So you can live with the two English millionaires/billionaires but would have reservations about the Russian.
Can you please explain this.
I'll try, and it's got bugger all to do with nationality.
McCabe made his money from property development, Kenwright from theatre production, Ashley from sporting goods, Lerner from investments, none of which give me any moral problems I can't accommodate.
I wouldn't have any problems with the owners of Manchester United either, other than the way they were able to buy the club with the club's own money but that's a procedural objection rather than one based on the individuals involved.
I realise that all of the above are products of what we might call Anglo-Saxon/Celtic stock but this is not the criterion I'm using here.
Why is Abramovich different? Well, basically Sibneft (and his role in the 'aluminium wars'). And now I'm going to have to tread carefully. This is a man who was so well connected that he was invited by Yeltsin himself to move into an apartment in the Kremlin in 1999. A man who, by dint of setting up a whole load of, what shall I call them...fly by night companies with Berezovsky, was able to acquire Sibneft at around 25 times less than its true market value. A man who has admitted paying enormous bribes (we're talking billions here) to government functionaries and who has also admitted using protection from the 'Russian mob' in order to acquire what were state assets.
I said I could probably make a case for Abramovich and I guess it would be this. That he was a man who did what had to be done in the climate of the day and geographical location in order to expand his business empire. Looking at it in these terms, it's a weak case to say the least. Morally, I have problems with it.
Thaksin Shinawatra. The guy who bought Manchester City. Again I would object on moral grounds only. A convicted criminal who could not even return to his home country because of outstanding charges against him. Charges which, were I to call them very serious, would probably be understated.
Which brings me on to our very own fresh prince of the house of Saud. I have nothing intrinsically against anybody of Saudi Arabian nationality. I have a great deal against the Saudi royal family of which he is a member. I read above somewhere a comparison between our prince and Zara Phillips which was an attempt to equate the two in terms of objectionability. This, I'm afraid, is purest bollocks. The King of Saudi Arabia holds absolute political power along with the Crown Prince. This is a family business on the national scale. Look at any government department, at any major institution, at any major Saudi company and in one of the top two positions therein you will find a family member. I don't think there is any way in which you could call any member of this family self-made.
The family promotes and sponsors Wahhabism whenever and wherever it can. I don't want to go into all the arguments here as I'm sure they've been re-cycled enough in another thread but just let me throw a few things out there for consideration.
I've heard it said that our prince is 'more liberal' than other members of the family. This is meaningless. I could also say that Mussolini was more liberal than Hitler.
I've read that he likes a drink and a gamble. Bet he has to go abroad to do it though.
My main point is that no matter his own character and beliefs, he still carries the title of Prince and thus allies himself to the politics and religious policies of the family. One could if one wanted on this alone level accusations of hypocrisy. We are allied to the family by association now and morally, I find it impossible to accommodate.
Were he to renounce his title, we could have another conversation but for now I'm stuck in a very unhappy position indeed.
