The other side of the coin - Re:Al Makhtoum

[Neil Young]

Has everyone gone blind? Maktoum is a monarch who jointly runs a kleptocratic confederation. He inherited his position and his wealth. Yes he seems to be a good businessman but then so is Rupert Murdoch and, arguably, Roman Abramovich, both of whom get a fairly regular slating on here. Just because he's now "our" multi-billionaire doesn't mean his hands are clean.

Hyde wrote:

Liverpool...supporters have a strong claim to be the very guardians of the kind of roots-up passion and solidarity that is the best of English football.

I am not saying that there won't be good to come out of any investment by DIC but there is a downside too. In our haste to compete more effectively with Chelsea and Man Utd, can't we mourn the loss of part of the club's soul?

[dom9]

Well said Neil

[SouthAfricaRed]

Sainthood and wealth dont go together

I'm the Perfect Example - I'm a F@#$%&g Saint and always Broke

[tomasjj]

Has everyone gone blind? Maktoum is a monarch who jointly runs a kleptocratic confederation. He inherited his position and his wealth. Yes he seems to be a good businessman but then so is Rupert Murdoch and, arguably, Roman Abramovich, both of whom get a fairly regular slating on here. Just because he's now "our" multi-billionaire doesn't mean his hands are clean.

Hyde wrote:


I am not saying that there won't be good to come out of any investment by DIC but there is a downside too. In our haste to compete more effectively with Chelsea and Man Utd, can't we mourn the loss of part of the club's soul?

It is quite sad for the romantic in us, but then again, we were one of the richest clubs in the league when we were dominating in the 70s-80s. And surely this period and our achievements then are also entrenched in our clubs soul, values and and are fundamental parts of our history. The romantic part of us, and I certainly have that side in me too, tend to forget that and remember the good old days as the times when money didn't run the game. It did, but to a lesser extent.

So, I guess we have to ask ourselves what we want and how much we want it.

Do we want to continue to be a big club and to adapt to the fact that football is now a huge business, mainly dominated by money and multinationals and the ideology and principles that follow, or to stay locally owned and most probably drift into midtable, cause that is what I think will happen in 5 years time if we dont get a new stadium as a revenue base.

I think it the economic climate and competitiveness of modern football makes it harder to sustain "the Liverpool Way" and the values attached to that, but my hope is that we manage to keep some of those values even if we get new ownership, a new stadium and more money. Thankfully the new stadium will be built in the Anfield area.

So, like Neil says...some goods and some bads. Like most things in life.

[Guest]

It is quite sad for the romantic in us, but then again, we were one of the richest clubs in the league when we were dominating in the 70s-80s. And surely this period and our achievements then are also entrenched in our clubs soul, values and and are fundamental parts of our history. The romantic part of us, and I certainly have that side in me too, tend to forget that and remember the good old days as the times when money didn't run the game. It did, but to a lesser extent.

So, I guess we have to ask ourselves what we want and how much we want it.

Do we want to continue to be a big club and to adapt to the fact that football is now a huge business, mainly dominated by money and multinationals and the ideology and principles that follow, or to stay locally owned and most probably drift into midtable, cause that is what I think will happen in 5 years time if we dont get a new stadium as a revenue base.

I think it the economic climate and competitiveness of modern football makes it harder to sustain "the Liverpool Way" and the values attached to that, but my hope is that we manage to keep some of those values even if we get new ownership, a new stadium and more money. Thankfully the new stadium will be built in the Anfield area.

So, like Neil says...some goods and some bads. Like most things in life.

Good post tomasj. Glad you're posting here now mate.

[tomasjj]

Good post tomasj. Glad you're posting here now mate.

Cheers for that.

I am sure the issue is debatable though...on both accounts.

[Redspin]

To be fair, i think she has a point there mate. Yes we're Liverpool supporters, but we shouldn't be blinded by facts such as the boycott of Israeli soldiers. How would Israeli LFC fans think about that whole issue ? I bet they may be deeply troubled by that. It's not about raking in money and winning, winning and winning ... There are more things more important than footie in life.

And i'm serious ...

It should also be remembered that the Israeli economy relies very heavily on low-wage abuse of under-age arabs. Their agriculture would certainly collapse without this widespread abuse of a group of people with no rights

[BobSkinstad]

Has everyone gone blind? Maktoum is a monarch who jointly runs a kleptocratic confederation.

Please explain how the U.A.E. is a kleptocracy.

He inherited his position and his wealth. Yes he seems to be a good businessman but then so is Rupert Murdoch and, arguably, Roman Abramovich, both of whom get a fairly regular slating on here.

How the f*ck is raping your own country of its resources via a corrupt "privatisation" process and buggering off to launder the money abroad being "a good businessman"?

[Neil Young]

Please explain how the U.A.E. is a kleptocracy.



How the f*ck is raping your own country of its resources via a corrupt "privatisation" process and buggering off to launder the money abroad being "a good businessman"?

I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of spouting balderdash.

Maktoum's position in Dubai is inherited and, as I understand it, his position in the UAE is as based on that. His wealth derives from his position and I'd argue that all such monarchies are kleptocratic to some degree.

Arguably Abramovich saw a business opportunity and took it. Personally, of course, like you I think it's totally immoral and disgusting but don't you think it's possible that his behaviour is not different in kind to many others in business, but perhaps merely different in degree?

My post was not intended in any way to justify Abramovich or to suggest that there are no differences between Maktoum and him. However, I do feel there is a danger of some of us ignoring legitimate concerns about the nature of our prospective new owner which they would not do if he were investing elsewhere.

[BobSkinstad]

I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of spouting balderdash. .

Ha ha, them were the days.

Maktoum's position in Dubai is inherited and, as I understand it, his position in the UAE is as based on that. His wealth derives from his position and I'd argue that all such monarchies are kleptocratic to some degree.

Without really wanting to get into the merits or otherwise of hereditary monarchies, I understood a kleptocracy to be a society run with its management primarily aimed at sustaining the wealth of those in power, the unspoken other side of that particular coin being that the interests of the general populace are at best subordinated to that and at worst ignored. I don't think the UAE falls into that category.

Arguably Abramovich saw a business opportunity and took it. Personally, of course, like you I think it's totally immoral and disgusting but don't you think it's possible that his behaviour is not different in kind to many others in business, but perhaps merely different in degree?.

Absolutely not, and I disagree strongly with that. In Russia post 1991 the government wholeheartedly embraced and encouraged corruption to enrich themselves and a small band of their mates. There is a difference between (i) making money in the process of stimulating business development and growth in the region where one operates and (ii) putting what is already there into your pocket. Abramovich and his ilk did the latter and phenomena like that should be a complete and utter embarrassment for anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity as not only were/are his (and his mates') activities detrimental to any post-1991 "reforms", the international image is that it is absolutely fine for such individuals to shamelessly enjoy the spoils of endemic government-level corruption with the tacit approval (and involvement) of those currently in power.

My post was not intended in any way to justify Abramovich or to suggest that there are no differences between Maktoum and him. However, I do feel there is a danger of some of us ignoring legitimate concerns about the nature of our prospective new owner which they would not do if he were investing elsewhere.

That is entirely fair and legitimate. I do think it's important to remember that it's not the Sheikh personally who is coming in, though, but a private equity firm, even if it is owned by the state.

[Neil Young]

Without really wanting to get into the merits or otherwise of hereditary monarchies, I understood a kleptocracy to be a society run with its management primarily aimed at sustaining the wealth of those in power, the unspoken other side of that particular coin being that the interests of the general populace are at best subordinated to that and at worst ignored. I don't think the UAE falls into that category.

It's a such fine line. Perhaps the UAE isn't primarily aimed at sustaining the wealth of the ruling elite but it just happens to a fortunate by-product of the regime, eh? When they formed from the Trucial States I thought they deliberately chose a form of government that would sustain their power, er, sorry, I meant of course, retain the best aspects of traditional forms of government.

Absolutely not, and I disagree strongly with that. In Russia post 1991 the government wholeheartedly embraced and encouraged corruption to enrich themselves and a small band of their mates. There is a difference between (i) making money in the process of stimulating business development and growth in the region where one operates and (ii) putting what is already there into your pocket. Abramovich and his ilk did the latter and phenomena like that should be a complete and utter embarrassment for anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity as not only were/are his (and his mates') activities detrimental to any post-1991 "reforms", the international image is that it is absolutely fine for such individuals to shamelessly enjoy the spoils of endemic government-level corruption with the tacit approval (and involvement) of those currently in power.

Yes, but again it depends on where you draw the line. You know full well that, say, Rupert Murdoch wields political power in order to further his own commercial interests - politicians kowtow to him, seek his favour and, at the very least, are careful to avoid losing his support. That's undemocractic and corrupt too, isn't it? Yet, the system allows it to continue. Again, I agree that Abramovich and the other oligarchs are highly immoral but I can't help thinking that that is the nature of oligarchs. I mean, if Abramovich hadn't appeared out of nowhere but instead have been born into a position of power and privilege then maybe he wouldn't have need to plunder his country because his ancestors would have done it for him.

That is entirely fair and legitimate. I do think it's important to remember that it's not the Sheikh personally who is coming in, though, but a private equity firm, even if it is owned by the state.

OK, fair point - once more though, it's such a fine line.

[BobSkinstad]

It's a such fine line. Perhaps the UAE isn't primarily aimed at sustaining the wealth of the ruling elite but it just happens to a fortunate by-product of the regime, eh? When they formed from the Trucial States I thought they deliberately chose a form of government that would sustain their power, er, sorry, I meant of course, retain the best aspects of traditional forms of government.

They were hardly gonna concede power voluntarily though, were they? And what would be the point in dismantling the political structure as it is and installing a democracy when the place runs just fine at the moment? A kleptocracy is bad because the needs of the population are ignored while the rulers just look after themselves. That ain't the case in the UAE.

Yes, but again it depends on where you draw the line. You know full well that, say, Rupert Murdoch wields political power in order to further his own commercial interests - politicians kowtow to him, seek his favour and, at the very least, are careful to avoid losing his support. That's undemocractic and corrupt too, isn't it? Yet, the system allows it to continue. Again, I agree that Abramovich and the other oligarchs are highly immoral but I can't help thinking that that is the nature of oligarchs. I mean, if Abramovich hadn't appeared out of nowhere but instead have been born into a position of power and privilege then maybe he wouldn't have need to plunder his country because his ancestors would have done it for him.

Murdoch doesn't get everything his own way (he wasn't allowed to take over the Mancs, for example) and as far as I know he did not rape Australia of its resources and do his best to cripple its economy before sauntering off to launder the money abroad. Abramovich on the other hand should be in prison for what he did.

[captainfog]

Any uber wealthy businessman will have skeletons in their closet. It's a fact of life. Even in relatively small businesses in the UK the big cheeses will have trodden on people to get where they are. The bigger and wealthier the company the bigger the stamping (so to speak)

I am not justifying this in any way shape or form, but the fact remains if we are to secure investment then no matter who that investment is from there will be something shady in their past.

As far as I'm concerned as long as those misdemeanours stay in the past and do not impinge on our football club then I am able deal with it.

With the likes of our shake and his family - Dubai I would have thought would have been a very different place 20, 30 or 40 years ago than it is now and I believe we should trust in Moores to find us a safe pair of hands to look after us - Christ he's been weighing up the options for long enough.

[Neil Young]

They were hardly gonna concede power voluntarily though, were they? And what would be the point in dismantling the political structure as it is and installing a democracy when the place runs just fine at the moment? A kleptocracy is bad because the needs of the population are ignored while the rulers just look after themselves. That ain't the case in the UAE.

Well, them not abandoning power was pretty much my point. And maybe they should have abandoned undemocratic forms of government like the US and UK so frequently urge others these days. Anyway, I do think that monarchs effectively steal from the people. I don't mind withdrawing the kleptocracy accusation but I'll retain the charge of it being kleptocratic in nature. So, we can draw a fine line in between there if you like.

Murdoch doesn't get everything his own way (he wasn't allowed to take over the Mancs, for example) and as far as I know he did not rape Australia of its resources and do his best to cripple its economy before sauntering off to launder the money abroad. Abramovich on the other hand should be in prison for what he did.

I don't suppose Abramovich gets everything his own way either - he, like Murdoch, is an oligarch not a monarch or dictator. Besides, maybe we should use ideas of shifting hegemony when analysing the links between political and economic elites. I, like you, would actually draw a line between Abramovich and Murdoch because what Abramovich has done to build up his wealth and power is worse than what Murdoch has done. That doesn't indicate a difference in kind to me though. Also, Abramovich's actions would clearly be against the law in many countries. Were they in Russia? If not, then wouldn't other buisinesspeople have acted in the same way. If so, then did his political connections help him get away with it? Isn't that similar to what happens elsewhere? I think you might find plenty of blue chip companies who behave in other countries in quite immoral ways that over here would be considered illegal. Bribery among arms manufacturers, oil companies' actions in Africa and elsewhere...

[Neil Young]

Any uber wealthy businessman will have skeletons in their closet. It's a fact of life. Even in relatively small businesses in the UK the big cheeses will have trodden on people to get where they are. The bigger and wealthier the company the bigger the stamping (so to speak)

I am not justifying this in any way shape or form, but the fact remains if we are to secure investment then no matter who that investment is from there will be something shady in their past.

As far as I'm concerned as long as those misdemeanours stay in the past and do not impinge on our football club then I am able deal with it.

With the likes of our shake and his family - Dubai I would have thought would have been a very different place 20, 30 or 40 years ago than it is now and I believe we should trust in Moores to find us a safe pair of hands to look after us - Christ he's been weighing up the options for long enough.

I agree with much of that.