They already had a close relationship with the UK. How aren’t you getting this?
And you’re really not one to be calling out bad faith given you keep getting banned, returning and pretending to a support a different club, to just start bad faith, obtuse and contrarian arguments with people.
Oh right you're attacking me, now. Show you how bad faith I am, I'll just filter.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where’s the criminal court case over Mansours investment in Barclays?! You might want to do a bit of reading and realise you’ve both got the wrong country there and also who was actually accused between them and Barclays …
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe you should stop be disingenous, both Qatar and Abu Dhabi were part of the investment that people had to go to court for authorising
There was also a big civil case against PCP too for the same thing.
Once again where are the court cases over the sale of Manchester City exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying facts isn’t being disingenuous, that’s entirely what you’re doing and then projecting. There was no criminal case against Mansours investment, it was entirely against Barclays and to do with the deal they did with Qataris and you know that. Saying where’s the criminal case against City then just makes you look like a complete idiot. What do you even think would be the comparative to mean there would be a criminal case brought against Mansours purchase of city?! He’d be the claimant in that scenario anyway!
Literally an hour ago on this thread when people said Mansour didn’t invest in city to get in with UK politicians, it was for local infrastructure, you argued against it. That now seems to be your main argument.
Of course you didn't click on the link because you're just here to promote your seriously stupid position that sportswashing doesn't exist and have too big an ego to realise what a dumb position it is.
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
And you’re really not one to be calling out bad faith given you keep getting banned, returning and pretending to a support a different club, to just start bad faith, obtuse and contrarian arguments with people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who’s the poster?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
Saying where’s the criminal case against City then just makes you look like a complete idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me just quote myself then
"Where's the criminal court cases over the purchase of Manchester City then?"
Did I say there was one against City no.
But there was a criminal court case over the purchase of Barclays shares by Abu Dhabi
hope that's clear, idiot.
Top Form. He’s had a few different accounts with different names, pretending to support different clubs.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
Saying where’s the criminal case against City then just makes you look like a complete idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me just quote myself then
"Where's the criminal court cases over the purchase of Manchester City then?"
Did I say there was one against City no.
But there was a criminal court case over the purchase of Barclays shares by Abu Dhabi
hope that's clear, idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No there clearly wasn’t and the court case that did happen, who was the accused? And in that scenario, how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Top Form. He’s had a few different accounts with different names, pretending to support different clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, never really came across him. Quite enjoying him as a distraction while my daughters got the tv!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
---------------------------
No there clearly wasn’t and the court case that did happen, who was the accused? And in that scenario, how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi is listed in the court judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/sfo-v-barclays-judgment-12-11-18.pdf
So yes there clearly was, and clearly you should stop putting words in my mouth and rewriting facts.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Top Form. He’s had a few different accounts with different names, pretending to support different clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, never really came across him. Quite enjoying him as a distraction while my daughters got the tv!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you claimed there was more uproar over the purchase of City than there were over the purchase of barclays shares by abu dhabi
More uproar than a only time in history there's been jury involved in criminal case against bankers for selling them to Abu Dhabi then?
Laughable
"Amanda Staveley earned an astonishing £30 million fee for her role in helping to secure Abu Dhabi’s £3.5 billion investment in Barclays in 2008, a deal on which Sheikh Mansour made a profit of more than £3 billion. Euromoney reveals the extraordinary tale behind that trade, the battle for £110 million in fees paid by Barclays to Mansour, and just how close-run a deal which saved the bank from part-nationalization was – which is currently the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office"
But apparently there was no court case over this and I'm an idiot
https://www.euromoney.com/article/b12kjth9h0p0xf/revealed-the-truth-about-barclays-and-the-abu-dhabi-investment
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
---------------------------
No there clearly wasn’t and the court case that did happen, who was the accused? And in that scenario, how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi is listed in the court judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/sfo-v-barclays-judgment-12-11-18.pdf
So yes there clearly was, and clearly you should stop putting words in my mouth and rewriting facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty unusual for someone to post the proof they’re wrong so thanks for that!
Have you actually read that link or did you just google Abu Dhabi and Barclays judgement? They’re referenced, not listed, the agreements that the judgment is about is entirely about Qatar. You only really need to read the first few pages.
Just for sh/ts and giggles though, even if it was Abu Dhabi, how does that lead to your question about why wasn’t there a criminal case about Mansour buying City? That still makes absolutely no sense even with you being wrong about the first point anyway.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you claimed there was more uproar over the purchase of City than there were over the purchase of barclays shares by abu dhabi
More uproar than a only time in history there's been jury involved in criminal case against bankers for selling them to Abu Dhabi then?
Laughable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty unusual for someone to post the proof they’re wrong so thanks for that!
Have you actually read that link or did you just google Abu Dhabi and Barclays judgement? They’re referenced, not listed, the agreements that the judgment is about is entirely about Qatar. You only really need to read the first few pages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL just go to the "facts" mansours investment is listed under CR2.
Just for sh/ts and giggles where's your criminal case over the purchase of city which apparently caused more uproar, and also how did you let yourself get sportswashed into defending your monarchy dictator owners if you're so smart?
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty unusual for someone to post the proof they’re wrong so thanks for that!
Have you actually read that link or did you just google Abu Dhabi and Barclays judgement? They’re referenced, not listed, the agreements that the judgment is about is entirely about Qatar. You only really need to read the first few pages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL just go to the "facts" mansours investment is listed under CR2.
Just for sh/ts and giggles where's your criminal case over the purchase of city which apparently caused more uproar, and also how did you let yourself get sportswashed into defending your monarchy dictator owners if you're so smart?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So now you’ve at least tried to read it and just not understood it, it’s progress at least CR2 is the capital raising (the clues in the initials&hellip, the agreements are ASA1 and 2 and it directly references who they were with multiple times in that judgement.
Your point earlier in the thread was Mansour buying Barclays caused more uproar than him buying City. I’ll put your own words back to you - “ people don't care about football clubs, which is why he can come along and buy one, but gets uproar for taking a stake in barclays”
There was no uproar aside from Barclays shareholders when he did that. When Mansour bought city and ever since, there’s been uproar from a far bigger community.
And on your last point, I already said earlier in the thread that the human rights record of the UAE is a stain on our club. I’m not defending him in that context and never will do (although I would argue he’s progressive compared to others in the region, but that’s another discussion). What I also won’t do is support a false narrative to do the opposite either though.
Anyway, I’ve got the tv back now though and my boredom isn’t at sufficient levels to debate with someone that posts things that proves their own point is wrong and seemingly doesn’t even bother to read them before they post it to realise that, so I’ll leave you to it now
So what are the facts which have led to this proposed prosecution of Barclays?
In June 2008, a capital raising (CR1) undertaken by Barclays secured £4.4 billion. A
subsequent capital raising (CR2) in November 2008 secured a total of £6.8 billion.
So far as CR1 and CR2 are concerned, it is the SFO’s case that the true position was
very different from that being publicly stated and warranted in the respective
Prospectuses and Subscription Agreements
---
CR1 was Qatar, CR2 included Mansours investment.
can't believe you have this much love for Mansour to deny there was a criminal case involving his investment in barclays.
There was no uproar aside from Barclays shareholders when he did that. When Mansour bought city and ever since, there’s been uproar from a far bigger community.
---
Basically what this comes down to is the fact you think football fans made a bigger uproar.
Mansour -> Dodgy investment in barclays -> criminal case
Mansour -> Dodgy purchase of Manchester land -> Local Politicians Defend him
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
What I also won’t do is support a false narrative to do the opposite either though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've gone further than that, you've invented a few on here.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
So what are the facts which have led to this proposed prosecution of Barclays?
In June 2008, a capital raising (CR1) undertaken by Barclays secured £4.4 billion. A
subsequent capital raising (CR2) in November 2008 secured a total of £6.8 billion.
So far as CR1 and CR2 are concerned, it is the SFO’s case that the true position was
very different from that being publicly stated and warranted in the respective
Prospectuses and Subscription Agreements
---
CR1 was Qatar, CR2 included Mansours investment.
can't believe you have this much love for Mansour to deny there was a criminal case involving his investment in barclays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you’ve tempted me one more time did you read the paragraphs you took those quotes from? Who would be the sleighted party in that context?
You know there’s only me and you talking on this thread and given you posted the link, anyone can just actually read the judgment themselves?
I mean normally people post with ambiguity, you seem to be posting to intentionally make yourself look stupid? It’s intriguing, I’ll give you that!
Melton
The point at which Manchester City Council are prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of large amounts of brownfield land, is the point at which you can claim there was an equivalent uproar to Barclays directors being prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of Barclays shares.
Up until that point, a few football fans stamping their foot but holding nobody accountable for allowing this to happen doesn't cut it.
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 57 seconds ago
Melton
The point at which Manchester City Council are prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of large amounts of brownfield land, is the point at which you can claim there was an equivalent uproar to Barclays directors being prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of Barclays shares.
Up until that point, a few football fans stamping their foot but holding nobody accountable for allowing this to happen doesn't cut it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that’s a perfect point to leave it Cheers old evertonian.
Sign in if you want to comment
Relegation odds for next season. Laugh @ PL
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 23/5/24
They already had a close relationship with the UK. How aren’t you getting this?
posted on 23/5/24
And you’re really not one to be calling out bad faith given you keep getting banned, returning and pretending to a support a different club, to just start bad faith, obtuse and contrarian arguments with people.
posted on 23/5/24
Oh right you're attacking me, now. Show you how bad faith I am, I'll just filter.
posted on 23/5/24
🎻
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where’s the criminal court case over Mansours investment in Barclays?! You might want to do a bit of reading and realise you’ve both got the wrong country there and also who was actually accused between them and Barclays …
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe you should stop be disingenous, both Qatar and Abu Dhabi were part of the investment that people had to go to court for authorising
There was also a big civil case against PCP too for the same thing.
Once again where are the court cases over the sale of Manchester City exactly?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying facts isn’t being disingenuous, that’s entirely what you’re doing and then projecting. There was no criminal case against Mansours investment, it was entirely against Barclays and to do with the deal they did with Qataris and you know that. Saying where’s the criminal case against City then just makes you look like a complete idiot. What do you even think would be the comparative to mean there would be a criminal case brought against Mansours purchase of city?! He’d be the claimant in that scenario anyway!
Literally an hour ago on this thread when people said Mansour didn’t invest in city to get in with UK politicians, it was for local infrastructure, you argued against it. That now seems to be your main argument.
posted on 23/5/24
Of course you didn't click on the link because you're just here to promote your seriously stupid position that sportswashing doesn't exist and have too big an ego to realise what a dumb position it is.
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
And you’re really not one to be calling out bad faith given you keep getting banned, returning and pretending to a support a different club, to just start bad faith, obtuse and contrarian arguments with people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who’s the poster?
posted on 23/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
Saying where’s the criminal case against City then just makes you look like a complete idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me just quote myself then
"Where's the criminal court cases over the purchase of Manchester City then?"
Did I say there was one against City no.
But there was a criminal court case over the purchase of Barclays shares by Abu Dhabi
hope that's clear, idiot.
posted on 23/5/24
Top Form. He’s had a few different accounts with different names, pretending to support different clubs.
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
Saying where’s the criminal case against City then just makes you look like a complete idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me just quote myself then
"Where's the criminal court cases over the purchase of Manchester City then?"
Did I say there was one against City no.
But there was a criminal court case over the purchase of Barclays shares by Abu Dhabi
hope that's clear, idiot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No there clearly wasn’t and the court case that did happen, who was the accused? And in that scenario, how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Top Form. He’s had a few different accounts with different names, pretending to support different clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, never really came across him. Quite enjoying him as a distraction while my daughters got the tv!
posted on 23/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
---------------------------
No there clearly wasn’t and the court case that did happen, who was the accused? And in that scenario, how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi is listed in the court judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/sfo-v-barclays-judgment-12-11-18.pdf
So yes there clearly was, and clearly you should stop putting words in my mouth and rewriting facts.
posted on 23/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Darren The String Fletcher (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
Top Form. He’s had a few different accounts with different names, pretending to support different clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, never really came across him. Quite enjoying him as a distraction while my daughters got the tv!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 23/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you claimed there was more uproar over the purchase of City than there were over the purchase of barclays shares by abu dhabi
More uproar than a only time in history there's been jury involved in criminal case against bankers for selling them to Abu Dhabi then?
Laughable
posted on 23/5/24
"Amanda Staveley earned an astonishing £30 million fee for her role in helping to secure Abu Dhabi’s £3.5 billion investment in Barclays in 2008, a deal on which Sheikh Mansour made a profit of more than £3 billion. Euromoney reveals the extraordinary tale behind that trade, the battle for £110 million in fees paid by Barclays to Mansour, and just how close-run a deal which saved the bank from part-nationalization was – which is currently the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office"
But apparently there was no court case over this and I'm an idiot
https://www.euromoney.com/article/b12kjth9h0p0xf/revealed-the-truth-about-barclays-and-the-abu-dhabi-investment
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
---------------------------
No there clearly wasn’t and the court case that did happen, who was the accused? And in that scenario, how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Dhabi is listed in the court judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/sfo-v-barclays-judgment-12-11-18.pdf
So yes there clearly was, and clearly you should stop putting words in my mouth and rewriting facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty unusual for someone to post the proof they’re wrong so thanks for that!
Have you actually read that link or did you just google Abu Dhabi and Barclays judgement? They’re referenced, not listed, the agreements that the judgment is about is entirely about Qatar. You only really need to read the first few pages.
Just for sh/ts and giggles though, even if it was Abu Dhabi, how does that lead to your question about why wasn’t there a criminal case about Mansour buying City? That still makes absolutely no sense even with you being wrong about the first point anyway.
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
how do you think your question that you quote yourself there make any sense whatsoever?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you claimed there was more uproar over the purchase of City than there were over the purchase of barclays shares by abu dhabi
More uproar than a only time in history there's been jury involved in criminal case against bankers for selling them to Abu Dhabi then?
Laughable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
lol!
posted on 23/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty unusual for someone to post the proof they’re wrong so thanks for that!
Have you actually read that link or did you just google Abu Dhabi and Barclays judgement? They’re referenced, not listed, the agreements that the judgment is about is entirely about Qatar. You only really need to read the first few pages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL just go to the "facts" mansours investment is listed under CR2.
Just for sh/ts and giggles where's your criminal case over the purchase of city which apparently caused more uproar, and also how did you let yourself get sportswashed into defending your monarchy dictator owners if you're so smart?
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s pretty unusual for someone to post the proof they’re wrong so thanks for that!
Have you actually read that link or did you just google Abu Dhabi and Barclays judgement? They’re referenced, not listed, the agreements that the judgment is about is entirely about Qatar. You only really need to read the first few pages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL just go to the "facts" mansours investment is listed under CR2.
Just for sh/ts and giggles where's your criminal case over the purchase of city which apparently caused more uproar, and also how did you let yourself get sportswashed into defending your monarchy dictator owners if you're so smart?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So now you’ve at least tried to read it and just not understood it, it’s progress at least CR2 is the capital raising (the clues in the initials&hellip, the agreements are ASA1 and 2 and it directly references who they were with multiple times in that judgement.
Your point earlier in the thread was Mansour buying Barclays caused more uproar than him buying City. I’ll put your own words back to you - “ people don't care about football clubs, which is why he can come along and buy one, but gets uproar for taking a stake in barclays”
There was no uproar aside from Barclays shareholders when he did that. When Mansour bought city and ever since, there’s been uproar from a far bigger community.
And on your last point, I already said earlier in the thread that the human rights record of the UAE is a stain on our club. I’m not defending him in that context and never will do (although I would argue he’s progressive compared to others in the region, but that’s another discussion). What I also won’t do is support a false narrative to do the opposite either though.
Anyway, I’ve got the tv back now though and my boredom isn’t at sufficient levels to debate with someone that posts things that proves their own point is wrong and seemingly doesn’t even bother to read them before they post it to realise that, so I’ll leave you to it now
posted on 23/5/24
So what are the facts which have led to this proposed prosecution of Barclays?
In June 2008, a capital raising (CR1) undertaken by Barclays secured £4.4 billion. A
subsequent capital raising (CR2) in November 2008 secured a total of £6.8 billion.
So far as CR1 and CR2 are concerned, it is the SFO’s case that the true position was
very different from that being publicly stated and warranted in the respective
Prospectuses and Subscription Agreements
---
CR1 was Qatar, CR2 included Mansours investment.
can't believe you have this much love for Mansour to deny there was a criminal case involving his investment in barclays.
posted on 23/5/24
There was no uproar aside from Barclays shareholders when he did that. When Mansour bought city and ever since, there’s been uproar from a far bigger community.
---
Basically what this comes down to is the fact you think football fans made a bigger uproar.
Mansour -> Dodgy investment in barclays -> criminal case
Mansour -> Dodgy purchase of Manchester land -> Local Politicians Defend him
posted on 23/5/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
What I also won’t do is support a false narrative to do the opposite either though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've gone further than that, you've invented a few on here.
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 2 minutes ago
So what are the facts which have led to this proposed prosecution of Barclays?
In June 2008, a capital raising (CR1) undertaken by Barclays secured £4.4 billion. A
subsequent capital raising (CR2) in November 2008 secured a total of £6.8 billion.
So far as CR1 and CR2 are concerned, it is the SFO’s case that the true position was
very different from that being publicly stated and warranted in the respective
Prospectuses and Subscription Agreements
---
CR1 was Qatar, CR2 included Mansours investment.
can't believe you have this much love for Mansour to deny there was a criminal case involving his investment in barclays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh you’ve tempted me one more time did you read the paragraphs you took those quotes from? Who would be the sleighted party in that context?
You know there’s only me and you talking on this thread and given you posted the link, anyone can just actually read the judgment themselves?
I mean normally people post with ambiguity, you seem to be posting to intentionally make yourself look stupid? It’s intriguing, I’ll give you that!
posted on 23/5/24
Melton
The point at which Manchester City Council are prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of large amounts of brownfield land, is the point at which you can claim there was an equivalent uproar to Barclays directors being prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of Barclays shares.
Up until that point, a few football fans stamping their foot but holding nobody accountable for allowing this to happen doesn't cut it.
posted on 23/5/24
comment by Old_Evertonian (U23158)
posted 57 seconds ago
Melton
The point at which Manchester City Council are prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of large amounts of brownfield land, is the point at which you can claim there was an equivalent uproar to Barclays directors being prosecuted for facilitating Mansour's dodgy purchase of Barclays shares.
Up until that point, a few football fans stamping their foot but holding nobody accountable for allowing this to happen doesn't cut it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And that’s a perfect point to leave it Cheers old evertonian.
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7