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.
He just owns the penalty spot bit at both ends.Franny Lee owns us
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.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.
.
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 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.
He replaced Eddie Large when we sadly lost him.Sheikh Mansour is fronting the deal for Curly Watts and Jason Manford.
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.The fans are Manchester City FC, the Sheik is a custodian of the club,
Totally agree.True. But us supporters are large part of why the Arabs invested in us, due to our hardcore support through the bad times.
Did ADUG also look at buying Villa, Gary?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.
Think you are mixing Eddie up with Bernard.He replaced Eddie Large when we sadly lost him.
That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).Did ADUG also look at buying Villa, Gary?
A slight diversion but interesting story…. When I interviewed Eddie at his flat a few years back he told me about his match day ritual if he’s at home watching City on TV. He had a framed photo of Bernard Manning which he used to move and turn so that Bernard could watch City. i thought it was a nice touch that he’d think about him every time City was on. Mind you there must have been games when the old Manning joke (they’ve built a new stand at Maine Rd. Only problem is it faces the wrong way… it faces the pitch!) must have been in Eddie’s head. I wonder if he turned Bernard’s photo around so that he faced the other way on those sort of days!Think you are mixing Eddie up with Bernard.
Who the hell says teacake?That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).
What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).
That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).
It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
That spoke volumes at the time. It can only be described as a total snub.That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).
What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).
That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).
It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
I hope the 1894 lads made him feel right at home!That spoke volumes at the time. It can only be described as a total snub.
I think i read something years ago ADUG looked at buying Villa and when they bought us Villa fans soon became bitter and jealous towards us, hence them waving fake notes at us at a few games after the takeover.That’s never been mentioned to me but it’s possible. I doubt they would’ve offered more than the overall package with City and as Petrusha mentioned Thaksin’s takeover had made it a relatively straightforward task which may not have been possible at Villa or the others. Having said that Thaksin wanted to retain some control and they had to give him a 10% stake (approx and from memory so forgive me if the percentage is different).
What they did which I think was genius was say to him ‘you can have your 10% but every shareholder will be expected to invest at the same rate as us, so if you can’t do that your percentage will reduce on a pro rata basis’ (I’m paraphrasing of course).
That meant that every time they spent £10m he was committed to spend £1m and if he couldn’t his shareholding would reduce accordingly. By the time they made the big investments he struggled to even buy a chip muffin/barm/bap/teacake (delete as applicable).
It says it all about the post takeover position of Thaksin that for the 2012 derby he was sat/stood in the South Stand level 1 because there were no places available to him in director/corporate areas.
I know he tried to use the toilet and it was full of people smoking. The chant went up: ‘Thaksin Shinawatra he pisses where he wants‘I hope the 1894 lads made him feel right at home!
I agree - on the muffin. You’re possibly right on the Villa stuff too. They would’ve looked at most clubs but the real contenders were LFC, NUFC, EFC, AFC and us. There’s lots been said in the papers (and elsewhere) about that time and the involvement of various people (much of it wrong or a story put out to create a different narrative) but consistent messages came from Cook, Simon Pearce, Khaldoon, Vicky and others in interviews…. They all agreed it was a chip muffin!I think i read something years ago ADUG looked at buying Villa and when they bought us Villa fans soon became bitter and jealous towards us, hence them waving fake notes at us at a few games after the takeover.
And it's muffin btw; )