The mancityfans.net football forum

Fella on the today programme just now said that as well as this story, there is the inference that bribes may have been paid to our very own sheikh:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... investment

I suppose it's better than Amnesty International being aghast at our owner - or is that the follow Panorama

Dunnylad wrote:I suppose it's better than Amnesty International being aghast at our owner - or is that the follow Panorama

all that info has been out for years mate. we had a vote and decided it didn't matter :)

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:Fella on the today programme just now said that as well as this story, there is the inference that bribes may have been paid to our very own sheikh:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... investment

Whilst there are obviously regulatory issues at play for which barclays are responsible, I cant see the story in the article.

Whats the punchline fella? What were the bribes for?

I heard it was a 5 billion pay-off.

Im_Spartacus wrote:
Whilst there are obviously regulatory issues at play for which barclays are responsible, I cant see the story in the article.

Whats the punchline fella? What were the bribes for?

The bribery bit was on Radio 4's Today programme, but relates to the Gruniard article

who sponsors the premier league???

Dunnylad wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:
Whilst there are obviously regulatory issues at play for which barclays are responsible, I cant see the story in the article.

Whats the punchline fella? What were the bribes for?

The bribery bit was on Radio 4's Today programme, but relates to the Gruniard article

yeah - related to the article, but the today programme are saying something along the lines of "if the sheikh has profited personally, from arranging the loan and then passing it immediately to the AD govt, "it could look like a bribe"". since i wrote that, the story is now part of the main news report.

i guess the punchline is, panorama have got their teeth into something, and it could be bad publicity. what troubles me is that panorama leak bits of their story on the day of broadcast, but usually save something rather larger for the show itself. it's probably barclays they're after though....

Can we bribe the players into performing.

they use the word "mistake" a lot in these pieces and I guess that's the accusation. Very sloppy to make errors in Annual Reports.

It was already public domain that the investor was IPIC and that they made a profit:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5425404/Abu-Dhabis-Sheikh-Mansour-to-sell-Barclays-shares.html


Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour to sell Barclays shares
The Abu Dhabi sheikh whose investment in Barclays last year helped the bank avoid the humiliation of being bailed out by Government money has seen the value of his stake double and has decided to sell his holding of more than 1.3bn shares.


By Damian Reece

11:50PM BST 01 Jun 2009

The investment vehicle of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan on Monday announced the decision to sell the shares which it controls through Mandatorily Convertible Notes (MCNs) issued last year during Barclays controversial capital raising.

The Sheikh's International Petroleum Investment Company (IPIC) invested £2bn in the MCNs which convert into Barclays shares at 153p. The shares closed on Monday night at 316.25p implying IPIC's holding had comfortably doubled in just over six months.

Bankers at Credit Suisse have been appointed to handle a placing of the shares, which are expected to sell at about a 50p discount to last night's close.

Last year Barclays came under attack from some shareholders for turning to Gulf investors for capital rather than undertaking a traditional rights issue.

However, the bank did launch a £4.5bn placing last summer which was only 19pc taken up by shareholders and a later £1.5bn convertible issue was taken up to the tune of £1.25bn. IPIC retains 758m warrants exercisable into Barclays shares at 197.8p.
Related Articles

Barclays: shares, charts, data
02 Jun 2009

Barclays drags FTSE 100 down
02 Jun 2009

John Varley, Barclays' chief executive, said: "In the period since IPIC took a position in Barclays in 2008 we have been able to broaden our strategic and commercial relationship, and we look forward to developing this further going forward."

Panorama ran a similar story about the Glazer family a couple of years ago.

They are still going strong apparently .....

City64 wrote:Panorama ran a similar story about the Glazer family a couple of years ago.

They are still going strong apparently .....

it's about time they did another in light of the current mood on tax evasion. Although the scum's parent company is obviously located in the Cayman Islands for football reasons

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/25/manchester-united-tax-glazer-brothers

Wasn't it Panorama that suggested Fat Sam is bent? Even though that suggestion is probably true, it hasn't stopped him.

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

Dunnylad wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:
Whilst there are obviously regulatory issues at play for which barclays are responsible, I cant see the story in the article.

Whats the punchline fella? What were the bribes for?

The bribery bit was on Radio 4's Today programme, but relates to the Gruniard article

yeah - related to the article, but the today programme are saying something along the lines of "if the sheikh has profited personally, from arranging the loan and then passing it immediately to the AD govt, "it could look like a bribe"". since i wrote that, the story is now part of the main news report.

i guess the punchline is, panorama have got their teeth into something, and it could be bad publicity. what troubles me is that panorama leak bits of their story on the day of broadcast, but usually save something rather larger for the show itself. it's probably barclays they're after though....

I think the same thing, probably Barclays that they're after.

It's old news.

Panorama have not exactly been bang on the money these days. Remember that show they had about Euro 2012 making everyone from Ukraine looks like racists?

ross.mcfc wrote:It's old news.

Panorama have not exactly been bang on the money these days. Remember that show they had about Euro 2012 making everyone from Ukraine looks like racists?

true. that was actually a horrendously cheap portrayal of a country, particularly when the problem appears to be far worse elsewhere...

however, i wouldn't call it old news if bbc today programme are specifically saying "it could look like a bribe", that's quite a bold statement in itself. libel if not evidenced???

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

ross.mcfc wrote:It's old news.

Panorama have not exactly been bang on the money these days. Remember that show they had about Euro 2012 making everyone from Ukraine looks like racists?

true. that was actually a horrendously cheap portrayal of a country, particularly when the problem appears to be far worse elsewhere...

however, i wouldn't call it old news if bbc today programme are specifically saying "it could look like a bribe", that's quite a bold statement in itself. libel if not evidenced???

Hardly. It could look like a bribe, on the other hand, it could look like a fish-cake. They're not really being explicit with that statement.

Dameerto wrote:
I think the same thing, probably Barclays that they're after.

And so they should go after Barclays management ! at i time when all other banks chose the government, Barclays opted for an expensive option . Even if it was the City owner, that was an awful lot of money that could have been used within the British economy

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

ross.mcfc wrote:It's old news.

Panorama have not exactly been bang on the money these days. Remember that show they had about Euro 2012 making everyone from Ukraine looks like racists?

true. that was actually a horrendously cheap portrayal of a country, particularly when the problem appears to be far worse elsewhere...

however, i wouldn't call it old news if bbc today programme are specifically saying "it could look like a bribe", that's quite a bold statement in itself. libel if not evidenced???

Hardly. It could look like a bribe, on the other hand, it could look like a fish-cake. They're not really being explicit with that statement.

but the bbc radio 4 programme didn't call it a fishcake. they implied a bribe, something i don't think they'd do lightly, as implication can be libellous. but by my limited understanding, the litigator would have to prove, in this case, they weren't bribed.

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Arjan Van Schotte wrote:

ross.mcfc wrote:It's old news.

Panorama have not exactly been bang on the money these days. Remember that show they had about Euro 2012 making everyone from Ukraine looks like racists?

true. that was actually a horrendously cheap portrayal of a country, particularly when the problem appears to be far worse elsewhere...

however, i wouldn't call it old news if bbc today programme are specifically saying "it could look like a bribe", that's quite a bold statement in itself. libel if not evidenced???

Hardly. It could look like a bribe, on the other hand, it could look like a fish-cake. They're not really being explicit with that statement.

but the bbc radio 4 programme didn't call it a fishcake. they implied a bribe, something i don't think they'd do lightly, as implication can be libellous. but by my limited understanding, the litigator would have to prove, in this case, they weren't bribed.

But they're not saying it's a bribe explicitly. It could be seen as a bribe, that's so open-ended a claim as to be almost meaningless. If I say that the way the team played on Saturday looked like they had absolutely no faith in the manager anymore, then I'm not saying they have no faith in the manager anymore, just that it looked like it (lots of wiggle room for me).