Reply With QuoteUntil the US Government uses public funds to invest into a Premier League club, your interjection does not even qualify as whataboutism.Originally Posted by thegoat
Where does Guantanamo stand in the terrorist states conversation btw ?
Until the US Government uses public funds to invest into a Premier League club, your interjection does not even qualify as whataboutism.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
No it’s you Raffe you decide everything and you have the final say.
So, by the same metric , we can exclude Manchester City from the conversation as the club is 79% owned by Sheikh Mansour , along with a US backed consortium and a Chinese investment group , not Abu Dhabi ?
Or is that whataboutism too ?
Hmm.
It started with a post by Jim:
upon which you replied:
upon which I showed you an example of terrorist activity by the Saudi state.
Other than insulting me and trying to pivot back to a "pure football" discussion of your own definition, I haven't seen any reaction to what I posted.
Simple question: is Saudi Arabia a terrorist state?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Sheik Mansour is a Abu Dhabi royal. He was 25 years old, when his own father appointed him chairman of the presidential office, and he has been acting as a representative of the royal family since. Big difference whether there are US business interests behind an investment, or Middle Eastern political interests. Don't pretend that you don't know the difference.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Are you that gullible or deliberately on the wind up?
Why ?
Are you saying the club is state owned ?
Should be fairly easy to prove, no ?
I’ll wait .
Well done city on the treble.
Thought Citeh would 10-0 Inter but Inter put up a good showing and were arguably the better side on the night.
Atmosphere looked absolutely dreadful even at the final whistle the footage I’ve seen looks like a league Cup last 32 win from the fans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would be easier for you to prove some sort of separation of sheikh monsour from the state, maybe he has an independent source of wealth? It's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain.
People always eulogize the German ownership model, but is it working that great?
Bayern have won the BL 18 times this century.
I don't think anyone has won the PL more than 6-7 times in the same period, so might suggest theres a bit more competition in England. Might not be due to ownership I suppose
Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk
Why ?
You’re the one making the accusations.
It’s up to you to back up your wild theory. Not that you will of course .
Surely if Sheik Mansour was such a big football fan he would have attended more than the 2 matches that he's actually been to in the 15 years of his ownership?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansou...ayed_Al_Nahyan
"Mansour is also the owner of the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), an investment company for the Abu Dhabi royal family,[13] that acquired Manchester City Football Club in September 2008."
Maybe he has a Sky Sports subscription?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Like I said all you'd need is half a brain
That'll be a BEIN Sports subscription: Andy Gray, Richard Keys & Jason McAteer - lush!
______
Jim.
When is your other half coming in ?
You are a rare wit
Already in 2018, Der Spiegel revealed how Infantino and Platini fixed the ongoing financial fair-play breaches by both PSG as well as ManCity. You can read it here. And last year, Der Spiegel revealed how UAE government bodies were involved in dealings with MCFC, here.
New findings from DER SPIEGEL and the journalism network European Investigative Collaborations (EIC) show that the holding company behind Manchester City appears to have violated the rules by paying millions in fees to player agents and also orchestrated a secret, triangular deal to sign an underage player. Numerous documents provided by the whistleblower platform Football Leaks provide a deep look at the club’s inner workings and at government agencies in Abu Dhabi – sufficient to inflict a few chinks in ManCity’s juridical defensive wall.
Like the Qataris’ investment in Paris Saint-Germain and the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund’s purchase of Newcastle United, the billions of euros spent on ManCity by UAE is primarily, it would seem, an attempt to use success on the football pitch to improve the country’s image . The UAE, after all, allows no political dissent at home, disregards human rights and is under suspicion of having committed war crimes in the ongoing violence in Yemen – which the UAE denies. The team owners are apparently willing to pay any price necessary to appear in the best possible light on the stage of elite football. And it looks suspiciously as though one of the richest nations in the world is financing the team’s operations, using hidden payments to circumvent spending rules.
(...) The company Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development (ADUG) belongs to Sheikh Mansour and was the official owner of Manchester City from 2008 until last year, when the team was transferred to a different company owned by Mansour. Officials in UAE have consistently insisted that ADUG is a purely private company and Mansour’s involvement with the English team is a completely private investment. In testimony before CAS, a legal representative of the Finance Ministry in Abu Dhabi said that ADUG "is completely unconnected" to the government of UAE or the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.
Research in the Football Leaks documents has revealed, however, that payments from ADUG to the club were cleared by a state office. According to internal documents, the Executive Affairs Authority (EAA), an Abu Dhabi government agency focused on providing strategic guidance, obviously manages the accounts belonging to ADUG. Agency chief Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the de facto prime minister of Abu Dhabi, is head of the state investment fund and is also chairman of Manchester City. He apparently approved money flows that were controlled by the government before ending up in the accounts of the football team. Payment requests for agent fees were sent to the EAA’s general counsel, with ManCity sending an invoice for the sponsorship company Etisalat to Omar Awad, the finance director of the government agency. "Omar works for the EAA and is very important and helpful in facilitating our financial administration of City," wrote Simon Pearce, a club board member, to a colleague in January 2014.
Were such a situation to play out in Germany, it might look like this: The state-owned railway company Deutsche Bahn would be FC Bayern Munich's main sponsor, but the club would send invoices for sponsorship money to a senior official in the Chancellery before then writing emails praising the financial services provided to the club by the government official. A rather absurd idea.
That article is also providing evidence of massive contract fraud, tax evasion and cover up of direct Abu Dhabi interests in the club. But you knew that already.
There is a lot more in this article by The Independent: Man City scandal is not about fair play – it’s about fraud
Last edited by Raffe; 11th June 2023 at 19:47.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Miguel Delaney ? Really ?
Jesus, do some homework .
And Der Spiegel? With their doctored emails ??
This is parody , right ?
You are indeed the monogroover of football. Congratulations.
Let's just wait for the proceedings, we'll find out in the end.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
You're probably right.
Move along nothing to see here.
Same as the Qatari world cup bid.
All above board.
Can’t wait to see the record turnout for tomorrows bus parade. They may even close a couple of streets in central Manchester.
.
Thanks
That means a lot .
And yes, please let’s wait .
We all know what will happen . City get cleared . You and yours harrumph and say there’s no smoke without fire etc etc .
I’m sorry we aren’t St Pauli , but that’s not us .
I’ve still got vivid memories of your shithouse fans attacking City fans in Hamburg .
Wut?
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
I think it’s Bein Sports o’er there ;-)
Quoted for posterity
It's hard to believe you are being serious, I'll assume it's trolling, at least it makes some sort of sense
- - - Updated - - -
Cleared of all 115 charges, not a chance, I only hope the punishment matches the flagrant abuse of the rules.
thegreatestofalltime.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
It's a catastrophe with Bayern winning again, and the commercialisation of football certainly doesn't overlook Germany.
Whether it's RB Leipzig, which has been founded solely for the purpose of promoting Red Bull sugar drinks, or Wolfsburg that are legally a department of Volkswagen, or Bayern Munich with their shareholders Audi, Adidas and Deutsche Telekom - but at least we don't have to endure league teams faking sponsoring agreements to cover up that their terrorist state owners are subsidising their attempts to buy national and international titles in blatant disregard for financial fair play rules.
At least German fans aren't being reduced to target groups for merchandising sales.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Atmosphere was better there. Rewatched the game and didn’t come across half as well on tv. Respect to the Inter fans who stayed for the whole trophy presentation unlike the rags last week at Wembley.
can’t even begin to describe the shambles of getting out of the car park on the shuttle buses. But it’s ok, the corporate lot who have no interest in either team got out ok so good job from UEFA.
Malc
We used the bus both ways and wished we hadn't. 3 hours going in and 2 hours just to clear the car park leaving. Clearly the metro would have been the best option. Interesting comments on here. If you support another team and you were glad to see us do it then fair play to you. We had Arsenal fans in our hotel who got corporate tickets who were happy to support City one night. It's nice to have chats with like minded circumspect people. Clearly some bitterness on here, it's up to you, as a 62 year old I can tell you it won't do you much good in life. I also try to form my opinions on solid facts. I can't really form one on the 115 as we just don't know all the information. It might be good news it might be bad who knows. Interesting to see how many part time judges we have here.
How could being charged with 115 counts of breaches of various rules related to financial fair play be good news? There is no denying city are a brilliant football team with a brilliant manager, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
They are also state owned and flouting the rules which makes them a little harder to root for.
It isn't very difficult to build a brilliant team if money is not an issue. That's the very reason why financial fair play rules were invented, this is about fairness and integrity of the game. But that apparently doesn't matter for the stans, at least not until another team spends even bigger amounts.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Good news for us would be for them not to stick obviously. Similar charges were scaled down from a 2 year Euro ban to a fine for non cooperation recently. Seems you've made your mind up anyway. Are we any more than a state team than Madrid? I would suggest not.
Having skimmed through Raffe's Der Spiegel links above, it does appear there is a decent chance City will get through it somehow. It is clear they have done wrong, that goes without saying. But they will have the most expensive lawyers who will frustrate and obstruct the enquiry and force it to drag on as long as possible. The previous charges I think ended up being time barred, which sounded like a farce.
Last edited by Boss13; 12th June 2023 at 09:02.
I had a chat with Stan. He was delighted.
Is a title that was won because some sugar daddy gave you unlimited money worth as much as one that was won in a fair competition? Serious question.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Sorry Raffe, that’s just not the case. Integrity of the game has nothing to do with it. It’s about several legacy clubs trying to clip the wings of new owners and their success.
The original FFP was designed to prevent rogue owners from saddling a club with debt that would put them in ruin should the owner walk away. When Abramovic bought Chelsea and they started winning, the FFP rules were amended so that a club’s growth could only be organic.
Only in football is an owner prevented from investing what he wants into his business (let’s be under no illusion, football is all business these days).
if you want the game to have integrity, scrap the current FFP, let owners invest whatever they want and just ensure no owner can walk away leaving their club in financial ruin. The Glasers see United as nothing but a cash cow and have never cared about success on the pitch because United is such a behemoth around the world it can still generate revenues other clubs can only dream without winning titles.
Alternatively impose a spending cap around the footballing world so that there is consistency. But good luck with that with the Saudis now entering into football big time.
With the current FFP where is the incentive for anyone to but a club and dream of glory if they can’t invest? Try telling Wrexham fans that they’d rather Ryan Reynolds not bought the club.
Last edited by sevvy; 12th June 2023 at 09:37.
Nobody seems to refer to Chelsea in these debates yet they've had the most prolific Sugar Daddy I've ever known. Jack Walker at Blackburn? Barcelona spending other people's money and running a totally unsustainable business for a couple of decades? Lining the pockets of refs?
We genuinely don't know what goes on in any club do we. I'd wager that most EPL owners / consortia / sugar daddies have got cupboards full of skeletons. Nefarious ways of raising funds with unsavoury characters from around the globe will be common place I'm sure. As someone previously said here, those days of owners in flat caps having a pint and a smoke in the local after the game are gone. This is high-finance, high-stakes business now.
Those opposed to Middle East involvement are unlikely to be swayed from their stance and that's fine. However we need to be careful about mixing our currencies; do we object because of the money they're able to invest or from a moral standpoint? Or both?
Sport is changing with ME involvement - just look at F1 and golf. Tennis will be next. You don't have to like it but are people going to stop watching all sport because of it?
What I fail to comprehend about “sports washing” is that success bring greater scrutiny. Look at the recent World Cup. Did people really come away from that thinking that Qatar is a lovely country? If anything their human rights records was under even more scrutiny than had they not staged the tournament.
Thers is hypocrisy everywhere. To use your own club as an example. The PL must have already started investigating City when Staveley came in with the Saudi offer to buy Newcastle. Did they really think that Saudi PIF would be any different to Mansour’s ownership (Newcastle’s new shirt deal springs to mind) of City. Yet they still green lighted the take over.
Just wait until the Saudis start flexing their muscles even more. Ronaldo and Benzema are just the start. The major European leagues will be in deep trouble unless they can afford to pay players more. How are they going to do that under current FFP?
The Saudi's will either buy the top players, if they can't get those, they'll buy the top clubs, if they can't get those, they'll by the top leagues, and if they can't get those they'll buy the governing bodies.
Just look at what's happened with Golf.
Oil money invested into other industries to diversify their holdings as they know one day that money will run dry and all they'll be left with is a desert with a few hotels in the middle of nowhere!
I can't add to that. Put very well.
If you want a level playing field, then no club should be able to invest beyond their "organic" abilities - i.e. the fact that Mr. Sugardaddy popped up over night, should not make any difference as if he wasn't there. This means that Sugardaddy can only invest and finance as much as the club would be able to get from non-Sugardaddy sources. That is square and fair and maintains a level competition field. If the Saudis want to build a CL winner out of Newcastle, they will have to wait 10+ years until their first investments have paid off and they can build on these. Anything else has got nothing to do with sports any longer.
The questions of ethics is just that: ethics. I cannot understand how anyone would want to accept blood money, no matter what advantage it gives them in competition. Other people's milage on that may vary.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Blood money? Inflammatory language again. What is blood money?
Scrutiny? You want to re-listen to Infantino's speech?
The point of sports washing isn't about scrutiny. It's about being associated with popular activities. The more you interact with Football, F1, Golf, Tennis, etc. the more you will find Emirate countries on the frontline so more and more people will associate them with their favourite sport ahead of their HR records. It's a quest of respectability in the eyes of the masses, even if the elite still question their ethics. Think propaganda, think Roman's "Panem et circenses"...
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
City fans tend to vacillate between we haven't broken any rules and sports washing doesn't exist to ffp is garbage anyway so who cares. Which is it?
And ahbramovic was exactly the same, a man whose many had state links and more than a hint of impropriety who bough the club to use as a vehicle to protect himself effectively, difference was the ffp rules weren't quite the same then.
Finances in football have always been fluid and the cartel was perfectly happy with that until rather worryingly, other clubs dared to have ambition. A bigger fan base, shirt sales, better sponsorship deals based on brand value and friends in high places. Access to cash that others couldn't match. Sweet as a sugerdaddy. All was right with the world. The TV rights in the Premiership started to chip away at that and the margins started to close. Better get the door shut quick, only problem was Chelsea and later on City managed to get their foots in it. What a lot of fans don't realise is they were sticking in there for you too. Even in an unregulated environment you have to get things right in so many ways to get success. City are the prime example of a club after initial investment, being able to turn it's own money round and be at the top table. I would never have a problem with other clubs doing the same. If the big 6 turns into the big 20 bring it on. Trying to hold the football world back to the year 1999 is a bit of a blinkered view IMO.
Posting Permissions
