But the sponsors provide money for United, do they not? The original point was an accusation that I don't care where City's money comes from. I responded by pointing out the abuse of human rights by sponsors of Manchester United. I'm not defending the owner, I don't think I ever have. I'm merely pointing out if people want to accuse City fans they need to make sure their own club is operating in an ethical manner and with ethical companies.
Manchester City facing Financial Fair Play sanctions
- Thread starter PlayerOne
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
But the sponsors provide money for United, do they not? The original point was an accusation that I don't care where City's money comes from. I responded by pointing out the abuse of human rights by sponsors of Manchester United. I'm not defending the owner, I don't think I ever have. I'm merely pointing out if people want to accuse City fans they need to make sure their own club is operating in an ethical manner and with ethical companies.
Is that not just drawing arbitrary lines - i.e. "I wouldn't support City because of what goes on in teh UAE but I'll wear Nike shirts because that's not as bad".
I think the point that the City fans on here are trying to make is that if you're going to go down the route of criticising people for ratifying Human Rights abuses by their actions, i.e. by supporting City, you'd better be whiter than white yourself. That's a fair point to me.
As it is, this is a football related site so I personally think people should stick to football, rather than spending time riding their high horses and being all high and mighty.
Good we're getting somewhere.
Now if you could explain to me the disconnect between that regime, the money that's bought your success, and the resulting FFP sanctions that have been handed out as a result then I think we can wrap this discussion up
Yes - I agree. And if you're not defending the owner, that's fine and fair. I may have you mixed up with the other lad in that regard.
But the point still stands that in terms of determining whether an owner is fit and proper, the role of Mansour is very different from that of a run-of-the-mill business man. He is directly accountable for the human rights issues we're talking about here.
Good we're getting somewhere.
Now if you could explain to me the disconnect between that regime, the money that's bought your success, and the resulting FFP sanctions that have been handed out as a result then I think we can wrap this discussion up
We're getting somewhere? We posted them ages ago but you chose to ignore to them to continue with your moral crusade all based upon your commendable £3 monthly donation to Amnesty International. I dread to think what state society would be in without you, Barca84.
I don't see what you're trying to achieve. You're pointing out the Abu Dhabi regime is a bad one. Ok. No one argues otherwise. No one argues that that regime doesn't fund Manchester City. But I have also pointed out Manchester United receives funds from companies that also disregard human rights. The problem is you only really give a crap about the Abu Dhabi regime because it is has now infringed on your own teams success and that, that is something you can't stand.
Depends on whether you think what goes on in the UAE is actually worse than what Nike are up to. Nike, for all their sweatshops, don't consider homosexuality a crime - and I've never seen them actively restraining free speech or women's rights.
As for high horses and whiter than white - this may be regarded as a question of fit and proper ownership of football clubs. Sponsorship is a very different kettle of fish. You don't have to be Mother Theresa in order to point out that something is wrong. Personally I have no love for any of our sponsors. I can just about manage to "support" them through supporting United, though. But if we were taken over by the likes of Mansour, I'd call it a day without hesitation. That would be the last straw for me. To each his own on that - and I don't blame City fans for supporting their club. They can't control who owns 'em anymore than we can.
We'll leave aside the scale of my involvement in the human rights movement and your jibes about that. And I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer you to my previous posts re owners of this club, Russian oligarchs, etc etc.
Throughout this thread you portray the bankrolling of your club as some sort of romantic assault on, ahem, "the status quo" & I suggest it is something quite apart from that. You've reached the point now that we usually get to with many City fans unfortunately which is that people only object to the bankrolling of City because it's impacts on our own clubs success. Next you'll be posting pictures of yourself blowing raspberries which is probably where you should have started. At this point I'll leave you to it.
Last edited:
Likewise
See, this opinion is a judicious one. The problem I have is Barca84 just going on some moral crusade and attacking the Abu Dhabi regime and making out as if City and their fans are all complicit in the abuse that goes on there. In saying that, he must also accept every United fan is complicit in the human rights abuse by Nike and DHL. But it is an absurd view to take and it isn't really a football related one. There is no relevance between Manchester City's ownership and human rights abuse in UAE that would happen regardless, the same way Nike will treat workers like shit whoever they're sponsoring. Abu Dhabi are using City to promote Abu Dhabi, not as some way to cover up their questionable human rights record. That's not stopped nations dealing with them in the past and it won't stop them in the future.
If he has such a problem with the Abu Dhabi regime, which is perfectly fair, then I'm surprised he hasn't made a thread about it in the relevant forums. My reasoning is he only cares because he feels he can use it as a stick to beat Manchester City with. If I was strongly opposed to Nike and their methods, I would create a thread in a non-football forum.
One may be worse than the other - but at the end of the day, neither reality (along with what goes on all over the world in the name of big business or otherwise) is particularly pleasant. Where do you draw the line? Kids working in sweatshops making products that sell individually for more than they earn in a year is pretty grim however you cut it up.
I personally don't see how you can say "x is pretty bad but acceptable to me, but y isn't". Things like that bother me but I'm the first to admit that I dont vote with my feet - as such I wouldnt criticise anyone else for not doing so either. Likewise, fair play to those who do take a stand on such matters. To my mind having a go at a City fan for not condeming the owners of the club - while standing there in your United kit is hypocritical - so to me its better just to stay quiet on the issue.
At the end of the day the argument seems to be that City's money comes from dodgy people who abuse other people's Human Rights. on a large scale. That argument can also be levelled at United by that logic - if the club has a deal with whichever kit manufacturer which brings in £60 million a year (or whatever is being chucked about regarding the new deal).
At the end of the day - lets be honest. Most (if not all) people on a Man Utd fan forum who want to beat City and their fans with this for one reason only - because they dont like that City are a succesful football club now with lots of money. That is a fair and reasonable opinion to have so why try to dress it up as a moral crusade? If anyone really had a huge issue with this (as some might) they would probably have an issue with a lot of things - including the general madness of modern football, the ludicrous wages as well as any issues with sponsors.
As I said above - why not just stick to football issues? Because I struggle to believe that, for the most part, fans who spend loads of their hard earned lining the Glazers pockets (as well as probably supporting various other "big" companies with dubious practices in their daily lives) are really that fixated on Human Rights abuses.
Last edited:
(Damnit but seeing how you keep making things up...)
Bollocks and obsfuscation of the highest order.
You club is owned by people directly responsible for human rights violations that are partly, if not even wholely, designed to keep them in power. Thats the power that gives them access to their riches by the way. They use your club as a vehicle to detoxify their brand in the west and as a result of this process have bankrolled you to the extent that you've fallen foul of FFP. You are pro Mansour and anti FFP and I'm calling you out on it. I've brought their human rights record into the discussion here as part of the trend in the thread toward why these despots are at City in the first place. Strong concerns have been voiced by leading NGOs about your owners and their motives but you seem to be in denial about this. Don't be. Saying it would happen regardless is quite telling really. Personally I find that a bit depressing.
Please take your Nike concerns to the general forum and I'll gladly discuss them there with pleasure but, I warn you now, I will just agree with you. Same with DHL. Or any other unethical sponsor. I have had no problem stating that. You really need to get a handle on this Bobby.
You can't simply swat away the reality of your ownership, why they're there and what they hope to achieve by being there, with this simplistic and wishful nonsense that it's just anti City. Its not. The concerns are with regard to your owners, their reasons for being there, and the use of their money. And that's why it's as relevant as it gets in a thread about FFP.
I have a problem with all those things you've listed. I've kept as much of my hard earned out of the Glazers pockets since they took over, as I can, without completely denouncing the club. Its been close mind.
But this is a remarkable assertion you present here - that you can't be a football fan and have a concern for matters of human rights. That, in fact, the unavoidable process of daily living somehow renders you complicit it in all and that there isn't any point bothering otherwise.
Football doesn't exist in a vacuum.
The easiest route is to simply stick to football issues, sure. And to me at least it's absolutely necessary to turn a blind eye to much of what is - blatantly - wrong with football in order to enjoy it. This has been true for a long time - it's not a modern phenomenon at all. Football is a diversion at the end of the day, it's a refuge from reality as much as a reflection of it. But it IS the latter too - and in some cases this is very hard to ignore.
Regarding the bit in bold, it will always be possible to use an ad hominem argument here against United fans - who generally simply don't like City very much and can't stand them being successful. But it's an ad hominem argument - it doesn't change the fact that City's owner is who he is, and might be a less than fit and proper owner. The latter is a particular issue - and one can't insert sweatshops here to nullify it, because sponsorship and ownership are very different categories.
You have to draw the line somewhere - it may be debated precisely where, but I'll say this: buying a Nike kit with Januzaj's name on the back for your ten year old lad is not equivalent to allowing Mansour - or Roman - to own a football club. It's not comparable - and it borders on complete relativism to look at this as hypocrisy.
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?
You say where to start, and then never really get going on any substantial point. Infact, without realising you've just gone the other way backed up our view that your point is flawed; 'United are a very different beast from when I started supporting them.' Excellent, well so are City! We support the club, not the owners (and you are the same). You're dead set on arguing about something for the sake of it that you've completely lost track of the point you're trying to make, which was unclear to start with, and you've not really found how that aligns with my views in a contradictory way - in truth, we are both on the same page. It's a cycle of you telling us all that UAE are shocking, and us agreeing and asking how that's more relevant to me than any other poster on here just because I support the club that I do.
Everybody here has accepted that there are aspects of the UAE regime that are shocking, if you haven't already seen comments of us confirming our agreement in that then you need to start reading our posts. I've said it in response to near every post you've made in this discussion. That's not what you've actually been asking though, you are asking us to feel guilty or stop supporting the success of the club, because of who now owns us - the club comes first, and it will always have my support, and as long as the club is prospering under the current ownership I will continue to support that ownership. That is a view that many on here take up too, and one look in the Qatar takeover rumour thread a year ago will confirm that for you.
That's interesting @Barca84 , because one little look at your post history shows that when the club were linked with a takeover by a similar middle east consortium being fronted by the class of 92, you didn't express that view at all - and it's a discussion you were actively involved in on this very forum. Further proof that this outburst is actually driven by an anti-city agenda. How can anybody take you seriously now.
Further obsfuscation so lets keep this really succint here or, it appears, there'll be some confusion.
I, at no stage, have asked anyone to feel guilty or to stop supporting their team. I accused you of guilt actually - that was my reading of your baffling defense of your owners. My apologies but I didn't have any other rational explanation for it. I'm not blaming you for your owners - I've pulled you up on your support of them and will continue to do so as you, and Bobby, will continue to defend them, their investment in your club, and attack FFP.
No substantial point? My point is this, and always has been - your owners are despots. Discuss this in the light that the spoils of their regime have bought your sucess.
So what is your limit on despotic human rights abusers? Obviously the current owners are OK to you. At what point would they cease to be tolerable?
That's interesting @Barca84 , because one little look at your post history shows that when the club were linked with a takeover by a similar middle east consortium being fronted by the class of 92, you didn't express that view at all - and it's a discussion you were actively involved in on this very forum. Further proof that this outburst is actually driven by an anti-city agenda. How can anybody take you seriously now.
If that's true I don't think anymore needs to be said on the issue. In his lone-battle against human rights he must have missed the leaflet on Qatar's human rights record. As I suspected, Barca84 isn't too fussed that Sheikh Mansour owns a club, he is fussed that he is funding a succesful Manchester City side.
That's interesting @Barca84 , because one little look at your post history shows that when the club were linked with a takeover by a similar middle east consortium being fronted by the class of 92, you didn't express that view at all - and it's a discussion you were actively involved in on this very forum. Further proof that this outburst is actually driven by an anti-city agenda. How can anybody take you seriously now.
Ermm...that I'd be reassured by the presence of the class of 92, for a variety of reasons, in any buyout in response to a question about having new owners replace the Glazers? That the Glazers might have sold at the time if offered £2bn by an Arab consortium? I've not voiced an opinion for or against there actually so you're going to have to do better than that Dan.
Post history trawling? You taking lessons in crushing dissent from your owners?
You keep using this word. At least spell it right. And it's succinct by the way.
You've basically spent the whole thread saying the Abu Dhabi regime is a bad one. No one has disagreed with you. So what has been the point in your posts exactly?
You voiced an opinion seperate to that of a person who would pack football in if his club was supported by unethical funds - so when it's United, you're actually able to justify it because of the class of 92 link, but that is not a person who's prime concern is about where the money is coming from behind the scenes. I looked in your post history because somebody presented a hypothetical situation and outcome which you agreed with, only it's not actually hypothetical because it nearly happened, and you didn't express the same opinion that you claimed you would have. Imagine it as if you were innocent until proven guilty, but now we can say without reasonable doubt that you are definitely talking rubbish.
Except I didn't say that did I.
The point I was making largely is that most United fans hate City because they are City, not because of the fact that their owners are Human Rights abusers.
Bottom line, if you feel strongly about issues like that, fair play to you. Maybe you do all you can to keep your conscience clean. Bully to you if so.
The irony is that you seem to admit that despite your loathing for what the Glazers and big business stand for - you still come to OT and feed the coffers, yet seem to want to criticise a City fan for not being disgusted by his clubs owners. That, to me at least is hypocritical.
You're taking the moral high ground against a bloke that probably works hard all week, pays his taxes like the rest of us and just wants to follow his team and enjoy any success his club has.
I don't get that. If you're a better man than us then well done. If you want to try and change the world fair play to you - but it seems other than telling out City supporting friend what a disgrace his club is on an online forum, you're still pretty much doing what he is.
Football doesn't exist in a vacuum and in fact is as disgusting a concept as there is when you see what they get paid. But we all still love it.
Last edited:
It's not the fans choice who owns the clubs, not whom the PL deem to be fit and proper persons.
You're castigating a bloke for following his team - a team who he's probably followed before and will after and judging him for it.
He's already said he doesn't agree with the situation, not does he try to deny the opinion that Human Rights are an issue in the UAE so I'm not sure what you want him to do.
You can place your moral line where you want - nobody is stopping you. Maybe you should let other people do the same.
Last edited:
I've said several times that I don't blame City fans for supporting their club. I've also said that I personally would call it a day if United were taken over by the likes of Mansour. If that constitutes castigating others from my high horse, then fair enough. I don't think I've come across as some kind of moralist here. My issue is with Mansour, not the regular match goers who happen to support the team he purchased. They can do as they please.
But both Chelsea and City fans have a tendency to use a certain form of reasoning when they become, let's say, defensive over their respective owners: all businessmen are crooks, all countries are in violation of human rights, all clubs are sponsored by companies that use cheap labour, etc.
And this deserves a response. Because it's a sheer cop-out when the issue at hand is precisely what their owner should be held accountable for - claiming that everyone else is just as bad is a) irrelevant and b) not even true.
That's a very different point from the one Barca84 was trying to make to me.
If it was purely a Human Rights discussion and somebody asked me whether people should be held accountable in the UAE, then I'd agree - I certainly would not argue that lots of people are doing it, so that makes everything okay. It's different to question somebodies support because of issues surrounding those connected to the club, and if somebody is of the opinion that City fans should no longer support their club, then it could be argued that the accuser shouldn't even be a fan of football if their views of human rights outweigh the support of their club, simply because of the nature of the sport.
If you'd stop supporting United if they were owned by Sheikh Mansour then that's fair enough, that would be your prerogative and you'd get no criticism from me - but very few people would take that stance. You haven't been waving your moral judgement around so I don't have any issue with your opinion, but hopefully the defence of support for my club hasn't been portayed as an all out defence for poor human rights - they are two very different points, and your point is separate from the one Barca84 was making, and the one that I was defending against.
I don't see that the City fans on get are defending their clubs owners - they're raising a legitimate point (that you can level the Human Rights issue at a lot of people) in defending themselves because ultimately people are having a go at their choice to support that team. This i a football forum and the criticism is directed at them so its hardly surprising they'll defend themselves. I'd probably take offence to that as well.
You can disagree with the behaviour of the owners of a club but its not the fans fault. You, and other are coming off as patronising and judgmental.
The fact that one of them has pointed out that another very vocal member on the board didn't voice the same views on a potential Qatar takeover here makes is just look like anti-City sentiment dressed as something else.
As it is I admire you for your opinions and tend to agree. But I'm not going to criticise another fan for what his clubs owners do because I don't have the moral high ground either.
Well, that depends on how we define "fan", I suppose. You can love the sport and hate the money - and Blatter, and corruption, and the Qatari tourism agency or whatever they call themselves. But, yes - if you truly believe that showing up at Old Trafford in a Nike kit, can of coke in hand, is in-itself an outright endorsement of child labour and the general exploitation of poor people, then you'd be a hypocrite, no doubt. It isn't, though - not outright. It's a wee bit more complicated than that - and so is your position as a City fan relative to Mansour and what goes on in the Emirates, clearly so.
It would be absurd to claim that going to matches in order to support your team constitutes support of a dubious regime - but then nobody claims this, do they? If they did, you could rightfully retort by pointing out that supporting United means giving your money to all manner of companies that engage in all manner of dubious activities - and so forth. But this is beside the point as far as I'm concerned - it's an artificially one-dimensional take on things.
My point, which I maintain, is that Mansour's ownership of an English top club - one that is increasingly becoming a global brand - should be more problematic than it seemingly is. Same for Roman at Chelsea. Both cases go beyond money as such. Both men purchased English top flight clubs in order to serve an agenda which has nothing to do with football - or football fans.
But if people prefer to believe that everyone who has an issue with Roman and Mansour only masquerade their petty, tribal hatred of the football clubs as some kind of "moral high ground", then fair enough. It's a natural assumption - and probably accurate enough in many cases.
Last edited:
The fact is, you may very well feel that way legitimately and be a person who would indeed bail out on United if the situation were reversed. Fair play to you if so. Very much suspect others are using thus argument because its convenient
The points you make are fair ones and as I said, you can draw your moral line off whats acceptable to you and what isn't where you like. It's something we all have to do.
I don't see anyone arguing against the points you make or defending these people anyway.
I'm done here anyway. We'll just end up going in circles.
I'd never bail on United but our fans have shown they have no problems with condemning the owners. I'd like to think that if ours had an appalling human rights record that they would not get defended as much as City's do, even if we don't abandon the club as a result of it
That's because your owners have a negative impact on the club. If the Glazers spent money and didn't get the club in debt you wouldn't have a problem with them. I can guarantee if a Qatari investor bought United and spent like Sheikh Mansour did we would hear very few peeps from anyone on here about the human rights record in Qatar.
Crvena Zvezda excluded from next seasons Champions League for FFP breach
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2114180.html
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2114180.html
They should replace them with the team who came second in the Manchester league this season.
They'd have been banned for what they've done even prior to the introduction of FFP
8 in 25 the rest = 32%
5 in 21 the FFP breakers = 24%
It's a great punishment, no wonder PSG president is as cocky as ever.
Pathetic
What an absolute joke. I'm starting too hate football.
You must be so proud, Bobby.
What the actual feck?