Do you accept that Sheikh Mansour is deputy Prime Minister of a regime that commits human rights abuses?
Pull out one post where I said that… I double dare you… Fuck that, I triple dare you.
Are you Sinn Fein supporter yes or no?
I don’t see what that has to do with my championing their policy… I never once mentioned it. Another swing and a miss from you.
He is a deputy prime minister of a regime that has questionable laws within their own regime. Yes. Sharia law is rough mate. It’s their law and always has been.
Should he, as an individual be exempt from living a normal life because he is a member of a government that isn’t one you like?
Do you know what his policies are? Do you know if he has personally committed human rights abuses.
If so, why do you have a picture of your man crush in an UAE sponsored shirt. By your logic Messi supports human rights abuse
Are you a Sinn Fein supporter yes or no.
Swing and a miss…
He’s the head of the government. Not just a member.
He isn’t the head of the government at all
You’re spectacularly I’ll informed on this subject
Questionable laws = human rights abuses? Can you answer my previous question with a yes or no please?
He shouldn’t be allowed to buy a football club that’s been there for over 100 years just to turn it into a propaganda tool for the UAE
Hitler didn’t personally murder however many million Jews mate, that’s a terrible argument
UAE and Qatar aren’t the same thing mate. Qatar Airways do not own Barcelona FC
I operate on the presumption innocent until proven guilty, seems you operate on the presumption of innocent until proven Arab
What is this nonsense? I’ll break it down for you
Is Sheikh Mansour deputy Prime Minister of the UAE?
Does the UAE commit human rights abuses?
It came from the portugese whistleblower pinto who is currently on remand in prison for hacking and bribing in relation to this matter and others.
He is. Allegedly they do. He might be the biggest cunt in the World or he might be internally fighting to make things better. You or I don’t know that. He passed the fit and proper person tests to own football clubs on every continent.
You seem to think he is a monster because he is Arab.
You “support” Newcastle, right? Mike Ashley makes all his money off sweatshops in Asia. Is that not an abuse of human rights, clear and direct.
I say “support” because you don’t really support anything. You decouple yourself from everything, even Tipp hurling because you’re a watery auld cunt
2 Likes
Nonsense. I think the UAE government are monsters because they commit human rights abuses. You seem to be doing a bit of Holocaust denying in this regard
Mike Ashley is a scumbag, I don’t dispute this
I support my club and the Irish national football team
I haven’t denied anything. I haven’t condemned an individual. If he is brought before a court and convicted of human rights abuse, then I’ll postpone my support of MCFC until he is gone. As it stands I’ll continue to support MCFC.
What do you think of FFP?
A consultants’ report written for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi stated that the Abu Dhabi government, not Etihad airlines, was “covering” the sponsorship of Manchester City in 2010, according to a 2015 US aviation industry document.
Uefa’s financial fair play compliance body, the CFCB, banned City from the Champions League for two seasons on Friday and fined the club €30m, having concluded the club was not being truthful in its submissions from 2012-16 that Etihad wholly funded its annual £67.5m sponsorship.
The CFCB investigation and findings followed the publication of internal City emails by the German magazine Der Spiegel in November 2018, which suggested Etihad was not funding the bulk of the sponsorship and that most of the money was being provided by City’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Crown Prince’s brother. In one of the emails City’sthen chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, had sent two invoices internally for the £67.5m 2015‑16 sponsorship, stating that “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG” – Mansour’s company vehicle.
City have furiously rejected the conclusion and suggestion that Etihad did not wholly fund the sponsorship, claiming that the CFCB’s two “chambers” were biased, “flawed,” had prejudged the outcome and had ignored “irrefutable evidence”.
The US aviation industry document was produced in 2015 by the “Partnership for Open and Fair Skies”, an alliance of three major US airlines and aviation staff unions. They were arguing to the US departments of commerce, transportation and state that Etihad was receiving enormous subsidies from the Abu Dhabi government, which, they claimed, distorted fair competition. The document refers to an internal report on Etihad prepared for the Crown Prince, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, by consultants in 2010, which was leaked in 2014 to the Australian Financial Review. The consultants noted, in reference to a list of Etihad’s sponsorships: “Executive Council covers Man City”.
Ramifications of City’s two-year ban may be seismic – not least for Uefa
The Executive Council is in effect the Abu Dhabi governing body and is chaired by the Crown Prince, who is widely considered the most powerful member of the ruling family. The senior business executive and political figure who was appointed to be City’s chairman after Mansour’s 2008 takeover, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, is a member of the Executive Council. He also chairs the Executive Affairs Authority, which advises on Abu Dhabi’s strategy and image, and works principally for the Crown Prince.
Referring to the Etihad sponsorship, the US airlines’ document said: “While Etihad asserts that it funded the $640m [total] cost of the sponsorship of Manchester City ‘from its own liquidity,’ it provides no such evidence and fails to address the contrary evidence that the US airlines submitted on this point: an internal study that [the consultants] prepared for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, which states that the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi – not Etihad – covers the cost. As an internal document that was not intended for public release, [the consultants’] study is particularly probative of the funding’s true source.”
Etihad denied that absolutely in their response to the US airlines’ allegations, submitted to the US departments in May 2015. The Abu Dhabi airline rejected the claim that its huge funding from the Abu Dhabi government represented subsidies and said of the City deal: “The assertion that the Abu Dhabi government paid for Etihad’s sponsorship of English Premier League football club Manchester City is equally false. In 2011 Etihad and Manchester City entered into a 10-year sponsorship agreement, which included naming rights for Manchester City’s stadium. Etihad funded this sponsorship from its own liquidity. It is not uncommon for airlines to have sponsorships with sports teams and their venues.”
Last season’s Champions League quarter-final.
Last season’s Champions League quarter-final. Photograph: Matt McNulty - Manchester City/Manchester City FC via Getty Images
Etihad did not refer in that response to the consultants’ review or explain why the consultants had said “Executive Council covers Man City”.
Following the publication of the internal City emails suggesting Mansour’s own company was heavily subsidising the sponsorship, Etihad responded by saying: “Etihad Airways is proud to have been Manchester City FC’s main club partner since May 2009. The airline’s financial obligations, associated with the partnership of the club and the broader City Football Group, have always been, and remain, the sole liability and responsibility of Etihad Airways. This is reflected in the airline’s audited accounts.”
The airline’s audited accounts are not published but the US document published an apparent copy of the 2013-14 accounts that showed Etihad had accumulated losses of $3.8bn and had drawn down $5bn of loans from the Abu Dhabi government, which had also contributed a further $2.5bn in share capital. The accounts stated Etihad had spent a total of $150m during the year on advertising and promotion, although that was not itemised and the City sponsorship was not specifically referred to.
City have denied throughout that Etihad’s sponsorship is subsidised and said they are to appeal against the Uefa CFCB conclusion and penalty to the court of arbitration for sport.
So I’ll ask you again. Is Sheikh Mansour the deputy Prime Minister of a country which commits human rights abuses?
A good idea way too late. If it came in in the 90s it would work well. It does protect clubs from owners though to a certain extent. If Sheikh Mansour gets bored in the morning and doesn’t pump in his billions and Man City are making massive losses where does that leave them?
So the consultants report is from 2010. They’ve got the contents of the leaked email wrong and the period they said the investigation was from 2012-2016, which is covered by the settlement agreement where UEFA deemed City compliant