Owners

Remove this Banner Ad

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
And nobody ever claimed they were owned by your owner. But they are run by the Abu Dhabi royal family. Your holding company that owns the club is an investment fund for the Abu Dhabi Royal family so the relationship is obvious.
You're either misinformed or simply making things up.

ADUG isn't an investment fund for the Abu Dhabi royal family. Never has been.


Only Man City fans are deluded enough to claim that Sheikh Mansour's control of these state owned entities has no relationship to them all "sponsoring" Manchester City. Your club is effectively a state owned operation of Abu Dhabi even if it isn't officially on paper. Much like Amanda Staveley saying her patterns are the "PIF" and not Saudi Arabia. Yes on paper that is technically true but in reality they are one and the same. And we are seeing that already by Saudi ministers getting involved with the Premier League ruling on related sponsorship rules.
So shall we go by the legal documentation, or just "the vibe".

And I'm not sure why you think Mansour has control over state owned entities. Or is that just the vibe as well?


You've repeatedly tried to claim that this rule only applies to Newcastle if it's brought in. It will apply to all clubs and to suggest otherwise is just not true.


Newcastle have signed a shareholder agreement with the PL that says they will abide by any rule that is voted in by a majority of clubs (14+) and isn't vetoed by the FA so they can have zero complaints if it goes ahead. Man United also will not be able to just load the company up with commercial income from Glazer majority owned businesses so this will affect them just as much as Newcastle.
PMSL
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,860
14,384
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
So West Ham is valued at twice what the Saudis paid for Newcastle? How is that determined?

Neither club owns their ground. Supporter base is in the same ball park. Similar level of prestige. Hammers squad maybe worth £100 million more than Newcastle's. I don't know about the commercial aspects.
 

DBAH0

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
10,356
3,169
Austin, Tejas
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Hammers, Austin FC
So West Ham is valued at twice what the Saudis paid for Newcastle? How is that determined?

Neither club owns their ground. Supporter base is in the same ball park. Similar level of prestige. Hammers squad maybe worth £100 million more than Newcastle's. I don't know about the commercial aspects.
London tax I guess.
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
11,860
14,384
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
London tax I guess.
I remain puzzled why the Saudis didn't buy a better club such as West Ham. There's a better existing squad to work with. It would be easier to attract top players to London than the shitty north-east of England.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
110,525
71,746
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EP
I remain puzzled why the Saudis didn't buy a better club such as West Ham. There's a better existing squad to work with. It would be easier to attract top players to London than the shitty north-east of England.
Cheaper and easier deal to complete I would say. And more of a blank canvas to work with and build the team they want.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,953
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
You're either misinformed or simply making things up.

ADUG isn't an investment fund for the Abu Dhabi royal family. Never has been.
LOL

Screen Shot 2021-10-29 at 10.02.21 am.png


Abu Dhabi investment group is very much an investment fund for the benefit of Sheikh Mansour who is very much a representative of the royal family.


So shall we go by the legal documentation, or just "the vibe".

And I'm not sure why you think Mansour has control over state owned entities. Or is that just the vibe as well?
Lol, you are living in fan denial world.


Screen Shot 2021-10-29 at 10.00.01 am.png




Could have sworn those names seem familiar at Manchester City. Can't quite put my finger on it. Can you? Also nice of Sheikh Mansour to have his Abu Dhabi government national fund invest 2 billion dollars into Silver Lake who coincidentally invested 500 million in his company CFG.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
So you're going with the vibe then I guess.

1. Who is Abu Dhabi Investment Group?
2. ADUG Is Mansours personal investment company, set up specifically for the takeover of the club.
3. Mubadala is a related party, but we don't have any dealings with them, or companies owned and controlled by them.
4. Not sure what you're suggesting with Silverlake? More "the vibe" I guess.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,953
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
So you're going with the vibe then I guess.

1. Who is Abu Dhabi Investment Group?
2. ADUG Is Mansours personal investment company, set up specifically for the takeover of the club.
3. Mubadala is a related party, but we don't have any dealings with them, or companies owned and controlled by them.
4. Not sure what you're suggesting with Silverlake? More "the vibe" I guess.
Lol, more fan denial. Literally only City fans truly believe your club is owned by a private individual and isn't related to the Abu Dhabi government.


Since ADUG is set up for SM who is part of the Abu Dhabi Royal family and nearly all executives are the same as those that run Abu Dhabi Royal family state enterprises it isn't just the vibe, it really is an investment fund for the Abu Dhabi royal family.


The relationships aren't hard to find with your sponsors. Mubadala to Nexen Tyres. Etihad, Etisalat (60% government owned, the same government which the royal family controls).


Silverlake invested 500m into CFG, must just be a coincidence that Sheikh Mansour had the Abu Dhabi investment fund invest 2 billion into Silverlake.


I would have thought with such a supposedly profitable club this far down the track from takeover that only a small amount of commercial income would be coming from Abu Dhabi related businesses because there would be far bigger deals available elsewhere, guess it helps to have the backing of a state behind you and pay you what you need. Suspect this is probably the reason behind abstaining from the related party income rule vote.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
Lol, more fan denial. Literally only City fans truly believe your club is owned by a private individual and isn't related to the Abu Dhabi government.
Well us, and CAS, and the legal documents.

You can think what you like about the ownership of the club but legally it is very clear. And as much as you seem to want to use "the vibe" it doesn't tend to stand up in the courts.

Since ADUG is set up for SM who is part of the Abu Dhabi Royal family and nearly all executives are the same as those that run Abu Dhabi Royal family state enterprises it isn't just the vibe, it really is an investment fund for the Abu Dhabi royal family.
Who are the executives of ADUG? I dont know of anyone but Mansour.


The relationships aren't hard to find with your sponsors. Mubadala to Nexen Tyres. Etihad, Etisalat (60% government owned, the same government which the royal family controls).
Relationships yes, related parties no. Honestly, CAS looked at this in detail and came to this conclusion.

""The majority of the panel finds that Etihad Sponsorship Agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM [Mansour], ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be 'related parties'. The Etihad Sponsorship Agreement were legally binding contracts."

To be fair, they're probably looking at the law, not the vibe.

Silverlake invested 500m into CFG, must just be a coincidence that Sheikh Mansour had the Abu Dhabi investment fund invest 2 billion into Silverlake.
I'm sure it's not a coincidence. Mubadala have had a relationship with Silverlake for years, two massive investment funds.


I would have thought with such a supposedly profitable club this far down the track from takeover that only a small amount of commercial income would be coming from Abu Dhabi related businesses because there would be far bigger deals available elsewhere, guess it helps to have the backing of a state behind you and pay you what you need. Suspect this is probably the reason behind abstaining from the related party income rule vote.
More vibe over substance.

The reason we abstained according to the papers was because we thought the proposed law was illegal and we didn't like the way it was put together with such haste.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,953
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Well us, and CAS, and the legal documents.

You can think what you like about the ownership of the club but legally it is very clear. And as much as you seem to want to use "the vibe" it doesn't tend to stand up in the courts.



Who are the executives of ADUG? I dont know of anyone but Mansour.




Relationships yes, related parties no. Honestly, CAS looked at this in detail and came to this conclusion.

""The majority of the panel finds that Etihad Sponsorship Agreements are presumed to be negotiated at fair value and that MCFC, HHSM [Mansour], ADUG and Etihad are considered not to be 'related parties'. The Etihad Sponsorship Agreement were legally binding contracts."

To be fair, they're probably looking at the law, not the vibe.



I'm sure it's not a coincidence. Mubadala have had a relationship with Silverlake for years, two massive investment funds.




More vibe over substance.

The reason we abstained according to the papers was because we thought the proposed law was illegal and we didn't like the way it was put together with such haste.
Ha ha ha ha. So the other 18 clubs didnt think the same if they were truly concerns?

Lets be realistic here the reason for abstaining is City dont want the Abu Dhabi revenue tap limited for future commercial revenue.

Im not talking about IAS24, suspect a new PL rule wont be based on that but rather real relationships and real influence over revenue dealings.
 
Last edited:

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
Ha ha ha ha. So the other 18 clubs didnt think the same if they were truly concerns?

Lets be realistic here the reason for abstaining is City dont want the Abu Dhabi revenue tap turned off for future commercial revenue.

Im not talking about IAS24, suspect a new PL rule wont be based on that but rather real relationships and real influence over revenue dealings.
The league may well look to change their rules on related party transactions. UEFA changed theirs, from memory you can't have more than 30% of your revenue from a particular country (presumably UK doesn't apply).

I think they'll struggle to piece together a legally binding definition that achieves what it wants but time will tell.

And it would be telling that in order to make our sponsorship deals related party transactions the league would have to totally rewrite the rules. Maybe a.small concession there that after 10 years and countless posts suggesting they were related party transactions that you got it wrong.

As for the reasons we abstained, you can go down the vibe route again if you like. I suspect if we thought our deals were at risk we would have fought a bit harder, even for a temporary rule change.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,261
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
So West Ham is valued at twice what the Saudis paid for Newcastle? How is that determined?

Neither club owns their ground. Supporter base is in the same ball park. Similar level of prestige. Hammers squad maybe worth £100 million more than Newcastle's. I don't know about the commercial aspects.
Even a ground on a long term lease is considered an asset, and West Hams would be worth a bit.

What's happened to the old ground? Does the club still own it? If so, it'd be worth a fair bit to a potential owner.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad