The men behind Man city: If you thought Qatar was a problem, wait till you get a load of Abu Dhabi
- Thread starter Maradona10
- Start date
We're getting sidetracked though. We need more city fans telling us how they feel about their club being propped up as part of an extensive PR exercise 
I don't belong to any brigade and I think everybody is right in a certain sense here.
IIRC, in Germany, a football club can't be owned by a foreign investor. To be confirmed by our German brigade.
Think this pretty much sums up how they feel...We're getting sidetracked though. We need more city fans telling us how they feel about their club being propped up as part of an extensive PR exercise
WowThink this pretty much sums up how they feel...
Anyone think they'd behave differently if they didn't have United to look up to?
Red Bull are Austrian aren't they? How do they get around it?
You can add in the varying regimes of Saudi, Azerbaijan, China, Malaysia, indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Bahrain, Kuwait with related United sponsorships, according to the OS:
http://www.manutd.com/en/Partners.aspx
And ... UAE and Qatar...
No ones perfect in the world of money and PR.
Norway seems like a safe bet for sponsorship money though?
Last edited:
Yeah that's bizarre to me. Even Chelsea got criticized and the media can't wait to tell you how we overspend but when it comes to the ABUs there's not a peep of negativity just how great they play and how they are great for the game.
City have had loads of negative press since the 2008 takeover and believe me it's been utterly vitriolic on occasions. A personal favourite of mine was Michael Calvin who wrote some utterly disgusting stuff aimed at City's ownership and the club in general. Clearly he was dead against our owner being involved in English football yet bizarrely one day - right out of the blue - he said Mansour should've bought FC United instead and if he had then that would've made him a true hero of the Manchester people
Not sure. I thought in Germany the ownership rules are 51%-49% in favour of the fans
Thank feck he didn't, wouldn't want that disgraceful little royal brat ruining the history of anything to do with United.City have had loads of negative press since the 2008 takeover and believe me it's been utterly vitriolic on occasions. A personal favourite of mine was Michael Calvin who wrote some utterly disgusting stuff aimed at City's ownership and the club in general. Clearly he was dead against our owner being involved in English football yet bizarrely one day - right out of the blue - he said Mansour should've bought FC United instead and if he had then that would've made him a true hero of the Manchester people
FC United is nothing to do with Manchester United. You do know that don't you?
"Founded in 2005 by Manchester United supporters".
I never saw any of this supposed rife exploitation so it must not exist.
As a UAE citizen, it really saddens me how a one sided poor article can get people so wound up, without much quantitative and qualitative evidence.
I dont know how many of you have actually lived in the UAE, because despite the fact that there are shortcomings, albeit continuously improving, this type of journalism does not paint a fair picture of the truth.
I admit that construction isn’t the best rewarding job, but this continuously gets blown out of proportion to the extent that many workers came out and said it isn’t a fair reflection.
Most of those workers are unskilled, with no other job opportunities in the country, and no other western countries admitting them either. Despite having limited wages, all their usual costs are covered by businesses and they send most of their earnings back home. Thousands of houses were built in their home countries on the back of this.
New York was not built on the back of sophisticated white collar workers, and in no way I am finding excuses for any shortcomings, while the UAE is a late boomer and found itself in a supply and demand situation. The government is continuously updating its regulations to improve whatever could be improved. Misconduct is being reported, but it is not fair to generalise disgusting practices as the norm. Moreover, work fatalities in the UAE is in line with any developed country in the work, so I don’t know why it should be singled out.
Moving to domestic workers, while there are counts of gross treatment, this is not the norm at all!
Many of these workers get integrated in the families as they spend years and years working and LIVING with those families.
Incidentally, my wife is wrapping some of them their Christmas presents right now!
Workload varies, but from my experience, most of the people I know have built bonds with their assistants and allow them time off whenever possible.
Misconduct should always be reported, and I strongly advocate means to ensure those mistreated ones get protected.
Moving back to that article, the author claimed MBZ to be the real owner of City by only pointing to Mansour’s lack of attendance and enthusiasm. First of all, Mansour never miss watching City matches and often gets as nervous and temperamental as many of you in match threads. He IS the owner of City. Secondly, what if it was indeed MBZ? The author seems to be stating that as a dig, ignoring the fact that MBZ is almost worshipped by UAE citizens.
People will always discuss Abu Dhabi when talking about City, this is a fact, so it is always logical to discuss the Media plan regarding every aspect when entering the US market. I can not understand the author’s point.
The article seems only to builds it’s narrative on that discussing act in 2009. While it should have been addressed in much more appropriate ways, Issa is nowhere to be seen since then, and all his privileges were stripped.
In short, there are still many problems to be solved, like any other country, but only by living in this country first hand you will have a better understanding, and you will see that things are improving.
You dont become one of the safest countries in the world, with highest population satisfaction, best infrustructure and high standard of living under poor leadership. You just dont.
And whoever somewhere up their said Qatar is more economically diversified than the UAE needs a kick in the balls.
I dont know how many of you have actually lived in the UAE, because despite the fact that there are shortcomings, albeit continuously improving, this type of journalism does not paint a fair picture of the truth.
I admit that construction isn’t the best rewarding job, but this continuously gets blown out of proportion to the extent that many workers came out and said it isn’t a fair reflection.
Most of those workers are unskilled, with no other job opportunities in the country, and no other western countries admitting them either. Despite having limited wages, all their usual costs are covered by businesses and they send most of their earnings back home. Thousands of houses were built in their home countries on the back of this.
New York was not built on the back of sophisticated white collar workers, and in no way I am finding excuses for any shortcomings, while the UAE is a late boomer and found itself in a supply and demand situation. The government is continuously updating its regulations to improve whatever could be improved. Misconduct is being reported, but it is not fair to generalise disgusting practices as the norm. Moreover, work fatalities in the UAE is in line with any developed country in the work, so I don’t know why it should be singled out.
Moving to domestic workers, while there are counts of gross treatment, this is not the norm at all!
Many of these workers get integrated in the families as they spend years and years working and LIVING with those families.
Incidentally, my wife is wrapping some of them their Christmas presents right now!
Workload varies, but from my experience, most of the people I know have built bonds with their assistants and allow them time off whenever possible.
Misconduct should always be reported, and I strongly advocate means to ensure those mistreated ones get protected.
Moving back to that article, the author claimed MBZ to be the real owner of City by only pointing to Mansour’s lack of attendance and enthusiasm. First of all, Mansour never miss watching City matches and often gets as nervous and temperamental as many of you in match threads. He IS the owner of City. Secondly, what if it was indeed MBZ? The author seems to be stating that as a dig, ignoring the fact that MBZ is almost worshipped by UAE citizens.
People will always discuss Abu Dhabi when talking about City, this is a fact, so it is always logical to discuss the Media plan regarding every aspect when entering the US market. I can not understand the author’s point.
The article seems only to builds it’s narrative on that discussing act in 2009. While it should have been addressed in much more appropriate ways, Issa is nowhere to be seen since then, and all his privileges were stripped.
In short, there are still many problems to be solved, like any other country, but only by living in this country first hand you will have a better understanding, and you will see that things are improving.
You dont become one of the safest countries in the world, with highest population satisfaction, best infrustructure and high standard of living under poor leadership. You just dont.
And whoever somewhere up their said Qatar is more economically diversified than the UAE needs a kick in the balls.
Just as Maine Road FC was founded in 1955 by Manchester City supporters but neither they or FC United have any official links to MCFC and MUFC
Anyway, have you perused that list of United's sponsors that @JASR put up earlier and are you as similarly outraged about the links your club has to so many dubious regimes or are you going to conveniently ignore it?
I think you’re stretching there about it being associated in any official way.
Maybe you should read up on it’s history before actually wanting it to be associated with United.
I went to OT once, does that count as an association?
Rhyme never used the word official.
FCUoM has a thread in the Manchester United forums, so I guess if there is no link someone should also take it up with the mods.
FCUoM has a thread in the Manchester United forums, so I guess if there is no link someone should also take it up with the mods.
It's connected to United in it's formation. To say it has nothing to do with United, as it has nothing to do with, say, Chelsea, is totally incorrect.
No he didn't, but that was the impression he gave. Anyway, it's hair-splitting and not really relevant to the discussion. I'm more interested in why he hasn't responded to JASR's other post
Very balanced and correct analysis.
Historical context is crucial to understand how and why the world works as it is.
Alt-left? Jesus christ
"I'm not trying to discredit the writer but I started trawling his social media and it appears he's really worried about and empathetic towards the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Can't trust his views on the Middle East now. Bloody alt-left, always out here writing factual articles based on genuine concern."Alt-left? Jesus christ
Before City were taken over by Mansour/Abu Dhabi barely anyone cared about alleged human rights breaches in the UAE, loads of people had probably never even heard of Abu Dhabi (tbh you still see a lot of people who think City are owned by Saudis\Qataris). Now loads of people care (or claim they do) because these allegations get a lot more publicity precisely because of City's ownership. I'd say the chances of these issues being addressed are actually higher now as it's much more out in the open (although the UK government clearly don't give a shiny one).
From that article, this is a real WTF line however - "it would come as no great surprise if the Al Nahyans decided to rename Real Madrid’s Santiago Bernadeu stadium the “Qatar/ISIS Alliance Arena.” I think that would be a surprise because let's face it that's never happening ffs.
From that article, this is a real WTF line however - "it would come as no great surprise if the Al Nahyans decided to rename Real Madrid’s Santiago Bernadeu stadium the “Qatar/ISIS Alliance Arena.” I think that would be a surprise because let's face it that's never happening ffs.
The deflection is getting a bit silly now. How many times does someone have to point out the difference between being owned by a state with a questionable human rights record and having sponsorship links with private companies? Do said private companies have a history of human rights abuses?
Beautiful!
In 2008
This is true
Human rights abusers bought a team in blue
Well, they've splurged and spunked since that day
But they sing this song to make it all okay
Human rights (feck off)
Human rights (feck off)
Human rights (feck off)
Human rights (feck off)
This is true
Human rights abusers bought a team in blue
Well, they've splurged and spunked since that day
But they sing this song to make it all okay
Human rights (feck off)
Human rights (feck off)
Human rights (feck off)
Human rights (feck off)
That line made me laugh too I have to say.
The Abu Dhabi sponsorship company has its fingers in most middle eastern countries... and is majority owned by the Dubai govt.
So, ‘not really different’ and ‘yes’.
It’s not deflection, see my 1st reply on this thread acknowledging the issue.
I think it’s more to do with the blinkered viewpoint of :
United = holy, virtuous sponsorship and owners
City = Satan’s spawn sponsorship and owners.
Whereas in fact both are just money making machines for their owners and the myriad of marketing and sponsorship deals they each (and all ‘Big’ PL clubs) have.
Yay hooked the fish I was aiming for :-)That is right, we are squeaky clean.
... though I’ll have to read up on Norway it seems...
One of those companies that sponsors United is run by a relative of City's owner. Crikey, you've loads of sponsorship deals relating to the ruling bodies in the same part of the world as our owner.
That is right, we are squeaky clean.
OK so where is the evidence of the 'yes'? Taking that answer at face value, presumably you have evidence of human rights abuses from the companies sponsoring United?
Also, the blinkered viewpoint is coming from City fans on here. I don't like the Glazers as owners. I do criticise them (see other threads). It seems you cannot accept criticism of your clubs owners without resorting to some petty and inaccurate 'whataboutery'.
There's nothing inaccurate about pointing out that some of United's sponsors are linked to the very same ruling families in the very same part of the world that City's owner is from and whom you're criticising for human rights abuses. Myself and @JASR have already said on this thread that it's not a palatable situation - neither of us are ducking the issue but it seems you are when it comes to the origin of a lot of United's sponsorship money.
Ffs you really are blinkered.
Try googling ‘Emirates nbd ownership’. google presents the shareholder breakdown, in that breakdown are the words ‘Dubai govt’ followed by a percentage. The percentage is a figure larger than 50.
To me that indicates the govt of Dubai controls the company that is a sponsor of United. Maybe not to you?
And you clearly can’t be arsed to read my 1st post on this thread pointing out my personal concern with city’s ownership. Let alone @M18CTID ’s.
While I don't give a toss about you guys being owned by satan himself there is a difference in being state owned or private funded. What your lube lords are doing in their private leisures is somewhat shady to say the least.. While teams have been sponsored by some shady companies (Schalke with Gazprom ect ect) they compete in a open market and rules do apply. The Lube state just writes what rules they want and follows the rule it wants to follow, if there is a problem throw money at it..
Cheers for that. Good to read both sides of the argument. It's very easy to judge from a distance. I lived in a country before where the cops had to secretly take local drug dealers to a field where they'd be shot and buried in a ditch and no one would ever find out what happened to them simply because they were too much of a danger to society and putting them in jail would make no difference at all to the havoc they could still create on the streets. Any foreign journalist could put a spin on that claiming outrageous human rights abuse but it's the necessary protocol of that particular environment which is a very different environment to say growing up in Stockholm, Bath, Edinburgh or Tokyo.
It was nice to see petrol dollars come in if anything to challenge the spending monopoly clubs like Madrid and Barca had for a long while. Shame they chose Man City to invest in though. Shame they didn't go for a Southampton instead so all this noisy neighbour stuff wouldn't be so in your face always.
The west have supported dctatorial regime's in the middle east for about a century. In part because of that GLORIOUS Sykes-Picot agreement (as in Great brittain having a a big share why Arabia is in it's current mess), in part because when the cold war erupted we wouldn't replace dictators out of fear that the soviets might barge in, and in recent times often because of financial interrests.
In that regard, i'm pretty sure we practicly all deal with company's that have owners in middle easter dictatorships. besides oil they'd be heavy in such things like finance and real estate.
When it regards to tackling these political issue's, it is not the norm to connect these regime's to company's in the west, we know they have plenty of assets here, but i presume that it would be very distracting for the matter to make that connection between company's and owners. Afterall, it's not the company's abroad that engage in these abuses, more often that not they don't have much of a choice who is their owner neither. If you want to tackle such regime's in the middle east, i presume it's best to really just forcus on them, and not pull some random company they might be connected with it, because there are thousands such company's abroad where we interract with likely on daily basis. Are you suddently supporting these regime's if you fill youre car with gas, or when the apartment you rent is in a building owned by a real estate group owned by them?
We shouldn't be blind for what happens in the middle east, i doubt anyone is. But to make this association to Manchester city seems rather unreasonable, the more so because there is actually a lot of conjecture in that article, even when writen by a person from HRW, it rests on the idea that Mansour is not really the owner of the club but rather the brother, but there is no real evidence or even indication for it.
In that regard, i'm pretty sure we practicly all deal with company's that have owners in middle easter dictatorships. besides oil they'd be heavy in such things like finance and real estate.
When it regards to tackling these political issue's, it is not the norm to connect these regime's to company's in the west, we know they have plenty of assets here, but i presume that it would be very distracting for the matter to make that connection between company's and owners. Afterall, it's not the company's abroad that engage in these abuses, more often that not they don't have much of a choice who is their owner neither. If you want to tackle such regime's in the middle east, i presume it's best to really just forcus on them, and not pull some random company they might be connected with it, because there are thousands such company's abroad where we interract with likely on daily basis. Are you suddently supporting these regime's if you fill youre car with gas, or when the apartment you rent is in a building owned by a real estate group owned by them?
We shouldn't be blind for what happens in the middle east, i doubt anyone is. But to make this association to Manchester city seems rather unreasonable, the more so because there is actually a lot of conjecture in that article, even when writen by a person from HRW, it rests on the idea that Mansour is not really the owner of the club but rather the brother, but there is no real evidence or even indication for it.