Manchester City risk of getting CL banned

[andyox]

He trips over himself trying to set City and Chelsea apart.

Does he really think fans of non-top 6 clubs see Manchester United and Manchester City as different case studies in terms of how they've managed to maintain their dominance over the years? Does he or anyone else think money wasn't a major factor? It's something that's baffled me ever since I started following the sport.

From my own perspective as a City fan (first game 1990), my early memories were obviously of United dominance. What happened at the top of the table was largely irrelevant to me as a City fan, except I hated United so was happy for anyone to challenge them. I had absolutely no issue when Abramovich took over Chelsea and starting splashing the cash, again it was absolutely irrelevant to me, except that it provided another challenger to United. United's organic cash vs Chelsea's Roman cash didn't resonate with me. Cash was cash. I think of two of my biggest City heroes that we were forced to sell: Kinkladze to Ajax and SWP to Chelsea. I was upset that both were sold, didn't matter which type of cash bought them, the fact is we lost a player both times. I doubt Southampton fans have consoled themselves over the years with "well at least Liverpool's cash was organic" when they were raided by them for another player.

For the most part, I think football fans are tribal and relatively self-interested, and that's mostly reflected anecdotally in conversations I have with friends who are football fans. Friends who support United, Liverpool, etc. are always sticking the boot in on FFP/financial doping etc. Friends who support "non-top 6 clubs" (god that's an awful phrase) don't seem nearly as bothered. That makes sense to me, in the same way I wasn't bothered by Roman's arrival at Chelsea. As football fans, we're most passionate about things that directly affect us.

Was United's organic dominance more impressive than Chelsea's and City's as a case study in building an elite club? Sure. Is that distinction important to United fans? Sure, and understandably so. But ultimately I'm not sure it means much beyond the asterisk that United fans like to imagine next to City's trophies.

 

[adexkola]

I don’t know anyone, non-partisan, who fails to distinguish between clubs who acquired their wealth through good management and decision making, i.e. United, now Spurs, and those who are being financially doped. Most can even differentiate between those who are sugar daddied by a wealthy individual who treats them as a personal project, and those who are bankrolled to help achieve the legitimisation of a dictatorship.

I don't think it matters at the end of the day to be honest. And since we're diving into anecdotes, yes I know a lot of fans who see City as another big club using wealth to sustain their dominance, instead of the big bad wolf the other decent big clubs are trying to take down for the good of all football.

 

[TMDaines]

I don't think it matters at the end of the day to be honest.

You don't think it matters that the source of funding is a brutal dictatorship who openly engage in modern slavery, who are investing in an attempt to gain legitimacy and spreading their wealth overseas in a hedge against a revolt or being otherwise ousted from their country? We're talking about a club essentially being funded by human trafficking and slave labour.

 

[ExecutionerWasp001]

That's completely untrue. Any "Euro League" would undoubtedly involve both City and PSG, as all leaked plans of such a proposal have documented.

You were part of the conversation when the Euro League plans were in their infancy. Times have changed now though. The big clubs at home & abroad are clamoring for sanctions against you. If action isn't taken against you, it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas, if the big clubs formed a Euro League & invited you in.

 

[Full bodied red]

You don't think it matters that the source of funding is a brutal dictatorship who openly engage in modern slavery, who are investing in an attempt to gain legitimacy and spreading their wealth overseas in a hedge against a revolt or being otherwise ousted from their country? We're talking about a club essentially being funded by human trafficking and slave labour.

To be fair, I wouldn't describe Abu Dhabi as badly as that.

Democratic ? No...But not as bad as quite a few other countries we could discuss.

Brutal Dictatorship ? Don't think so, but obviously much more like a Dictatorship than we in Europe are used to. Let's just say probaby about par for the course in lots of Arab countries.

Gain legitimacy ? Don't think so but perhaps was a motivation at the beginning....I've alwaydsfelt that Mansour seems to be doing all this himself rather than with or through the Al Nahyan family. Ultimate in Big Boys Toys, and all that.

Human Trafficking and Slave Labour ? Unless you know more that's happening underneath the surface than the rest of us....Certainly Abu Dhabi and UAE in general is full of and depends on cheap imported labour, but isn't a lot of Europe ( especially the UK ) and USA and Australasia these days ? Just that Abu Dhabi's cheap labour comes from the Sub-Continent rather than Eastern Europe, Central America or Indo China.

Having said all that, I agree with your feelings about the suspect finances behind City's success if not with all your reasons.

 

[United_We_Stand]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[United_We_Stand]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nore1975]

UEFA won't punish City. However the court of public opinion, outside their own fanbase, view their achievements particularly this season with contempt. Their success seems hollow. Of course rival fans will always be jealous of successful sides. But this goes beyond simple green eyed envy. Ken Early's article in the Irish Times is a fine one and explains better than I can why City's triumphs will never draw the credit that in theory should come their way.

In the interest of context and how the money City have spent has skewed the EPL. City's three substitutes that came on cost more than Watford's starting 11.

Javier Tebas, head of La Liga, is talking out his arse complaining about City, considering how Real Madrid are financed.

 

[andyox]

To be fair, I wouldn't describe Abu Dhabi as badly as that.

Democratic ? No...But not as bad as quite a few other countries we could discuss.

Brutal Dictatorship ? Don't think so, but obviously much more like a Dictatorship than we in Europe are used to. Let's just say probaby about par for the course in lots of Arab countries.

Gain legitimacy ? Don't think so but perhaps was a motivation at the beginning....I've alwaydsfelt that Mansour seems to be doing all this himself rather than with or through the Al Nahyan family. Ultimate in Big Boys Toys, and all that.

Human Trafficking and Slave Labour ? Unless you know more that's happening underneath the surface than the rest of us....Certainly Abu Dhabi and UAE in general is full of and depends on cheap imported labour, but isn't a lot of Europe ( especially the UK ) and USA and Australasia these days ? Just that Abu Dhabi's cheap labour comes from the Sub-Continent rather than Eastern Europe, Central America or Indo China.

Having said all that, I agree with your feelings about the suspect finances behind City's success if not with all your reasons.

What I've never understood about the whole argument on "sportwashing", as it seems to now popularly be referred to, is that if that was truly the objective of ADUG/Sheikh Mansour in buying Manchester City then it's quite spectacularly failed. How many football fans, and how many of the journalists gleefully sticking the boot in this week, were so knowledgeable and concerned about human rights and labour conditions in the UAE prior to 2008? I want to be clear that I am in no way saying that human rights and labour conditions in the UAE are not a serious problem. They clearly are. But knowledge of, and reporting on, these issues has massively increased as a result of the ADUG/Sheikh Mansour takeover. Far from taking attention away from these issues, they've actually done the complete opposite by drawing significant attention to them. It's sportwashing in reverse.

I think it's far more logical that ADUG/Sheikh Mansour either bought City for a bit of fun, or bought City as a genuine investment. If it's fun they were after, then I think they've succeeded judging by Khaldoon's matchday celebrations. If it's investment they were after, then I'd also argue it's been a success. Most estimates, even including some margin for external/grey financing, put ADUG's total investment at somewhere around £1.5 billion. The investment by CMC (Chinese consortium) in City in 2015 valued City at over £2 billion, and almost every football financial report at the moment (Deloitte etc.) seems to confirm that valuation, which is likely to only rise as City continue to perform well.

(Full disclosure, I previously lived and worked in Dubai for five years, so well aware of the situation in the UAE)

 

[fergiesarmy1]

these guys don’t operate under “normal” business rules and anything goes over there, they will slip up people are waiting for the opportunity someone will talk, the one player that got artificially payed then royally screwed. You can’t cover up double payments, multiple clubs, excessive sponsorship, elite players never pushing to leave forever. It will come out especially in this era of football leaks, social media and dodgy agents

 

[Mb194dc]

Such yawn. City too successful so in the cross hairs.

So easy to make football a sporting competition rather than an economic one. If UEFA / FA EPL La liga etc wanted to do that. Team level salary cap, no transfer fees, franchised based leagues instead of the pyramid. Rebalance end of each season so weak teams get first pick of players. Not too difficult to implement.

What they actually want to do is entrench the current big clubs at the top, forever. It's boring already. Once TV money starts drying up they'll do something about it.

 

[WensleyMU]

The head of La Liga speaking out is fairly significant, though also hypocritical.

You couldn't imagine the head of the Premier League doing the same.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

What I've never understood about the whole argument on "sportwashing", as it seems to now popularly be referred to, is that if that was truly the objective of ADUG/Sheikh Mansour in buying Manchester City then it's quite spectacularly failed. How many football fans, and how many of the journalists gleefully sticking the boot in this week, were so knowledgeable and concerned about human rights and labour conditions in the UAE prior to 2008? I want to be clear that I am in no way saying that human rights and labour conditions in the UAE are not a serious problem. They clearly are. But knowledge of, and reporting on, these issues has massively increased as a result of the ADUG/Sheikh Mansour takeover. Far from taking attention away from these issues, they've actually done the complete opposite by drawing significant attention to them. It's sportwashing in reverse.

I think it's far more logical that ADUG/Sheikh Mansour either bought City for a bit of fun, or bought City as a genuine investment. If it's fun they were after, then I think they've succeeded judging by Khaldoon's matchday celebrations. If it's investment they were after, then I'd also argue it's been a success. Most estimates, even including some margin for external/grey financing, put ADUG's total investment at somewhere around £1.5 billion. The investment by CMC (Chinese consortium) in City in 2015 valued City at over £2 billion, and almost every football financial report at the moment (Deloitte etc.) seems to confirm that valuation, which is likely to only rise as City continue to perform well.

(Full disclosure, I previously lived and worked in Dubai for five years, so well aware of the situation in the UAE)

In their own words it’s exactly what they are doing. They gave an interview early on where they said they bought City to show the world ‘that Abu Dhabi is not like other Arab states’, that they’re progressive etc. All the while they’re on numerous human rights watchlists for running a brutal and corrupt regime.

This is the interview

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/sep/18/manchester-city-abu-dhabi-mubarak

"We are acknowledging that how we are handling this project is telling a lot to the world about how we are," Khaldoon said. "The UAE is different from other Arab countries. People think the Arab world is one, but it is not. This is showing the world the true essence of who Abu Dhabi is and what Abu Dhabi is about. That is something new, something we didn't really plan for."

 

[fergiesarmy1]

The head of La Liga speaking out is fairly significant, though also hypocritical.

You couldn't imagine the head of the Premier League doing the same.

The head of the premier league can’t criticise its champions, that would be a first. It’s good that Spain are getting fed up with this and let’s be clear what the problem is

If you want to sign a player that Abu Dhabi want you end up paying 500k a week for a Sanchez, previously you could make a mistake or 2 and such is life when buying footballers. We are well and truly lumbered now because we went up against a nation not a football club and didn’t want to lose.

 

[andyox]

In their own words it’s exactly what they are doing. They gave an interview early on where they said they bought City to show the world ‘that Abu Dhabi is not like other Arab states’, that they’re progressive etc. All the while they’re on numerous human rights watchlists for running a brutal and corrupt regime.

Who from ADUG gave that interview? I don't recall those quotes but if someone said that, then fair enough. The only two ADUG representatives that have really spoken are Sulaiman al Fahim (quickly ditched) and Khaldoon. Mansour has done the odd newspaper interview as well.

As I said above, if that was the reason for buying City, then it has quite spectacularly failed.

 

[padr81]

The head of the premier league can’t criticise its champions, that would be a first. It’s good that Spain are getting fed up with this and let’s be clear what the problem is

If you want to sign a player that Abu Dhabi want you end up paying 500k a week for a Sanchez, previously you could make a mistake or 2 and such is life when buying footballers. We are well and truly lumbered now because we went up against a nation not a football club and didn’t want to lose.

Yes City forced you to pay him that much... You offered him that much because you were saving on transfer fee.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Who from ADUG gave that interview? I don't recall those quotes but if someone said that, then fair enough. The only two ADUG representatives that have really spoken are Sulaiman al Fahim (quickly ditched) and Khaldoon. Mansour has done the odd newspaper interview as well.

As I said above, if that was the reason for buying City, then it has quite spectacularly failed.

I posted it in the original post. It was Khaldoon.

 

[MalBot]

The head of La Liga speaking out is fairly significant, though also hypocritical.

You couldn't imagine the head of the Premier League doing the same.

I think FFP is a joke and UEFA needs to take action but all this whining from people like Tebas is hilarious.

So Real and Barca weren't harming football when they were splashing record amounts of money on players every year? He doesn't care about the 'Fair Play' in FFP. He is just bitter Real and Barca suddenly can't cherry pick the best talents.

 

[andyox]

I posted it in the original post. It was Khaldoon.

Sorry totally missed that in your original post, my fault! Khaldoon probably regrets those words, because on a sporting and financial level, it's been a great success, but on a sportswashing level, it's been a massive failure.

Edit: also note that Khaldoon interview/article was written by David Conn. To be fair to Conn, who is a City fan, he's one of the only journalists who has written consistently on this topic over many years. It's the mob mentality of hacks like Rob Harris, Miguel Delaney etc. this week who've jumped on the bandwagon in the selfless cause of clickbait SEO that I was aiming at. City win a one-sided cup final and suddenly they've all become human rights advocates. It's transparent and embarrassing.

 

[andyox]

The head of the premier league can’t criticise its champions, that would be a first. It’s good that Spain are getting fed up with this and let’s be clear what the problem is

If you want to sign a player that Abu Dhabi want you end up paying 500k a week for a Sanchez, previously you could make a mistake or 2 and such is life when buying footballers. We are well and truly lumbered now because we went up against a nation not a football club and didn’t want to lose.

Don't be naive. Tebas is a lifelong Real Madrid fan and president of a league that is currently getting financially pummeled by the Premier League. Of course he's fed up, and it's not the first time he's whined about it.

I seem to recall the Caf in fairly self-congratulatory mood when you signed Sanchez on a mega-money deal that City wouldn't match. You can hardly complain now just because he's under-performed.

 

[nore1975]

Yes City forced you to pay him that much... You offered him that much because you were saving on transfer fee.

It is true that Man Utd, by their own hand alone agreed to pay Sanchez 1/2m a week. However City's interest instigated what was essentially a wage auction. City wisely avoided what has been a disastrous signing for MU.

 

[MalBot]

The bit about the if they get banned and who would get CL place doesn't make sense to me. So if they get banned and the ban is implemented for next season (highly unlikely) why would United get a place if Arsenal won the EL? Cos winning the EL gives you a CL place as a club provided you didnt get it through the league. It doesn't earn you an extra place for your country

Edit: I have just seen similar questions have been asked before in the thread

 

[WensleyMU]

Sanchez signing has damaged United. City would have just laughed it off.

United are the bigger, richer club when the paying field is level. Still, with the backing of a nation, City could have taken Sanchez, had him be as big a flop as he has been at United and it not cause them any damage whatsoever...

 

[padr81]

It is true that Man Utd, by their own hand alone agreed to pay Sanchez 1/2m a week. However City's interest instigated what was essentially a wage auction. City wisely avoided what has been a disastrous signing for MU.

No they didn't, United didn't have to throw that money at Sanchez, they clearly decided they'd offer Sanchez the transfer fee on top of wage. Most on here will tell you Sanchez choosing United over City was nothing to do with money. I swear if someones mother falls over in the street in the next week its going to be Cities fault according to some on here.

 

[nore1975]

No they didn't, United didn't have to throw that money at Sanchez, they clearly decided they'd offer Sanchez the transfer fee on top of wage. Most on here will tell you Sanchez choosing United over City was nothing to do with money. I swear if someones mother falls over in the street in the next week its going to be Cities fault according to some on here.

That doesn't make sense. Mkhitaryan was in effect the transfer fee. It was a swap deal.

 

[nore1975]

Who from ADUG gave that interview? I don't recall those quotes but if someone said that, then fair enough. The only two ADUG representatives that have really spoken are Sulaiman al Fahim (quickly ditched) and Khaldoon. Mansour has done the odd newspaper interview as well.

As I said above, if that was the reason for buying City, then it has quite spectacularly failed.

How do you feel as a fan of City? Are you proud of your success over the last 10 years?

 

[padr81]

How do you feel as a fan of City? Are you proud of your success over the last 10 years?

Proud... not really because I played no part in it tbh. Happy? Very much so but also wish we were bought by better people. Can't have it all though.

 

[andyox]

Proud... not really because I played no part in it tbh. Happy? Very much so but also wish we were bought by better people. Can't have it all though.

Pretty much word for word what I would've said.

As football fans we have little control over ownership. City fans had no control over ADUG buying the club, much like United fans had no control over the Glazers, Liverpool fans over Hicks and Gillett, Blackpool fans over the Oystons, etc. Football fans only tend to protest against their owners when they perceive that the owners are doing a bad job, not because of a moral judgement.

Am I glad an owner with deep pockets decided to buy City and transform us at a point when I had resigned myself to never seeing City win a trophy in my lifetime? Absolutely yes. I've seen 10 years of great football and trophies that have given me some of the happiest moments of my life.

Would I have preferred that the owner with deep pockets was a lifelong Mancunian and City fan? Absolutely yes.

 

[nore1975]

Pretty much word for word what I would've said.

As football fans we have little control over ownership. City fans had no control over ADUG buying the club, much like United fans had no control over the Glazers, Liverpool fans over Hicks and Gillett, Blackpool fans over the Oystons, etc. Football fans only tend to protest against their owners when they perceive that the owners are doing a bad job, not because of a moral judgement.

Am I glad an owner with deep pockets decided to buy City and transform us at a point when I had resigned myself to never seeing City win a trophy in my lifetime? Absolutely yes. I've seen 10 years of great football and trophies that have given me some of the happiest moments of my life.

Would I have preferred that the owner with deep pockets was a lifelong Mancunian and City fan? Absolutely yes.

I appreciate ye two replying. I can see why the past ten years have been a blast for City fans.

 

[yumtum]

I don't think we will face any sanctions from uefa tbh. It defeats the whole purpose of FFP. Some people think it was set up to protect clubs (Bolton says hi) most of my fellow City fans think it was set up to do us and psg over. It's main purpose was and always will be to make sure no more clubs can ever join the party. The biggest fear of the old guard is not 2 clubs competing with them... it's 10. no ffp =

Eveton.
Real Betis
Leeds
Fortuna Dusseldorf
Aston Villa
Newcastle
Bilboa
sampdoria
1860
Hertha
Fenebache
Lazio
Genoa
Sunderland

and probably 20 others and none of the old guard or City or psg fo that matter want them getting super rich owners and competing for leagues and CL's.

City know this so will threaten uefa (like they did in the statement). Uefa and the old elite won't risk bring down ffp and City and psg know we closed the drawbridge behind us. The only hope for the cartel clubs would have been a euro league but premier league clubs don't need it and it's worthless without us. So some compromise or more likely CAS throwing it out (think those leaks were accidental?) seems the most likely imo.

FFP is there to protect clubs long term future, you wouldn't be happy if your sugar daddies left (doubt they will any time soon) you would be royally screwed if this "90m" a year deal with only 9m of it being legit is true.

Also, that bolder part! honestly not even your own fans give a crap about you, you think a Euro league wouldn't get as many viewers because City aren't in it? You're genuinely irrelevant, every single United fan wanted you to win the league instead of Liverpool, let that sink in for a minute.

Your club is a hollow shell, you just exist, no one really cares about you, you're basically boiled rice.

United have been horrible for 6 years straight yet we still get talked about more than you and your treble lite.

Thanks for stopping our rivals from winning the league by the way, appreciate it.

 

[Full bodied red]

What I've never understood about the whole argument on "sportwashing", as it seems to now popularly be referred to, is that if that was truly the objective of ADUG/Sheikh Mansour in buying Manchester City then it's quite spectacularly failed. How many football fans, and how many of the journalists gleefully sticking the boot in this week, were so knowledgeable and concerned about human rights and labour conditions in the UAE prior to 2008? I want to be clear that I am in no way saying that human rights and labour conditions in the UAE are not a serious problem. They clearly are. But knowledge of, and reporting on, these issues has massively increased as a result of the ADUG/Sheikh Mansour takeover. Far from taking attention away from these issues, they've actually done the complete opposite by drawing significant attention to them. It's sportwashing in reverse.

I think it's far more logical that ADUG/Sheikh Mansour either bought City for a bit of fun, or bought City as a genuine investment. If it's fun they were after, then I think they've succeeded judging by Khaldoon's matchday celebrations. If it's investment they were after, then I'd also argue it's been a success. Most estimates, even including some margin for external/grey financing, put ADUG's total investment at somewhere around £1.5 billion. The investment by CMC (Chinese consortium) in City in 2015 valued City at over £2 billion, and almost every football financial report at the moment (Deloitte etc.) seems to confirm that valuation, which is likely to only rise as City continue to perform well.

(Full disclosure, I previously lived and worked in Dubai for five years, so well aware of the situation in the UAE)

Agreed 101%

I think the absence of ' outcry ' when Mansour bought in was probably because nobody actually thought ( and if they did think about it, then decided to disbelieve it ) that he would put £ 1 billion-ish into an unfashionable, non-achieving club in such a short period of time. Certainly when the Qataris bought into PSG, by then there was a much greater awareness of the questionable ethics and moralities and overall ' likeableness ' of the Qataris - partly the result of the 2022 WC fiasco, and partly the result of what was happening at City which was seen to be causing the EPL to fracture into haves and have-nots.

As for the investment angle....It's a strange one. The owners ( both groups ) will be happy that their investment(s) have been sucessful both on paper and on the pitch. But cash is King, and I wonder how many other people / organisations there are left who would ( or could, even ) pay the £ 2 billion and an ongoing £ 250 million-ish each year for a football club that, while massively successful in the UK, has still not made its mark in Europe and is still far from being a global brand. So I tend to think it was more of a Big Boys Toys thing than either an Abu Dhabi image improvement showcase or a smart financial investment where the investors will one day be able to check out with their book profits converted into equivalent cash.

Don't get me wrong - the 2018 > 2019 City team is phenomenal, but like I said a few days ago, with the same amount of money that Mansour has put into his club, I could make Stockport County or Rochdale EPL Champions in ten years time and to me that just doesn't just seem right.

 

[Steerpike]

Agreed 101%

I think the absence of ' outcry ' when Mansour bought in was probably because nobody actually thought ( and if they did think about it, then decided to disbelieve it ) that he would put £ 1 billion-ish into an unfashionable, non-achieving club in such a short period of time. Certainly when the Qataris bought into PSG, by then there was a much greater awareness of the questionable ethics and moralities and overall ' likeableness ' of the Qataris - partly the result of the 2022 WC fiasco, and partly the result of what was happening at City which was seen to be causing the EPL to fracture into haves and have-nots.

As for the investment angle....It's a strange one. The owners ( both groups ) will be happy that their investment(s) have been sucessful both on paper and on the pitch. But cash is King, and I wonder how many other people / organisations there are left who would ( or could, even ) pay the £ 2 billion and an ongoing £ 250 million-ish each year for a football club that, while massively successful in the UK, has still not made its mark in Europe and is still far from being a global brand. So I tend to think it was more of a Big Boys Toys thing than either an Abu Dhabi image improvement showcase or a smart financial investment where the investors will one day be able to check out with their book profits converted into equivalent cash.

Don't get me wrong - the 2018 > 2019 City team is phenomenal, but like I said a few days ago, with the same amount of money that Mansour has put into his club, I could make Stockport County or Rochdale EPL Champions in ten years time and to me that just doesn't just seem right.

Those with more limited means may invest in something like a Fleshlight for personal gratification, but someone with serious money can buy Manchester City.

 

[BobbyManc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The sound of a bitter fascist Spaniard crying about fairness in football struggles to resonate when you only have to glance at revenue in La Liga to see the gross inequalities that plague the league he oversees.

 

[andyox]

Agreed 101%

I think the absence of ' outcry ' when Mansour bought in was probably because nobody actually thought ( and if they did think about it, then decided to disbelieve it ) that he would put £ 1 billion-ish into an unfashionable, non-achieving club in such a short period of time. Certainly when the Qataris bought into PSG, by then there was a much greater awareness of the questionable ethics and moralities and overall ' likeableness ' of the Qataris - partly the result of the 2022 WC fiasco, and partly the result of what was happening at City which was seen to be causing the EPL to fracture into haves and have-nots.

As for the investment angle....It's a strange one. The owners ( both groups ) will be happy that their investment(s) have been sucessful both on paper and on the pitch. But cash is King, and I wonder how many other people / organisations there are left who would ( or could, even ) pay the £ 2 billion and an ongoing £ 250 million-ish each year for a football club that, while massively successful in the UK, has still not made its mark in Europe and is still far from being a global brand. So I tend to think it was more of a Big Boys Toys thing than either an Abu Dhabi image improvement showcase or a smart financial investment where the investors will one day be able to check out with their book profits converted into equivalent cash.

Don't get me wrong - the 2018 > 2019 City team is phenomenal, but like I said a few days ago, with the same amount of money that Mansour has put into his club, I could make Stockport County or Rochdale EPL Champions in ten years time and to me that just doesn't just seem right.

Yes agreed, I think at the start everyone (myself included if I'm totally honest) thought the ADUG takeover was a bit of a joke. We had Sulaiman al Fahim claiming we were going to buy Ronaldo off United, Garry Cook telling punters in a pub in New York that City were going to be the biggest club in the world, then calling AC Milan bottlers when we failed to sign Kaka. It just didn't seem real or realistic. We were still Typical City at that point and not a serious threat to the big boys. My perception is that it's only since we started beating the big boys to players and trophies that the attention on our owners and the UAE has become quite so intense and negative. Again, not saying it's a bad thing, in fact I think it's positive if media coverage can lead to progressive outcomes like improved labour laws as an example. But let's be honest, much of this current media/fan focus on these issues is coming from a place of competitive rivalry, not some deeply held belief in human rights advocacy.

The Qatar World Cup has been a different animal. I think there were a few other strands to opposition to the Qatar World Cup as well though, related to corruption and moving the tournament to the winter etc. I also think PSG's owners have probably been a bit more provocative than City too. I'm not saying that in a judgemental sense, but they definitely upset Barcelona with the Neymar transfer and Real Madrid were disappointed to be beaten to Mbappe. But to look at all three issues (City/ADUG, Qatar WC, and PSG/Qatar), they all have in common that all they've done is attract further interest and media coverage in human rights, etc. that they probably wish they hadn't. Sportswashing has been an unmitigated failure in all three cases.

Also agree with your point about a potential future buyer for City. The exponential growth of football means that the top clubs are now realistically multi-billion pound investments. That leads to quite a small pool of potential buyers, which might lead to more of the Glazer-style leveraged buyouts. Related to that, there's now probably less point in an investor like ADUG (or Abramovich if we want to broaden it) buying a non-top 6 club. ADUG have realized value because they provided massive initial investment that has allowed City to become firmly ensconced in the top 4 and have regular CL football, which has enabled us to massively increase our revenue and brand value. A new investor, for better or worse, wouldn't be able to follow that model now due to FFP.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Sorry totally missed that in your original post, my fault! Khaldoon probably regrets those words, because on a sporting and financial level, it's been a great success, but on a sportswashing level, it's been a massive failure.

Has it though? You're a seemingly intelligent and passionate City fan who claims to have lived in Abu Dhabi but seemed oblivious to what they're actually up to. Sure a few Guardian columnists and United fans on here will see through the facade but on the whole I'd say their project is working well for them, especially if you look at global reach.

The sound of a bitter fascist Spaniard crying about fairness in football struggles to resonate when you only have to glance at revenue in La Liga to see the gross inequalities that plague the league he oversees.

Yet here we are, Manchester City - the most demonstrably corrupt football club operating in top level football today. You've been banned from signing youth players domestically for breaking the rules with unethical practices, you're going to be banned for the same on a global basis by FIFA. You've fallen foul of domestic doping rules and have been exposed of brazenly cheating financial conduct rules that you signed up to. All in the past few years.

All this is compounded by Abu Dhabi being so much more power than the football authorities that meaningful sanctions will never be applied.

Yes, La Liga are looking to feather their own nest and they're certainly not clean in their own practices but City and PSG are a completely different order of magnitude.

 

[Tincanalley]

To be fair, I wouldn't describe Abu Dhabi as badly as that.

Democratic ? No...But not as bad as quite a few other countries we could discuss.

Brutal Dictatorship ? Don't think so, but obviously much more like a Dictatorship than we in Europe are used to. Let's just say probaby about par for the course in lots of Arab countries.

Gain legitimacy ? Don't think so but perhaps was a motivation at the beginning....I've alwaydsfelt that Mansour seems to be doing all this himself rather than with or through the Al Nahyan family. Ultimate in Big Boys Toys, and all that.

Human Trafficking and Slave Labour ? Unless you know more that's happening underneath the surface than the rest of us....Certainly Abu Dhabi and UAE in general is full of and depends on cheap imported labour, but isn't a lot of Europe ( especially the UK ) and USA and Australasia these days ? Just that Abu Dhabi's cheap labour comes from the Sub-Continent rather than Eastern Europe, Central America or Indo China.

Having said all that, I agree with your feelings about the suspect finances behind City's success if not with all your reasons.

Disgusted with this post. Ignorance or some other agenda...?

 

[Full bodied red]

Disgusted with this post. Ignorance or some other agenda...?

Why ??

We're discussing Abu Dhabi, no ??

Not Putin's Russia, not China, not North Korea, not Venezuela and not some of the more obscure ' Stans ' where I've had the misfortune to have to go to.

And not even Qatar, which really is a different case to Abu Dhabi.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

Yes City forced you to pay him that much... You offered him that much because you were saving on transfer fee.

Absolutely we had to pay him that much and it was not a free transfer we gave them £42 million pound player also, what else did we have to offer at the time apart from a barrow full of cash. This was caused by your interest and our muppet CEO refusing to lose so sold our soul in one deal.

 

[Chabon]

There is a strong correlation between money spent and where you finish in the table. SAF was amazing for us, and we've struggled to stay on top since due to incompetent leadership. But I reiterate, the number 1 factor is money.

I just posted this in another thread, but it's incredibly relevant here. In the ten years between Sir Alex being appointed and the end of the 95/96 season - which finished with United's third title and second double in four years - City spent more money on transfers than we did. They then got relegated... Loads of clubs outspent us on player transfers in the 90s (Blackburn, Liverpool, Newcastle), partly because we were spending so much money redeveloping Old Trafford. The key thing that made us so insanely successful was Sir Alex.

Then money started really flooding the game around the millennium, and we were best placed to hoover it all up and spend it on Juan Sebastian Veron. Only at that point did we start dramatically outspending our rivals (after Leeds went bust, at least), and we were well on our way to becoming England's Bayern.

Then Roman happened, and Abu Dhabi FC is just a further development along the same lines. The fact that Fergie kept us competitive up until his retirement is probably his greatest achievement, but people were so used to us winning at that point that it went mostly unremarked upon how mad it was that we kept winning the league ahead of two clubs with significantly deeper pockets.

edit:

This is a good recent article which demolishes any myth about us buying our success.

 

[SER19]

There is a strong correlation between money spent and where you finish in the table. SAF was amazing for us, and we've struggled to stay on top since due to incompetent leadership. But I reiterate, the number 1 factor is money.

My original post is related to the article I quoted, where he's saying City's success was a given due to their spending. Um, when has that not been the case?

You can still surely differentiate that while spending is important that there is a difference between most previous sides and the current city one.why over simplify the point.

Between 92 and the end of 97 98 we operated on a net profit of transfers also. Which included a complete rebuild of side and promotion of youth. We were massively successful in this era with 2 doubles.

To compare this with city since 08 is downright lunacy. Or just blatantly stubborn for the sake of arguing