Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions

[Crustanoid]

That's exactly how I view City. A nice thing an insanely wealthy man occasionally gets to enjoy. Kind of like a yacht.

Only difference, of course, is that if buying a 1bn yacht and racing it against a bunch of smaller, cheaper yachts in a competitive league isn't that much fun. Oh wait, that's the America's Cup

City are like the guy that can't complete the rubic cube, so peels off the stickers and sticks them back on.....then proclaims that he's mastered it

 

[Manchester Dan]

City are like the guy that can't complete the rubic cube, so peels off the stickers and sticks them back on.....then proclaims that he's mastered it

I like that one. That makes United the guy who completed it long ago and left it on the side, but his mate Davey Moyes came and messed it all up and it's been completed that long that he's forgot how to do it, how long it will take him to learn it again will be interesting. It also makes UEFA the guy that has taken 2 stickers off any cubes that haven't yet been completed before, so nobody else can fully complete it.

 

[BobbyManc]

It was reported that they were furious with the FFP sanctions. The reason for that is that it's been a PR disaster for them and it would have looked even worse if they had taken them on.

For those who sing the praises of Khaldoon you should think twice. He "oozes class" does he? This man has been largely responsible for managing Dubai's international image. For public relations think propoganda.This man with the smile, sharp suit and unfailing politeness is charged with trying to kid the west that their regime is one of recognisable western values, progressive and human rights focused. Meanwhile back in the UAE someone somewhere is getting tortured for dissent - ordinary working folk the majority of whom are denied the right to even vote . If it wasn't for the fact that we as a country are in with this lot for several billion ££££ worth of arms manufacture (a dozen Typhoon fighters anyone?) they wouldn't get close to passing a fit and proper owners test

Classy they are not.

Without wanting to degenerate the thread into an ethical debate, I don't think any country is painted in glory when it comes to human rights. You attack the Abu Dhabi regime then mention "we as a country are in with this lot for several billion ££££ worth of arms manufacture". So as opposed to being moral crusaders and ending this regime, we are funding it. Is that classy as well? What about Guantanamo Bay?

 

[Barca84]

Without wanting to degenerate the thread into an ethical debate, I don't think any country is painted in glory when it comes to human rights. You attack the Abu Dhabi regime then mention "we as a country are in with this lot for several billion ££££ worth of arms manufacture". So as opposed to being moral crusaders and ending this regime, we are funding it. Is that classy as well? What about Guantanamo Bay?

Yes its all abhorrent. But some countries are light years behind others with regards to human rights and thats a fact. I mentioned our arms deals as, quite rightly, theres a question mark over how ethical it is that a regime that abuse human rights can buy a football club but an indiviidual convicted of certain offences fails the same test. I think the answer to that is obvious.

I've more time for City fans who just don't give a shit whose backing their club than those who try to make excuses for them. It doesn't wash with me however. Your club is being used as a global propoganda exercise by a regime that, just for example, decress homosexuality illegal and punishable with anything from 10 years in prison to the death penalty. Classy and worth noting as football attempts to tackle homophobia in its ranks.

Stop defending it. Take a look at what they're doing and why.

 

[BobbyManc]

Yes its all abhorrent. But some countries are light years behind others with regards to human rights and thats a fact. I mentioned our arms deals as, quite rightly, theres a question mark over how ethical it is that a regime that abuse human rights can buy a football club but an indiviidual convicted of certain offences fails the same test. I think the answer to that is obvious.

I've more time for City fans who just don't give a shit whose backing their club than those who try to make excuses for them. It doesn't wash with me however. Your club is being used as a global propoganda exercise by a regime that, just for example, decress homosexuality illegal and punishable with anything from 10 years in prison to the death penalty. Classy and worth noting as football attempts to tackle homophobia in its ranks.

Stop defending it. Take a look at what they're doing and why.

I'm not defending it. It is inexcusable. But you name any country today such as Great Britain, U.S.A, Russia and they are littered with inexcusable actions as well, from over a hundred years ago all the way up to the modern day. My point is we try and take the moral high ground when we are far from perfect. Like I said, take a look at Guantanamo Bay. And there are enough people in Western society who would make homosexuality illegal if they could, it is still a massive problem today.

 

[Trizy]

City are like the guy that can't complete the rubic cube, so peels off the stickers and sticks them back on.....then proclaims that he's mastered it

I like that one. That makes United the guy who completed it long ago and left it on the side, but his mate Davey Moyes came and messed it all up and it's been completed that long that he's forgot how to do it, how long it will take him to learn it again will be interesting. It also makes UEFA the guy that has taken 2 stickers off any cubes that haven't yet been completed before, so nobody else can fully complete it.

 

[Barca84]

I'm not defending it. It is inexcusable. But you name any country today such as Great Britain, U.S.A, Russia and they are littered with inexcusable actions as well, from over a hundred years ago all the way up to the modern day. My point is we try and take the moral high ground when we are far from perfect. Like I said, take a look at Guantanamo Bay. And there are enough people in Western society who would make homosexuality illegal if they could, it is still a massive problem today.

But you are defending it And wtf has Guantanamo Bay got to do with?? Is this your argument? That everyone abuses human rights and they're no different than the rest? Why do Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch even bother on that basis? Are you interested in what they have to say about your clubs owners? Do you understand the difference between the rights accorded in your country and those in the UAE?

Here's a question for you. How many owners of football clubs have bought them on the basis of needing to use them as a vehicle to clean up their tarnished global image?

 

[RedRover]

But you are defending it And wtf has Guantanamo Bay got to do with?? Is this your argument? That everyone abuses human rights and they're no different than the rest? Why do Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch even bother on that basis? Are you interested in what they have to say about your clubs owners? Do you understand the difference between the rights accorded in your country and those in the UAE?

Here's a question for you. How many owners of football clubs have bought them on the basis of needing to use them as a vehicle to clean up their tarnished global image?

I think, in fairness, that throwing accusations about in terms of Human Rights is a dangerous one to tread for any football fan.

As an example, United (just like all clubs) proft hugely from their relationships with whichever kit manufacturers they have - most of whom emply less than suitable working practices in sweat shops wherever they are in the world.

 

[Manchester Dan]

I think, in fairness, that throwing accusations about in terms of Human Rights is a dangerous one to tread for any football fan.

As an example, United (just like all clubs) proft hugely from their relationships with whichever kit manufacturers they have - most of whom emply less than suitable working practices in sweat shops wherever they are in the world.

I agree, and I stay out of any football related discussion that tries to tread this path. Every deal can be traced back to benefactors of shocking human rights conditions - you just have to look a little deeper. It's a huge problem on a global scale. If you own an iPhone, then Apple are one of the worst around for it (yet they are still recognised as the most valuable brand in the world today). Shame on you all.

Sent from my iPhone.

 

[Barca84]

I think, in fairness, that throwing accusations about in terms of Human Rights is a dangerous one to tread for any football fan.

As an example, United (just like all clubs) proft hugely from their relationships with whichever kit manufacturers they have - most of whom emply less than suitable working practices in sweat shops wherever they are in the world.

Also abhorrent and another reason to feel less than love for the modern game. Throw that in with the travesty of social justice that is this years WC.

What's being discussed here though is Man City, the FFP sanctions, their owners and their response. Folk in here calling them classy and admiring them as some kind of model owners need to be aware of why they have bought City and what they hope to achieve by doing so.

 

[RedRover]

I agree, and I stay out of any football related discussion that tries to tread this path. Every deal can be traced back to benefactors of shocking human rights conditions - you just have to look a little deeper. It's a huge problem on a global scale. If you own an iPhone, then Apple are one of the worst around for it. Shame on you all.

Sent from my iPhone.

Indeed. Fans of other clubs may not like the way City go on - and fair enough, but if you want to criticise them (or anyone) by going down the "Human Rights" path you'd better hope you're whiter than white yourself.

At the end of the day most people on here probably dont like City because they don't like the way the success they've had or how they've gone about it - and that's their perogative.

I'd be surprised if anyone who really objects on a Human Rights basis was wasting time on here, or indeed wasting time on football in general - especially given the obscene amounts of money involved in what is essentially grown men kicking about a bag of air.

 

[BobbyManc]

But you are defending it And wtf has Guantanamo Bay got to do with?? Is this your argument? That everyone abuses human rights and they're no different than the rest? Why do Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch even bother on that basis? Are you interested in what they have to say about your clubs owners? Do you understand the difference between the rights accorded in your country and those in the UAE?

Here's a question for you. How many owners of football clubs have bought them on the basis of needing to use them as a vehicle to clean up their tarnished global image?

I'm not going to continue to comment on the debate because it is going way off topic. Abu Dhabi's regime does some indefensible things. But so does Britain's, America's etc. If you can't see that you're incredibly ignorant.

 

[Barca84]

I'm not going to continue to comment on the debate because it is going way off topic. Abu Dhabi's regime does some indefensible things. But so does Britain's, America's etc. If you can't see that you're incredibly ignorant.

I'll take the reports and observations of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as a guideline cheers. If you think Britain, USA and the UAE have a similar approach to human rights then you're the one with his head in the sand.

 

[BobbyManc]

I'll take the reports and observations of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as a guideline cheers. If you think Britain, USA and the UAE have a similar approach to human rights then you're the one with his head in the sand.

I'm betting you haven't actually read the Amnesty International report then? Attack the Abu Dhabi regime all you want, I won't defend it. I'm merely pointing out we have feck all reason to take a moral high ground. The following are excerpts from the Amnesty International report, not that you need them, having already read it, obviously.

The USA’s “targeted killing” of terrorism suspects,
including in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, particularly
through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles,
continued during the year. Available information,
limited by secrecy, indicated that US policy permitted
extrajudicial executions in violation of international
human rights law under the USA’s theory of a “global
war” against al-Qa’ida and associated groups.

At the end of 2012, nearly three years after President
Obama’s deadline for closure of the Guantánamo
detention facility, 166 men were still held at the base,
the vast majority without charge or criminal trial.

 

[Manchester Dan]

I'll take the reports and observations of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as a guideline cheers. If you think Britain, USA and the UAE have a similar approach to human rights then you're the one with his head in the sand.

You're restricting a view to countries though with definitive boundaries, but that's not the way the world works. Every individual takes advantage of shocking human rights conditions around the world, be that through the items you buy, the holidays you enjoy, or even the place you work - I work for the very company that you just mentioned for selling Typhoon jets all over the world, which includes contracts with Saudi Arabia and discussions with UAE - does that make me a supporter of the regimes that are in place in all of these different parts of the world?

 

[Manchester Dan]

Anyway, David Luiz aye.

Maybe the title of this thread should be adjusted to 'Financial Fair Play Developments'. It's moved on from sanctions.

 

[RedRover]

Also abhorrent and another reason to feel less than love for the modern game. Throw that in with the travesty of social justice that is this years WC.

What's being discussed here though is Man City, the FFP sanctions, their owners and their response. Folk in here calling them classy and admiring them as some kind of model owners need to be aware of why they have bought City and what they hope to achieve by doing so.

I have no problem with people airing their views in regard to City and their response to FFP - thats fair and reasonable and I can see why people have an issue. But I dont see why it needs to be dressed up as something else - its legitimiate opinion.

The owners of City have bought the club to get involved in the football bonanza - a process started by the big clubs, including United. They want to be known around the world, and this is an effective way of doing it - as well as having a platform to advertise Abu Dhabi and it srelated airline, mobile provider and everything else that goes with it.

At the end of the day - why are football fans going to care how their owners made their money? The middle east may have unpleasant working practices, but so do a lot of places. We're not doubt in bed with companies across the world who treat their workers just as badly. I dont see United fans voting with their feet.

I for one dont know how the Glazers made their money - but someone somewhere probably suffered to make it happen - as is the way in life.

 

[Barca84]

I'm betting you haven't actually read the Amnesty International report then? Attack the Abu Dhabi regime all you want, I won't defend it. I'm merely pointing out we have feck all reason to take a moral high ground. The following are excerpts from the Amnesty International report, not that you need them, having already read it, obviously.

The USA’s “targeted killing” of terrorism suspects,
including in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, particularly
through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles,
continued during the year. Available information,
limited by secrecy, indicated that US policy permitted
extrajudicial executions in violation of international
human rights law under the USA’s theory of a “global
war” against al-Qa’ida and associated groups.

At the end of 2012, nearly three years after President
Obama’s deadline for closure of the Guantánamo
detention facility, 166 men were still held at the base,
the vast majority without charge or criminal trial.

I'm a member of Amnesty International and also have a problem with Guantanamo Bay as well as your owners and all humans rights violators. This discussion is about City as uncomfotable as that may be for you.

You're restricting a view to countries though with definitive boundaries, but that's not the way the world works. Every individual takes advantage of shocking human rights conditions around the world, be that through the items you buy, the holidays you enjoy, or even the place you work - I work for the very company that you just mentioned for selling Typhoon jets all over the world, which includes contracts with Saudi Arabia and discussions with UAE - does that make me a supporter of the regimes that are in place in all of these different parts of the world?

You need to take a look at a map. Then you need to take a look at what you buy, where you go on holiday and who you work for. I work for an organisation thats committed to a focus on human rights and social justice. Thats a choice I made and am not part of the arms manufacturing industry.

Assuage your guilt whichever way you can blues.

 

[Manchester Dan]

You need to take a look at a map. Then you need to take a look at what you buy, where you go on holiday and who you work for. I work for an organisation thats committed to a focus on human rights and social justice. Thats a choice I made and am not part of the arms manufacturing industry.

Assuage your guilt whichever way you can blues.

If you're going to stop buying things that are a byproduct of poor human rights then your house is going to be very empty, you're not going to have any clothes to wear, and your food bill is going to be through the roof - the very laptop or phone you are using to post on this forum is most likely the end product of workers in extremely poor conditions. You're trying to take the high ground on something that is impossible to avoid. Let me clarify that this isn't me defending poor human rights, it's a huge problem, but you're trying to apportion guilt on to City fans for supporting our club (which was here long before our current owners), when you yourself are a contributing factor to the problem, as are we all.

Let's move on from this, given it has absolutely no place in this thread - if you're concerned then you can make a Human Rights discussion in the general forum.

 

[KM]

I know the arab owners have done a lot of good stuff for the club and the city as a whole but their human record is extremely poor. Comparisons with other clubs doesn't matter here because none of the other clubs in English League are owned by the govt. IMO they shouldn't have been cleared by the "Fit and Proper" ownership test but that'd have meant that the FA are blocking the investment of a very rich govt in UK.

 

[A1X]

City are like the guy that can't complete the rubic cube, so peels off the stickers and sticks them back on.....then proclaims that he's mastered it

I like that one. That makes United the guy who completed it long ago and left it on the side, but his mate Davey Moyes came and messed it all up and it's been completed that long that he's forgot how to do it, how long it will take him to learn it again will be interesting. It also makes UEFA the guy that has taken 2 stickers off any cubes that haven't yet been completed before, so nobody else can fully complete it.

Is this like that email with political systems defined by having two cows?

Arsenal - You completed a Rubik's Cube 10 years ago. You put it in a glass box while you house crumbled around it.
Chelsea - You have a Rubik's cube. You were the first to realise you could remove the stickers but you now sneer at those who do.
Barcelona - You complete a Rubik's cube. You then sell it for a ridiculous amount of money and get taken to court.
Southampton - You nearly complete a Rubik's cube, now everyone else is buying your stickers.
Liverpool - You import a high-quality specialist in completing Rubik's cubes and have to make sure he doesn't just bite the cube
Tottenham - You complete one side of a Rubik's cube. You sell that side and spend all the money on Buckaroo.

 

[Manchester Dan]

Is this like that email with political systems defined by having two cows?

Arsenal - You completed a Rubik's Cube 10 years ago. You put it in a glass box while you house crumbled around it.
Chelsea - You have a Rubik's cube. You were the first to realise you could remove the stickers but you now sneer at those who do.
Barcelona - You complete a Rubik's cube. You then sell it for a ridiculous amount of money and get taken to court.
Southampton - You nearly complete a Rubik's cube, now everyone else is buying your stickers.
Liverpool - You import a high-quality specialist in completing Rubik's cubes and have to make sure he doesn't just bite the cube
Tottenham - You complete one side of a Rubik's cube. You sell that side and spend all the money on Buckaroo.

Tottenham is my favourite.

 

[PedroMendez]

If you're going to stop buying things that are a byproduct of poor human rights then your house is going to be very empty, you're not going to have any clothes to wear, and your food bill is going to be through the roof - the very laptop or phone you are using to post on this forum is most likely the end product of workers in extremely poor conditions. You're trying to take the high ground on something that is impossible to avoid. Let me clarify that this isn't me defending poor human rights, it's a huge problem, but you're trying to apportion guilt on to City fans for supporting our club (which was here long before our current owners), when you yourself are a contributing factor to the problem, as are we all.

Let's move on from this, given it has absolutely no place in this thread - if you're concerned then you can make a Human Rights discussion in the general forum.

there is a difference between poor labor standards and a dictatorship. It wasnt your choice to have them as owners and I dont try to appoint guilt, but raving about them is also wrong. They arent nice and humble.

 

[Manchester Dan]

there is a difference between poor labor standards and a dictatorship. It wasnt your choice to have them as owners and I dont try to appoint guilt, but raving about them is also wrong. They arent nice and humble.

That's fair enough. You don't have to like our owner or chairman, and as long as there is no additional expectation for me (and others) to feel personally guilty about ongoing issues in UAE because of the club we support then that remains your prerogative. That's a completely different view from the one that Barca84 is trying to argue though, which is nonsense, and solely where my response is aimed towards.

 

[Barca84]

If you're going to stop buying things that are a byproduct of poor human rights then your house is going to be very empty, you're not going to have any clothes to wear, and your food bill is going to be through the roof - the very laptop or phone you are using to post on this forum is most likely the end product of workers in extremely poor conditions. You're trying to take the high ground on something that is impossible to avoid. Let me clarify that this isn't me defending poor human rights, it's a huge problem, but you're trying to apportion guilt on to City fans for supporting our club (which was here long before our current owners), when you yourself are a contributing factor to the problem, as are we all.

Let's move on from this, given it has absolutely no place in this thread - if you're concerned then you can make a Human Rights discussion in the general forum.

Sorry but you don't get to choose when we move on. I'll pass on your lack of knowledge of my ethical shopping habits but will take you up on a couple of things:

This thread is about FFP and City and the discussion is entirely appropriate as there would not be the need for FFP if it was not for owners such as those currently presiding over City. We've also had discussion about why they are involved and I've given the solid perspective of many re their need to effectively launder their global image using City as their vehicle. Both Amnesty International and HRW have also specificaly raised this in the public arena as a matter of concern and one for fans of football clubs to be aware of. Interestingly your owners got a far rougher ride when trying to buy into the MLS as opposed to the welcome offered here on these shores and there was significant opposition on the ground s of their human rights position. We are supposed to have fit and proper person tests for ownership of clubs which begs the question of what exactly is permissible and what isn't. For your info I've been an opponent of the Glazers and before them the Edwards family who were also leeches on a slightly lower scale. However none of this lot can hold a candle to Mansour and his ilk.

You've responded little beyond some facile argument that we're all complicit in human rights issues however far removed and, as such, have no grounds for having a pop at UAE despots. Remarkable and really quite indefensible.

For future reference I'll be bringing this up again in discussion of these people and will continue to do so until they do something about their violations of the basic human rights of their own people.

Cheers

 

[Manchester Dan]

Sorry but you don't get to choose when we move on. I'll pass on your lack of knowledge of my ethical shopping habits but will take you up on a couple of things:

This thread is about FFP and City and the discussion is entirely appropriate as there would not be the need for FFP if it was not for owners such as those currently presiding over City. We've also had discussion about why they are involved and I've given the solid perspective of many re their need to effectively launder their global image using City as their vehicle. Both Amnesty International and HRW have also specificaly raised this in the public arena as a matter of concern and one for fans of football clubs to be aware of. Interestingly your owners got a far rougher ride when trying to buy into the MLS as opposed to the welcome offered here on these shores and there was significant opposition on the ground s of their human rights position. We are supposed to have fit and proper person tests for ownership of clubs which begs the question of what exactly is permissible and what isn't. For your info I've been an opponent of the Glazers and before them the Edwards family who were also leeches on a slightly lower scale. However none of this lot can hold a candle to Mansour and his ilk.

You've responded little beyond some facile argument that we're all complicit in human rights issues however far removed and, as such, have no grounds for having a pop at UAE despots. Remarkable and really quite indefensible.

For future reference I'll be bringing this up again in discussion of these people and will continue to do so until they do something about their violations of the basic human rights of their own people.

Cheers

What argument are you trying to pursue here - you don't agree with poor human rights? Excellent, welcome to the club. My response was aimed directly at the notion that I should feel guilty about the actions of our owners because I support Manchester City. I've supported City long before the current owners came along, and I will continue to do so, passionately. We fans don't choose our owners, so while your waving your moral compass around it doesn't give you the right to question and judge the ethical stance of City fans just because we continue to support our club. How is our club taking advantage of funds from the owner any different from yours taking advantage of funds from sponsorship deals heavily involved in the very practices you are condemning us for?

We do have a fit and proper person test for the ownership of clubs, and our owner passed and now holds a stake in clubs in England, Australia, America and Japan. It's amazing how so many different countries have allowed such a man into their game, or perhaps they've just realised that his investment is excellent for the game and the clubs involved. It's all about perspective, if you see a man punch another man in the face, but then give you £1,000 - what is your lasting impression of that man? I support the club, not the owner, and the club is benefiting greatly under his ownership, and therefore I support it. I will continue to support it until it becomes detrimental to the club.

You're justification that this is relevant to the topic of financial fair play is equally as baffling as the argument you are trying to create. City overspending was no doubt a contributing factor to the introduction of FFP, but ongoing events in UAE play absolutely no part in the introduction of financial fair play (unless you can link me to the document where UEFA make direct reference to human rights conditions in the UAE?) - it's irrelevant. Using the logic you have outlined you could argue that if it was not for our owners then we'd never have been able to purchase Sergio Aguero - so let's go and set up camp in a Sergio Aguero thread to discuss the ongoing events in UAE. That doesn't make sense.

 

[BobbyManc]

I think Barca84 is trying to gain a moral high ground because he has the groundbreaking and far from ubiquitous opinion that violating human rights is bad. Good for him I say.

 

[Barca84]

What argument are you trying to pursue here - you don't agree with poor human rights? Excellent, welcome to the club. My response was aimed directly at the notion that I should feel guilty about the actions of our owners because I support Manchester City. I've supported City long before the current owners came along, and I will continue to do so, passionately. We fans don't choose our owners, so while your waving your moral compass around it doesn't give you the right to question and judge the ethical stance of City fans just because we continue to support our club. How is our club taking advantage of funds from the owner any different from yours taking advantage of funds from sponsorship deals heavily involved in the very practices you are condemning us for?

We do have a fit and proper person test for the ownership of clubs, and our owner passed and now holds a stake in clubs in England, Australia, America and Japan. It's amazing how so many different countries have allowed such a man into their game, or perhaps they've just realised that his investment is excellent for the game and the clubs involved. It's all about perspective, if you see a man punch another man in the face, but then give you £1,000 - what is your lasting impression of that man? I support the club, not the owner, and the club is benefiting greatly under his ownership, and therefore I support it. I will continue to support it until it becomes detrimental to the club.

You're justification that this is relevant to the topic of financial fair play is equally baffling as the argument you are trying to create. City overspending was no doubt a contributing factor to the introduction of FFP, but ongoing events in UAE play absolutely no part in the introduction of financial fair play (unless you can link me to the document where UEFA make direct reference to human rights conditions in the UAE?) - it's irrelevant. Using the logic you have outlined you could argue that if it was not for our owners then we'd never have been able to purchase Sergio Aguero - so let's go and set up camp in a Sergio Aguero thread to discuss the ongoing events in UAE. That doesn't make sense.

My input has been in response to discussion in this thread on your owners and the reasons for their involvement and I suspect you know that. I'll state it again - their involvment is primarily a PR exercise to deflect from problems that many in the west quite rightly have with their regime. I can't make it any simpler for you. The fact that your owner holds a stake in clubs in many countries simply illustrates that there is a problem with regards to the definition of "fit and proper" in those same countries and, as I pointed out, this is a regulation that needs examining. Your club is "benefiting greatly" as a direct result of the actions of a regime that violates human rights on an appalling scale in order to keep itself in power, in luxury, and in the position to, for example, bankroll your club. This is what your sucess is funded on. Thats the backdrop sorry and this bankrolling of your club has been in contravention of FFP.

I've created no argument here just reminding some folk who think your benefactors are harmless and benign that the complete opposite is in fact true and the more people who are aware of that the better.

 

[Barca84]

I think Barca84 is trying to gain a moral high ground because he has the groundbreaking and far from ubiquitous opinion that violating human rights is bad. Good for him I say.

I've been a member of Amnesty International since 1978. Your club is a vehicle to promote the global accumulation of power and influence of despots.

If pointing that out puts me on the moral high ground I'm happy to take it.

 

[BobbyManc]

I've been a member of Amnesty International since 1978. Your club is a vehicle to promote the global accumulation of power and influence of despots.

If pointing that out puts me on the moral high ground I'm happy to take it.

My problem is reading the Amnesty International report on the UAE it appeared equally deplorable to the one on the U.S. Pretty much all governments are corrupt and unethical. Abu Dhabi are using Manchester City to promote their image and if that puts a microscope on their human rights violations then hopefully that will lead to a change for the better over there. But you can't exactly use it as a stick to beat Manchester City fans with. If the Abu Dhabi regime is so debased then the other governments are the only ones who can change that. But they don't want to and they're not exactly placing any pressure on them.

I take it you are completely opposed to Nike's sponsorship of Manchester United as well and have never purchased any product bearing a Nike logo?

 

[Manchester Dan]

My input has been in response to discussion in this thread on your owners and the reasons for their involvement and I suspect you know that. I'll state it again - their involvment is primarily a PR exercise to deflect from problems that many in the west quite rightly have with their regime. I can't make it any simpler for you. The fact that your owner holds a stake in clubs in many countries simply illustrates that there is a problem with regards to the definition of "fit and proper" in those same countries and, as I pointed out, this is a regulation that needs examining. Your club is "benefiting greatly" as a direct result of the actions of a regime that violates human rights on an appalling scale in order to keep itself in power, in luxury, and in the position to, for example, bankroll your club. This is what your sucess is funded on. Thats the backdrop sorry and this bankrolling of your club has been in contravention of FFP.

I've created no argument here just reminding some folk who think your benefactors are harmless and benign that the complete opposite is in fact true and the more people who are aware of that the better.

Actually that's not the only point you were trying to make - you were suggesting that we should be guilty, as if as fans we are somehow responsible for the actions of the owner at the club. I suspect you're backtracking on that now because you've realised that was a ridiculous suggestion.

Assuage your guilt whichever way you can blues.

Considering it's an area you are so passionate about (judging by your £3 a month donation to be a member of Amnesty International, which you also keep pointing out like it's some kind of ethical one up against everyone else, some of whom might actually be members themselves) - then you'd know that it's not the middle east at all that has been widely criticised for being the biggest violaters of human rights, but actually the american government - as concluded in a report by the United Nations Human Rights Council late last year.

Breakdown of the report: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/29/huma-m29.html TL;DR 'The US government itself is the leading human rights violator on the planet, using whatever means necessary, including mass terror against civilian areas, to maintain the supremacy of American capitalism.'

Given your owners, and most of your sponsorships, are huge benefactors from the actions of the American government (infact, we all are), then I'd love see your equally passionate criticisms over in the United ownership thread - I suspect I won't though, given your presence in here is probably partly driven by your anti-City agenda, rather than just your feelings towards human rights (which I commend by the way, if everybody cared about it as much then it's a problem that could be tackled).

 

[Barca84]

My problem is reading the Amnesty International report on the UAE it appeared equally deplorable to the one on the U.S. Pretty much all governments are corrupt and unethical. Abu Dhabi are using Manchester City to promote their image and if that puts a microscope on their human rights violations then hopefully that will lead to a change for the better over there. But you can't exactly use it as a stick to beat Manchester City fans with. If the Abu Dhabi regime is so debased then the other governments are the only ones who can change that. But they don't want to and they're not exactly placing any pressure on them.

I take it you are completely opposed to Nike's sponsorship of Manchester United as well and have never purchased any product bearing a Nike logo?

Actually that's not the only point you were trying to make - you were suggesting that we should be guilty, as if as fans we are somehow responsible for the actions of the owner at the club. I suspect you're backtracking on that now because you've realised that was a ridiculous suggestion.


Considering it's an area you are so passionate about (judging by your £3 a month donation to be a member of Amnesty International, which you also keep pointing out like it's some kind of ethical one up against everyone else, some of whom might actually be members themselves) - then you'd know that it's not the middle east at all that has been widely criticised for being the biggest violaters of human rights, but actually the american government - as concluded in a report by the United Nations Human Rights Council late last year.

Breakdown of the report: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/29/huma-m29.html TL;DR 'The US government itself is the leading human rights violator on the planet, using whatever means necessary, including mass terror against civilian areas, to maintain the supremacy of American capitalism.'

Given your owners, and most of your sponsorships, are huge benefactors from the actions of the American government (infact, we all are), then I'd love see your equally passionate criticisms over in the United ownership thread - I suspect I won't though, given your presence in here is probably partly driven by your anti-City agenda, rather than just your feelings towards human rights (which I commend by the way, if everybody cared about it as much then it's a problem that could be tackled).

No surprise that you should both just continue to obsfuscate and duck the issue as this is your track record when it comes to defending the interests of your club. Shameful but...

Bobby. I'm fully aware of the USA's record on human rights cheers but it has sweet feck all to do with this thread. Last I looked the government of the USA doesn't own a Premier League football club and bankroll it as part of a global PR exercise. And for what it's worth I've never purchased a product bearing a Nike logo and for many years now have sought to shop as ethically as possible. I commend this site to you:

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/

They don't sell City shirts.

Dan. My remarks about guilt were in response to your risible defence of your owners and your attempts to deflect from the issue here...

I have a lot of time for Khaldoon, he just oozes class. You may have criticisms about the way we are run financially, but I don't think anybody can argue that the way our whole executive team conduct themselves is fantastic - a far cry from your typical foreign investors these days

That's your true colours there. You have a lot of time for a man who is chairman of body which advises his kingdom on their international image and that is a kingdom that operates with a totalitarian control of religion, is involved in human trafficing, restricts women’s rights, imprisons political protesters and tortures them. Classy. I suspect you weren't aware of all this and might want to think about retracting your statement extolling your owners virtues if your pro City agenda can allow that? If you're still unsure you can have a browse here:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uae

If you or anyone else here continues to present these people in any light other than the truth I'm going to pop up and pull them up on it.

Since you asked I myself am opposed to Glazer style ownership as stated previously on this site and always have been. I've returned to OT for the first time since the takeover this year as I felt the club was in need of support and this outweighed my opposition to the Glazers. Historically I was also opposed to the Edwards family leeching of our club in the past. However despots they are not.

And just in case you think this is personal to City I'm also opposed to Russian oligarchs, filthy rich through illegal and corrupt state connections as their country moved into a market based economy, being allowed to pass fit and proper owners tests and preside over football clubs here a la Abramovich.

And I'll go on record as saying quite categorically that should owners such as yours, or Chelsea's, or anyone else with similar track records of criminality and/or human rights violations took control of my club I wouldn't set foot through the door until they'd left and, as a long term activist, would be involved in direct protest.

Youi're doing very well for someone who doesn't like to get involved in these discussions

 

[BobbyManc]

@Barca84

The point in highlighting the U.S.A's poor human rights record is in response to you making the Abu Dhabi regime appear as if it is unique in being condemned by Amnesty International and the likes. It is far from an ideal state but they are not alone either. United are benefiting from the sponsorship of unethical companies such as Nike. But I doubt you were outraged and disgusted when Nike began sponsoring Manchester United.

 

[Barca84]

@Barca84

The point in highlighting the U.S.A's poor human rights record is in response to you making the Abu Dhabi regime appear as if it is unique in being condemned by Amnesty International and the likes. It is far from an ideal state but they are not alone either. United are benefiting from the sponsorship of unethical companies such as Nike. But I doubt you were outraged and disgusted when Nike began sponsoring Manchester United.

At no stage did I say their regime was unique.

Stop obsfuscating and defending these people simply because they're helping you win football matches.

As for drawing a parallel with Nike you might like to read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5

Also worth baring in mind that, last time I checked, Nike aren't a political territory that is ruled by a dynastic monarchy that at this very moment has people imprisoned for dissenting against their regime. Can you spot the difference here Bobby? Clothing manufacturer versus a federation of absolute hereditary monarchies? Or are we too busy sweeping this under the carpet so that it doesn't spoil your football?

But I'd rather we were sponsored ethically yes and if we had a thread on that I'd be contributing to it. I am reassured, for example, by the human rights record of Chevrolet

You don't seem to give a shit where your clubs money comes from or am I missing something?

 

[Manchester Dan]

No surprise that you should both just continue to obsfuscate and duck the issue as this is your track record when it comes to defending the interests of your club. Shameful but...

Dan. My remarks about guilt were in response to your risible defence of your owners and your attempts to deflect from the issue here...

That's your true colours there. You have a lot of time for a man who is chairman of body which advises his kingdom on their international image and that is a kingdom that operates with a totalitarian control of religion, is involved in human trafficing, restricts women’s rights, imprisons political protesters and tortures them. Classy. I suspect you weren't aware of all this and might want to think about retracting your statement extolling your owners virtues if your pro City agenda can allow that? If you're still unsure you can have a browse here:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uae

If you or anyone else here continues to present these people in any light other than the truth I'm going to pop up and pull them up on it.

Since you asked I myself am opposed to Glazer style ownership as stated previously on this site and always have been. I've returned to OT for the first time since the takeover this year as I felt the club was in need of support and this outweighed my opposition to the Glazers. Historically I was also opposed to the Edwards family leeching of our club in the past. However despots they are not.

And just in case you think this is personal to City I'm also opposed to Russian oligarchs, filthy rich through illegal and corrupt state connections as their country moved into a market based economy, being allowed to pass fit and proper owners tests and preside over football clubs here a la Abramovich.

And I'll go on record as saying quite categorically that should owners such as yours, or Chelsea's, or anyone else with similar track records of criminality and/or human rights violations took control of my club I wouldn't set foot through the door until they'd left and, as a long term activist, would be involved in direct protest.

Youi're doing very well for someone who doesn't like to get involved in these discussions

Haha you're right there, but i'm a sucker for people talking nonsense, and you've posted some belters over the last 2 days.

You've completely missed the earlier point I made about perspective. You might note that the comment you've outlined makes specific reference to the way that he conducts himself while running the club - I support the club, and as long as he continues to conduct himself in that manner within the club then he remains and asset to it, and continues to have my full support. The comment held no relevance to the way he conducts himself outside of the club, and was certainly not a reflection of the ongoing human rights issues in UAE, which is something you've personally introduced to the discussion because you've misunderstood a comment to fit your agenda. Nobody else has done that, just you.

Again, you're using amnesty international content to try feed your superiority complex that your understanding on Human Rights is better than everybody else's because you've introduced the topic to the discussion - I'd imagine anybody with any kind of parting interest with international affairs is well versed in ongoing issues of human rights around the world. You aren't adding any value by lecturing people on it, because we already know. Nobody is trying to defend the actions of UAE on human rights, we are just pointing out that it's irrelevant in a discussion about financial fair play, and has no impact on my support of our football team. I agree that conditions in UAE are shocking, in the same way you agree that they are in America, and around the world. I also support your feelings that things should be done moving forward to prevent them. We are on the same page here.

Considering your opposition against all things morally corrupt, how do you even entertain the idea of supporting a global football club? The main sponsors in football are sport companies shrouded in controversy for poor labour conditions, banks (which needs no further explanation), and TV companies. It is run by a governing body at European level filled with individuals who are only concerned with getting money in their back pockets, and at an international level by individuals who are only concerned with keeping bribes under wraps for the next world cup. It is collectively owned by hundreds of millionaires whom you have aptly described as unethical (in more words). It is overflowing with footballers who only care about their salaries and individual imagine right deals (them deals with the very same companies I mention above). It's a sport full of individuals looking out for number one. The whole sport stinks. You like football though, yes?

Let's all agree that the global state of human rights is bad - does that cover the point you're trying to make?

 

[BobbyManc]

At no stage did I say their regime was unique.

Stop obsfuscating and defending these people simply because they're helping you win football matches.

As for drawing a parallel with Nike you might like to read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nike-solved-its-sweatshop-problem-2013-5

Also worth baring in mind that, last time I checked, Nike aren't a political territory that is ruled by a dynastic monarchy that at this very moment has people imprisoned for dissenting against their regime. Can you spot the difference here Bobby? Clothing manufacturer versus a federation of absolute hereditary monarchies? Or are we too busy sweeping this under the carpet so that it doesn't spoil your football?

But I'd rather we were sponsored ethically yes and if we had a thread on that I'd be contributing to it. I am reassured, for example, by the human rights record of Chevrolet

You don't seem to give a shit where your clubs money comes from or am I missing something?

So we've already established Nike are an unethical company who have sponsored United.

Now we have DHL. This is all taken from a report from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre

"As such, it falls far short of being able to “know and show” that it respects workers’ human rights equally across its operations"
"allegations that it has ignored its human rights obligations."
"UNI and ITF have been voicing concerns about Deutsche Post DHL’s violations of international labour and human rights standards for over four years"
"Professor Logan provides extensive and compelling evidence, including interviews with workers, that
Deutsche Post DHL conducted “an aggressive campaign, based on thinly veiled coercion and
intimidation, to keep the union out at all costs, even if that meant sacking union members, pressuring
them to resign from the union, preventing them from talking to union officials and to each other about
the potential benefits of unionisation, creating an atmosphere of fear in the workplace and telling
workers that the union would drive the company out of business and is associated with a known terrorist
organisation”.

That was the first sponsor of United I chose to google. I'm sure if I looked at others some of them would equally have a questionable human rights record concerning its workers. I'm just wondering why such a morally upright person is yet to start a thread criticising the human rights record of several of his beloved club's sponsors? But is more than happy to attack the owner of a rival club. Funny that, isn't it?

 

[bishblaize]

 

[Barca84]

Haha you're right there, but i'm a sucker for people talking nonsense, and you've posted some belters over the last 2 days.

You've completely missed the earlier point I made about perspective. You might note that the comment you've outlined makes specific reference to the way that he conducts himself while running the club - I support the club, and as long as he continues to conduct himself in that manner within the club then he remains and asset to it, and continues to have my full support. The comment held no relevance to the way he conducts himself outside of the club, and was certainly not a reflection of the ongoing human rights issues in UAE, which is something you've personally introduced to the discussion because you've misunderstood a comment to fit your agenda. Nobody else has done that, just you.

Again, you're using amnesty international content to try feed your superiority complex that your understanding on Human Rights is better than everybody else's because you've introduced the topic to the discussion - I'd imagine anybody with any kind of parting interest with international affairs is well versed in ongoing issues of human rights around the world. You aren't adding any value by lecturing people on it, because we already know. Nobody is trying to defend the actions of UAE on human rights, we are just pointing out that it's irrelevant in a discussion about financial fair play, and has no impact on my support of our football team. I agree that conditions in UAE are shocking, in the same way you agree that they are in America, and around the world. I also support your feelings that things should be done moving forward to prevent them. We are on the same page here.

Considering your opposition against all things morally corrupt, how do you even entertain the idea of supporting a global football club? The main sponsors in football are sport companies shrouded in controversy for poor labour conditions, banks (which needs no further explanation), and TV companies. It is run by a governing body at European level filled with individuals who are only concerned with getting money in their back pockets, and at an international level by individuals who are only concerned with keeping bribes under wraps for the next world cup. It is collectively owned by hundreds of millionaires whom you have aptly described as unethical (in more words). It is overflowing with footballers who only care about their salaries and individual imagine right deals (them deals with the very same companies I mention above). It's a sport full of individuals looking out for number one. The whole sport stinks. You like football though, yes?

Let's all agree that the global state of human rights is bad - does that cover the point you're trying to make?

Laughable

Hmm..where to start. How about the fact that you've just stated that so long as your owner conducts himself to your liking in club business that what happens outside of it is of no relevance? Charming if you believe that but it appears to me you're just on the back foot and struggling to justify your position. I put it to you that the behaviour of your owner outside of your club should very much be a source of concern, for everyone, particularly when we consider that your club has been purchased specifically to act as a brand management exercise to negate the damage.

Its a classic defense of someone such as yourself when pulled up with regards to matters of ethics and values that anyone pointing the finger has a "superiority complex" Ironic coming from yourself but not a tactic that's going to deflect from the point here. And the point, as you well know, is not that "the global state of human rights is bad" (what a remarably inaccurate statement) for a variety of reasons but is in fact that your owners are not classy, that they are not to be admired and that they are involved with your club primarily for their own political purpose.

With regards to supporting a global football club I'm uneasy with much of it and don't believe that ethics and values necessarily have to be sacrificed in order to be successful. United are a very different beast from when I started supporting them.

Let's hear you both condemn your owners for their regime. Or how about just a nod to the fact that what they represent, and the way they are using your club, troubles you somewhat? I'll make it easy for you. I think the Glazers are a bunch of cnuts and I'd rather they weren't involved in my club less success or not. I think DHL are a bunch of cnuts and I want more ethical sponsorship.

Can you manage that or is your success too dear to you?

 

[BobbyManc]

Laughable

Hmm..where to start. How about the fact that you've just stated that so long as your owner conducts himself to your liking in club business that what happens outside of it is of no relevance? Charming if you believe that but it appears to me you're just on the back foot and struggling to justify your position. I put it to you that the behaviour of your owner outside of your club should very much be a source of concern, for everyone, particularly when we consider that your club has been purchased specifically to act as a brand management exercise to negate the damage.

Its a classic defense of someone such as yourself when pulled up with regards to matters of ethics and values that anyone pointing the finger has a "superiority complex" Ironic coming from yourself but not a tactic that's going to deflect from the point here. And the point, as you well know, is not that "the global state of human rights is bad" (what a remarably inaccurate statement) for a variety of reasons but is in fact that your owners are not classy, that they are not to be admired and that they are involved with your club primarily for their own political purpose.

With regards to supporting a global football club I'm uneasy with much of it and don't believe that ethics and values necessarily have to be sacrificed in order to be successful. United are a very different beast from when I started supporting them.

Let's hear you both condemn your owners for their regime. Or how about just a nod to the fact that what they represent, and the way they are using your club, troubles you somewhat? I'll make it easy for you. I think the Glazers are a bunch of cnuts and I'd rather they weren't involved in my club less success or not. I think DHL are a bunch of cnuts and I want more ethical sponsorship.

Can you manage that or is your success too dear to you?

"It is inexcusable. Abu Dhabi's regime does some indefensible things."

Manchester Dan: "Nobody is trying to defend the actions of UAE on human rights. I agree that conditions in UAE are shocking"

Both of us have criticised the regime. You're just not listening. You think the Glazers are such a bunch of cnuts yet still attend Old Trafford by your own admission? That's really going to show him how much you are disgusted at him.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I'm just wondering why such a morally upright person is yet to start a thread criticising the human rights record of several of his beloved club's sponsors? But is more than happy to attack the owner of a rival club. Funny that, isn't it?

The owner of said rival club is a high ranking government official in a state whose true stance on several human rights issues is, let's say, dubious. You can't compare this to being involved with sponsors that undoubtedly could do more to ensure and protect workers' rights across the globe. The latter is a general criticism which can be directed at every multinational company out there. What you seem to do is to use this general fact as a means to defend your owner - who isn't the CEO of a multinational company as much as the deputy prime minister of a national state. The difference should be obvious.