thought that Sacha Gaydamak was a fit and proper owner for Portsmouth, even though it's clear he's little more than a front for his father, who has an international arrest warrant outstanding against him. They have never taken any action against Alisher Usmanov at Arsenal, even though he has served a jail term for corruption and probably also controls Moscow Dinamo (although he claims he has no shares).

The FA and Premier League are also OK with a refereeing set-up that screams corruption but that doesn't make it right.

Well if I was a journo and a passionate blue the first article I would of had printed after we signed Tevez would of been Blue Moon Rising ... City on the up etc etc, Tevez great signing etc etc, but his first article was questioning the deal ..... seems a bit odd that a blue would in a roundabout way be inviting an investigation ....

Again you show your lack of knowledge. That's not the sort of thing that David Conn writes but I can tell you for a fact that he's really excited about the way things are at City. He's not questioning the deal as such but making the point that if the FA & Premier league are so concerned about things at our clubs being above board then they should also be getting some assurances from KJ that it wasn't, say, drug money that initially financed Tevez. Because if it was then City would effectively be engaging in money laundering, which is illegal.

Persnally I think that if KJ has given assurances to City that the money is clean (and I suspect this might be what has what has held up the deal) then that's enough for me.

 

[bizzbo]

I agree with the detail of the article, and what URG and Prestwich Blue have had to say. I'm sure I went too far last night in saying he should be ashamed of the article, but I still have reservations over the article, as I do over several of his pieces. I think he is wrong to make out Joorabchian has any sort of moral obligation to publicly disclose the details of his investors, when, if we follow what I believe to be the usual ethical principles applicable to business between privately owned organisations, surely the opposite is the case, and he has a moral obligation to protect his investors from being publicly named, if they so wish. As such, Conn is asking a question that (rightly) will not be publicly answered, and is in danger of implying that the lack of an answer could be evidence of wrong-doing. The quotes from the report support the idea that the lack of disclosure could be used to hide wrong doing generally, but he makes no case beyond that for highlighting the potential of wrong-doing being hidden behind this deal.

So what bugs me is that, as often seems to be the case, he misses the target. The FA, as an organisation charged with protecting the national game, could legitimately be asked whether they have been given assurances that everything was above board here. Of course the real question would be what they, UEFA and FIFA are doing about this situation generally. Did he even ask these questions? I'd be happier if he pursued these questions tenaciously rather than wasted his time trying to make out Joorabchian had an obligation to answer him when he clearly doesn't. It's almost a smear tactic, even if it wasn't meant to be.

It reminds me of the articles regarding Shinawatra. He discusses the circumstances of the case at hand without uncovering any reason why it is unacceptable, and marries this to the (much stronger) argument that the governing body should be looking at deals of a similar type, because they offer the potential for illegal and unethical dealings. For me, he has to make the governing bodies lack of action the focus of his 'investigations', not individual cases that don't ever reveal any evidence of wrong-doing. Use the individual cases to highlight the general problems, not the other way around. He's got it all backwards, and sometimes it seems like his articles are cynically designed to imply wrong-doing in the specific cases even when he has no evidence whatsoever.

 

[allblues09]

On a different note though, the Guardian do their level best to find fault with our owners and I wondered if it has anything to do with their political allegiance.

Yes I think that has something to do with it. I would much prefer it if we had a British owner who was pumping in this money but the cold hard reality is, there are none out there. City are really really lucky that we got a Randy Lerner type but with shedloads of cash. We could quite easily have ended up with a Hicks & Gillett or Glazer problem.

My biggest fear would have been the debt loading yanks, I'm just amazed how many people on here don't see what is really happening in Trafford and Liverpool and still think that they are the same strength as before. It's as if they haven't seen what's happened to the banking sector.

That is a little unfair as not all Americans are how you describe them.

 

[BufordUSABlue]

On a different note though, the Guardian do their level best to find fault with our owners and I wondered if it has anything to do with their political allegiance.

Yes I think that has something to do with it. I would much prefer it if we had a British owner who was pumping in this money but the cold hard reality is, there are none out there. City are really really lucky that we got a Randy Lerner type but with shedloads of cash. We could quite easily have ended up with a Hicks & Gillett or Glazer problem.

My biggest fear would have been the debt loading yanks, I'm just amazed how many people on here don't see what is really happening in Trafford and Liverpool and still think that they are the same strength as before. It's as if they haven't seen what's happened to the banking sector.

That is a little unfair as not all Americans are how you describe them.

Here Here Allblues..........one for the exiles here in the Colonies!