Guardiola to be found out in the premier league

[dead_soft]

You are making a lot of leaps here. Theres no doubt there are some overlaps, but clearly they are different bodies.

In the same way, fir example the Glaziers overlap with the Republican Party. I'm not saying they do so in as explicit way, but overlaps between politics and economics always tend to exist.

They don't overlap, they are literally the investment arm of the Royal Family. I've never suggested the Glazers don't have a pro-Trump stance or that I like them but in what way are they the same thing?
The UAE has a undemocratically elected government. This is explicitly supported by the various Royal Families of the UAE. To the extent the chairman of City is both the Deputy Prime Minister, a member of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, and the head of the ADUG which works for the Abu Dhabi Royal Family. The intent of the investment authority is to make money for the royal family as well as to create influence globally on a social, political, and financial level. This is working as can be evidenced by the multiple arms of the City empire as well as their partnerships with Manchester City Council which has allowed to be one of the main providers of housing in Manchester as well as having an influence on schools through their academies.
All of this to DIRECTLY benefit a state that has a horrendous human rights' record and which the ownership of institutions like Man City helps to legitimise.

American ownership of football clubs has repeatedly come in for criticism - often with the American part of it being front and centre in the criticism - and I'm fine with this as I feel America does enjoy a cultural reputation buoyed by its sports and entertainment which helps it to promote its political capitalist ideology - but the reason City and PSG are currently the most mentioned (if they are) will be because they are very, very rich and skewing football more than anyone has done before.

 

[catcherintherye]

They don't overlap, they are literally the investment arm of the Royal Family. I've never suggested the Glazers don't have a pro-Trump stance or that I like them but in what way are they the same thing?
The UAE has a undemocratically elected government. This is explicitly supported by the various Royal Families of the UAE. To the extent the chairman of City is both the Deputy Prime Minister, a member of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, and the head of the ADUG which works for the Abu Dhabi Royal Family. The intent of the investment authority is to make money for the royal family as well as to create influence globally on a social, political, and financial level. This is working as can be evidenced by the multiple arms of the City empire as well as their partnerships with Manchester City Council which has allowed to be one of the main providers of housing in Manchester as well as having an influence on schools through their academies.
All of this to DIRECTLY benefit a state that has a horrendous human rights' record and which the ownership of institutions like Man City helps to legitimise.

American ownership of football clubs has repeatedly come in for criticism - often with the American part of it being front and centre in the criticism - and I'm fine with this as I feel America does enjoy a cultural reputation buoyed by its sports and entertainment which helps it to promote its political capitalist ideology - but the reason City and PSG are currently the most mentioned (if they are) will be because they are very, very rich and skewing football more than anyone has done before.

I mean, we are both saying similar things. But it has been cmruled by a court that tbe ownership of City is different to the UAE/Qatar so I'm going to stick with that.

I am not sure how City/PSG are skewing football more than anyone else? They didnt skew it more than Houlding did for example.

 

[dead_soft]

I mean, we are both saying similar things. But it has been cmruled by a court that tbe ownership of City is different to the UAE/Qatar so I'm going to stick with that.

I am not sure how City/PSG are skewing football more than anyone else? They didnt skew it more than Houlding did for example.

Surely you see that's wilfully naive? You genuinely don't think that one of the ruling families of the UAE and the Deputy PM of the UAE owning a club might suggest involvement from the state? And I thought all CAS had done was rule that the funding from state-owned organisations was separate from the ownership of the club? You can have two companies owned by the same umbrella organisation operating independently. And, of course, CAS is only an arbitration court - it is not a judicial court.

I've not seen anyone defending Houlding in here, but he's less relevant to now. And it'd be hard to suggest he skewed it to the same extent when he saw the team he owned win one league title who then went on to win another three in the next 43 years. He also created new clubs rather than took existing clubs in order to try and promote a human rights abusing nation state.

 

[catcherintherye]

Surely you see that's wilfully naive? You genuinely don't think that one of the ruling families of the UAE and the Deputy PM of the UAE owning a club might suggest involvement from the state? And I thought all CAS had done was rule that the funding from state-owned organisations was separate from the ownership of the club? You can have two companies owned by the same umbrella organisation operating independently. And, of course, CAS is only an arbitration court - it is not a judicial court.

I've not seen anyone defending Houlding in here, but he's less relevant to now. And it'd be hard to suggest he skewed it to the same extent when he saw the team he owned win one league title who then went on to win another three in the next 43 years. He also created new clubs rather than took existing clubs in order to try and promote a human rights abusing nation state.

Of course CAS is not a Judicial Court, but it is at least a legal court with a greater degree of understanding than I possess so I am happy to defer to its conclusions on this matter.

As for Houlding, I'm not really talking about on here per se. It's not an attack on posters here, or people down tbe pub or whatever. This is more an attack on newspaper editors and prominent journalists who have given very one sided coverage on the City issue. What Citys owners have done in terms of football is not of greater significance than many previous owners have. You would never get that from the coverage though. Which is part of the problem.

I agree there has been some effort to update the reputation of said state. But again, this is a large part of what sponsorship is. Why do you think Nike, or Addidas or Coke associate associate them with football, if not to deflect away from human rights abuses, sweatshops etc etc.

My argument isnt that what UAE do is acceptable, but the behaviours are far more widespread than most of the media acknowledge.

I'm pretty sure Standard Chartered were found guilty of laundering money to criminal orgs as well. I mean theres very little of moral decency in football, and if we are going to be outraged, it needs to be done consistently. Pointing the finger at City while your owner poses for pictures with Donald Trump seems ludicrous to me (which is not aimed at you, but at prominent Kopites who have peddled this nonsense).

 

[stony]

I'm asking for a bit more critical analysis.

And Sheikh Mansour owns City.

What always gets overlooked is the fact he only owns 76%. The other 24% is owned by a Chinese media company and Silver Lake, a private American investment company.

 

[Hello there 1983]

I'm asking for a bit more critical analysis.

And Sheikh Mansour owns City.

Yes Catcher.

Sheik Mansour owns Manchester City- or should we say City Football Group (Mansour owns around 86% of City group) own Manchester City.

Mansour is the deputy Prime Minister and is the half brother of the UAE president.

Now, I'm no detective but come on....let's not be naive here.

City have upset the apple cart because they have spent money like its never been spent before. There is no competition in terms of ownership wealth between the other clubs compared to City.

Yes, other clubs have spent money in the past.. however City are close to spending £1 billion on players under 1 manager.

Again, another reason Pep gets a lot of stick is the fact that he's nearly spent this amount whilst already having the spine of Kompany, Fernandinho, Kevin De Bruyne, Yaya Toure and Aguero.

I don't get why you are so defensive over City....

 

[dead_soft]

Of course CAS is not a Judicial Court, but it is at least a legal court with a greater degree of understanding than I possess so I am happy to defer to its conclusions on this matter.

As for Houlding, I'm not really talking about on here per se. It's not an attack on posters here, or people down tbe pub or whatever. This is more an attack on newspaper editors and prominent journalists who have given very one sided coverage on the City issue. What Citys owners have done in terms of football is not of greater significance than many previous owners have. You would never get that from the coverage though. Which is part of the problem.

I agree there has been some effort to update the reputation of said state. But again, this is a large part of what sponsorship is. Why do you think Nike, or Addidas or Coke associate associate them with football, if not to deflect away from human rights abuses, sweatshops etc etc.

My argument isnt that what UAE do is acceptable, but the behaviours are far more widespread than most of the media acknowledge.

I'm pretty sure Standard Chartered were found guilty of laundering money to criminal orgs as well. I mean theres very little of moral decency in football, and if we are going to be outraged, it needs to be done consistently. Pointing the finger at City while your owner poses for pictures with Donald Trump seems ludicrous to me (which is not aimed at you, but at prominent Kopites who have peddled this nonsense).

The Houlding argument is just pretty groundless, though, it's not comparable, and it'd be odd if today's newspapers were full of exposes about a man who died over 100 years ago

Davids Conn and Goldblatt have been analysing the way power is bought through football since long before the Mansours, there are plenty of fans groups that try and turn clubs away from dodgy sponsorship (Keijan at Everton was one) such as betting companies. I'm really not sure what your argument is - the City and PSG ownerships are called out because they are powerful, directly linked to nation states, and pretty grim. If your argument is that some fans are hypocrites, then yeah, they are and it still doesn't take away from the original point but if your argument is 'you have to put equal weight into everyone you think is bad' then it's nonsense especially when there have been plenty of people calling out Glazers etc.

 

[degsy]

All the fine word above aside...Pep said - "Prove it" and they have the money to pay the Lawyers to back up that statement.
Usually, not every time, but mostly, the people with the most money tend to win these things when Lawyers get involved

 

[catcherintherye]

The Houlding argument is just pretty groundless, though, it's not comparable, and it'd be odd if today's newspapers were full of exposes about a man who died over 100 years ago

Davids Conn and Goldblatt have been analysing the way power is bought through football since long before the Mansours, there are plenty of fans groups that try and turn clubs away from dodgy sponsorship (Keijan at Everton was one) such as betting companies. I'm really not sure what your argument is - the City and PSG ownerships are called out because they are powerful, directly linked to nation states, and pretty grim. If your argument is that some fans are hypocrites, then yeah, they are and it still doesn't take away from the original point but if your argument is 'you have to put equal weight into everyone you think is bad' then it's nonsense especially when there have been plenty of people calling out Glazers etc.

My argument I suppose that the binary good v bad (with City being bad) is far too simplistic. We are dealing with shades of gray with football, and to me it's just not reflected very well within the media.

 

[catcherintherye]

Yes Catcher.

Sheik Mansour owns Manchester City- or should we say City Football Group (Mansour owns around 86% of City group) own Manchester City.

Mansour is the deputy Prime Minister and is the half brother of the UAE president.

Now, I'm no detective but come on....let's not be naive here.

City have upset the apple cart because they have spent money like its never been spent before. There is no competition in terms of ownership wealth between the other clubs compared to City.

Yes, other clubs have spent money in the past.. however City are close to spending £1 billion on players under 1 manager.

Again, another reason Pep gets a lot of stick is the fact that he's nearly spent this amount whilst already having the spine of Kompany, Fernandinho, Kevin De Bruyne, Yaya Toure and Aguero.

I don't get why you are so defensive over City....

With respect though mate, you are re stating old ground. You are re asserting that there are certainly connections between the two, but they are separate entities.

David Cameron sits on all sorts of boards. In the UK you can sit on all sorts of boards as a PM. But that doesnt mean those companies are ran by the British government. I always think it's worth being very clear in what we are saying. Its probably a bit anal from me, but I'm a sticker for that stuff.

As for money being spent, relative to the wider money in football, there have been others who have spent such money. Abramovich for one spent more. Through the 90s United spent similar. In terms of relative spending on clubs, Everton and Liverpool under Houlding spent enormously. Each one of those clubs benefitted from it. In "2021 money" Chelsea spent 2bn across the first 3 seasons.

I have no idea why Pep gets stick really. Every manager inherits a spine. Every manager spends money. Peps spine was actually quite old and needed replacing. I suspect there is some jealousy that he has been so successful, which is understandable.

As for defensive re City, not sure what the insinuation is really. I liked City as a kid (mainly due to Oasis/Johnny Marr) then hated them when they overtook us, and now as we are not a rival I'm not bothered by them. I wouldn't say I'm overly defensive, but I just point out inconsistencies where I see them. I'm a bit of a natural contrarian I think!

 

[catcherintherye]

What always gets overlooked is the fact he only owns 76%. The other 24% is owned by a Chinese media company and Silver Lake, a private American investment company.

No doubt they will be blamed for the crimes of Bolsanaro in Brazil!

 

[derek duvall]

With respect though mate, you are re stating old ground. You are re asserting that there are certainly connections between the two, but they are separate entities.

David Cameron sits on all sorts of boards. In the UK you can sit on all sorts of boards as a PM. But that doesnt mean those companies are ran by the British government. I always think it's worth being very clear in what we are saying. Its probably a bit anal from me, but I'm a sticker for that stuff.

As for money being spent, relative to the wider money in football, there have been others who have spent such money. Abramovich for one spent more. Through the 90s United spent similar. In terms of relative spending on clubs, Everton and Liverpool under Houlding spent enormously. Each one of those clubs benefitted from it. In "2021 money" Chelsea spent 2bn across the first 3 seasons.

I have no idea why Pep gets stick really. Every manager inherits a spine. Every manager spends money. Peps spine was actually quite old and needed replacing. I suspect there is some jealousy that he has been so successful, which is understandable.

As for defensive re City, not sure what the insinuation is really. I liked City as a kid (mainly due to Oasis/Johnny Marr) then hated them when they overtook us, and now as we are not a rival I'm not bothered by them. I wouldn't say I'm overly defensive, but I just point out inconsistencies where I see them. I'm a bit of a natural contrarian I think!

The x2 Chelsea and United teams you mentioned all won the biggest prize in European Football. Until City do the same, Pep will always get stick. That's not from just the Media but from their fanbase too.

 

[catcherintherye]

The x2 Chelsea and United teams you mentioned all won the biggest prize in European Football. Until City do the same, Pep will always get stick. That's not from just the Media but from their fanbase too.

It took Chelsea a long time to do it.

Indeed took Ferguson a long time too.

Everyone will have a different view, but over recent years I would say the CL has become a bit devalued and is not as important as maybe it was between say 1992-2002, or say 2007-15 which felt very much the golden eras for it.

 

[PaddyJames]

Man Citys net spend in the last decade is over a billion quid and they haven't won the champions league yet you're saying any criticism of them isn't warranted and is in-fact racist? Whats your angle here Catcher? City and Chelsea have played a big part in ruining football. City being taken over pushed them in-front of us and kicked us further down the pecking order. Forgive people for not licking their arses

They bottle it year after year, last year being the main example. Skewed his initial tactics by playing reservedly when they'd been sweeping teams aside then didn't have an answer to Tuchel. He deserves praise for cleaning up domestically but criticism for not winning a champions league.

 

[johnjoeefc]

For me guardiola needs to do more to be considered a world class manager. His constant failure to win the champions league is telling. Although domestically he has been very successful, he has done so with the best tools available by a mile.

I think it would be really interesting to see him go somewhere like Arsenal right now and see how he gets on. I dare say he wouldn't do any better than Arteta.

Of course that's my opinion, but his first season at City showed his credentials of how he can handle a squad of players without the depth a half a billion will buy you. It was only from the second season onwards where he got all the players he needed and then some that he started kicking on. Quite handy when your in a tight game and can bring mahrez, de Bruyne and Jesus off the bench. When other teams can bring on players like Tom Davies and Iwobi. Just saying.