Who actually owns City?

[kinkladze10]

Garry Cooke played a huge part in the sale apparently.

Also fans don’t own clubs and are just an after thought in the UK.

 

[petrusha]

But mainly they were looking for a club that had potential, an upside they could build on. Newcastle & Everton were the two other main clubs they talked to. Our advantage was that we were very happy to listen.

Thaksin originally didn't want to listen to a takeover approach on behalf of Mansour. At the outset, he wanted someone to invest in the club for a minority stake, and there was no interest from Abu Dhabi in that arrangement.

It was only when Thaksin started to acknowledge that the British government might revoke his visa that things changed, at which point events started to move at genuine pace. The prior dissonance between Thaksin's objectives and the Sheikh's had given the likes of Everton and Newcastle a head start in terms of having the opportunity to convince Mansour that they were the right vehicle for his ambitions. Indeed, we were actually quite lucky that neither took that chance before we seriously entered the picture.

I also don't want to praise Thaksin unduly, because he's a problematic individual in any event and, further, we could easily have been headed for disaster in the form of administration and relegation had he not got lucky with selling the club to Mansour in the summer of 2008. However, an unimpeachable source told me at the time that two things had happened as a result of the Thai's takeover the previous year without either of which (but especially the first one) Mansour might well never have alighted on us as his preferred purchase option.

1. The Thaksin takeover unified what had previously been an extremely fragmented shareholder base, making an acquisition of control over the club a much lengthier and more complex process than if it had been wholly owned by a single shareholder. Mansour had no appetite for anything resembling the former and was widely reported at the time to have declined to pursue an interest in Arsenal for precisely that reason. At City, Thaksin had already undertaken the task of unifying all of the shares within the holding of a sole owner.

2. During Thaksin's year in control, he'd prioritised improving the club's international profile and, after a year with him and Sven as owner and manager respectively, we were much bigger news globally than we had been a year previously under Wardle, Mackintosh and Pearce. Obviously we were nowhere near the likes of Liverpool and United in terms of reach but we'd arguably stolen a march at this point on Everton and Newcastle, our rivals for the Sheikh's attentions.

It was widely claimed at the time that Garry Cook had delivered a presentation about City's potential that convinced the Abu Dhabi stakeholders of our being the right option for them. Importantly, in doing so, Cook was able to point to ongoing progress that evidenced the viability of the propositions he was evincing.

 

[ColinBellsjockstrap]

Franny Lee owns us

He just owns the penalty spot bit at both ends.

 

[Gary James]

Thaksin originally didn't want to listen to a takeover approach on behalf of Mansour. At the outset, he wanted someone to invest in the club for a minority stake, and there was no interest from Abu Dhabi in that arrangement.

It was only when Thaksin started to acknowledge that the British government might revoke his visa that things changed, at which point events started to move at a serious pace. The prior dissonance between Thaksin's objectives and the Sheikh's had given the likes of Everton and Newcastle a head start in terms of having the opportunity to convince Mansour that they were the right vehicle for his ambitions. Indeed, we were actually quite lucky that neither took that chance before we seriously entered the picture.

I also don't want to praise Thaksin unduly, because he's a problematic individual in any event and, further, we could easily have been headed for disaster in the form of administration and relegation had he not got lucky with selling the club the club to Mansour in the summer of 2008. However, an unimpeachable source told me at the time that two things had happened as a result of the Thai's takeover the previous year without either of which (but especially the first one) Mansour might well never have alighted on us as his preferred purchase option.

1. The Thaksin takeover unified what had previously been an extremely fragmented shareholder base, making an acquisition of control over the club a much lengthier and more complex process than if it had been wholly owned by a single shareholder. Mansour had no appetite for anything resembling the former and was widely reported at the time to have declined to pursue an interest in Arsenal for precisely that reason. At City, Thaksin had already undertaken the task of unifying all of the shares within the holding of a sole owner.

2. During Thaksin's year in control, he'd prioritised improving the club's international profile and, after a year with him and Sven as owner and manager respectively, we were much bigger news globally than we had been a year previously under Wardle, Mackintosh and Pearce. Obviously we were nowhere near the likes of Liverpool and United in terms of reach but we'd arguably stolen a march at this point on Everton and Newcastle, our rivals for the Sheikh's attentions.

It was widely claimed at the time that Garry Cook had delivered a presentation about City's potential that convinced the Abu Dhabi stakeholders of our being the right option for them. Importantly, in doing so, Cook was able to point to ongoing progress that evidenced the viability of the propositions he was evincing.

.

Agreed on all of this. I suppose the biggest contribution made by Thaksin was bringing in Garry Cook who became a key figure in ‘selling’ the club to ADUG and was the man who persuaded Thaksin he had to sell the whole club not a minority stake.

 

[Gary James]

The stadium wasn't a factor as the Sheikh and his people were prepared to spend whatever it took to get something they felt was more appropriate to their requirements.

The fan base, and our loyalty, was definitely a factor. They knew there was a very solid fan base they could build on. Having an international airport in the area was probably a factor. The land around the stadium was almost certainly a factor.

But mainly they were looking for a club that had potential, an upside they could build on. Newcastle & Everton were the two other main clubs they talked to. Our advantage was that we were very happy to listen.

I disagree. The stadium was a key factor. Khaldoon said that to me in an interview I did with him. If we’d have been at Maine Rd we would not have been bought.

The key factors expressed directly to me were:
- ‘sleeping’ giant
- Stadium
- development potential of both surrounding land and of the wider club in markets around the globe
- fans and loyalty over decades
- Manchester already known as a major footballing city and, like it or not, the ability to challenge ‘world famous’ MUFC elevated our appeal above others

In essence investing a (relatively) small amount would grow the club significantly. In comparison LFC were already a giant and certain growth areas were not possible. Invest in them and growth in value etc would not be too great but invest in another club with all the attributes listed and in a bigger, more financially appealing city and huge growth can come. Which it has.

They looked at Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle and Everton. Knowing what appealed you can see why the others offered less than City. LFC - little growth (& stadium issues at the time); Everton - stadium issues and Liverpool not as appealing as Manchester but had they had a stadium who knows; Newcastle - lots of positives but global stage/major profile not there; Arsenal - similar to LFC in terms of growth.

We were lucky that we’d been unlucky all those years beforehand and the stadium move lifted us above Everton.

 

[mainestand]

We’re no longer a football club.

 

[Gary James]

Sheikh Mansour is fronting the deal for Curly Watts and Jason Manford.

He replaced Eddie Large when we sadly lost him.

 

[Gary James]

The fans are Manchester City FC, the Sheik is a custodian of the club,

He absolutely is and Khaldoon has said that too. The current owners are the current custodians, looking after it on behalf of us for future generations. They’ve not done a bad job either.

 

[Gary James]

True. But us supporters are large part of why the Arabs invested in us, due to our hardcore support through the bad times.

Totally agree.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

The Qataris