How do you know that UEFA and City haven't colluded to bring this matter to a conclusion?
So in summary for a simple soul like me.
FFP was muted a few years ago to stop another 'Leeds' overreaching. Then, when the new 'dirty' money came into football UEFA changed the FFP rules to try and stop these upstart clubs breaking into the cartel and spoiling the cash cow that the Chumps league had become. City therefore could not grow organically but had to spend quickly to try and catch up with the clubs who had been monopolising the big tv money for decades. In a normal business world this injection of capital is very normal but apparently football prefers teams with huge debts than new money coming in which would obviously be a good thing in any normal non corrupt business.
So, City spent. UEFA got grumpy and investigated and we were found guilty after the goal posts were changed on the small print around wages. An agreement was then made with the head of UEFA after City threatened a public trial for a minimal 'face saving' penalty. We took our pinch.
Now, a criminal hacker has made public through a German paper a load of City e-mails intimating that City were not completely open about their accounts when we were initially investigated. City appear to welcome this new investigation so the rumours can be put to bed.
So, in short, a corrupt organisation which is trying to protect its cash cow has been given stolen incomplete out-of-context documents and are starting another investigation against a club that does everything in the right way. Well done UEFA, top job.
This all seem about right ?
anyone know how to refute the above? i probably could have a month ago but i'm completely confused now
furthermore, they did Liverpool for 100k and a 2 year transfer ban on academy lads 2 years ago, so i'm pretty sure we'll get done for Sancho stuff. no idea about the rest.
Presumably you mean if true? (and provable).so i'm pretty sure we'll get done for Sancho stuff
Presumably you mean if true? (and provable).
1904?We have kind of been here before in terms of reputation and the damage it can bring.
1905, I sure some of the older fans will remember.
However we survived.
Identical situation. UnfortUnately, it meant we gifted our poor neighbors our cup winning team and they got their first ever league title out of it.We have kind of been here before in terms of reputation and the damage it can bring.
1905, I sure some of the older fans will remember.
However we survived.
If City can defend the Etihad deal, then the charge relates to City scrambling to inflate sponsorship deals for relatively minor deals in the aftermath of UEFA changing the way they were accounting for pre-existing player contracts. The argument relates to whether these are related parties which is arguable according to accountants. The emails suggest that City were working actively to break the rules whereas we can show that what we were doing was trying to re-arrange in-house sponsorships which are commonplace in football such as Sports Direct, King Power etc. Any sanction UEFA impose has to be justified as most sanctions end up at the CAS and the punishments have to be proportional. They can not just do what they want. Whatever the likes of Martyn Ziegler and a few obsessive journalists who have an axe to grind with City think, City have gone from huge losses to surpluses. We're not a rogue club who are continuing to evade FFP circumventing the FFP rules with all kinds of tricks. This is a historical argument when City were under investigation hence 'evasion'. Since then the FFP record is exemplary.Post of the thread, and the last sentence is the nub of the matter. A lot of people on here seem to be under the impression that because what City have done may not contravene the precise specifications of FFP as written, we are home and hosed. For me, they’re almost an irrelevance. This is the last and best chance our enemies have to get rid of us, not just for a season or two, but permanently. They will have already made their decision IMO and what they will be working at now is coming up with a semi-credible vehicle to justify it. If that means inventing new bullshit about “the spirit of FFP” then I don’t doubt they will. Like you, I’m struggle to envisage a scenario, other than the obvious, in which those emails could have been taken out of context. These are utter bastards we’re dealing with. It’s their competition and they can do pretty much what they like, with the full backing of every other major player. Court is where this ends, and that frankly is seldom more than a lottery
We have kind of been here before in terms of reputation and the damage it can bring.
1905, I sure some of the older fans will remember.
However we survived.
I might be wrong but weren't the Aabar & Etisalat deals (presuming these are the ones we're talking about) already in place and the books submitted before UEFA moved the goalposts? I thought that was the crux of the matter and why City were so pissed with them.If City can defend the Etihad deal, then the charge relates to City scrambling to inflate sponsorship deals for relatively minor deals in the aftermath of UEFA changing the way they were accounting for pre-existing player contracts.
oh yeah forgot those two crucial bits
1904?
Who is we?
If City can defend the Etihad deal, then the charge relates to City scrambling to inflate sponsorship deals for relatively minor deals in the aftermath of UEFA changing the way they were accounting for pre-existing player contracts. The argument relates to whether these are related parties which is arguable according to accountants. The emails suggest that City were working actively to break the rules whereas we can show that what we were doing was trying to re-arrange in-house sponsorships which are commonplace in football such as Sports Direct, King Power etc. Any sanction UEFA impose has to be justified as most sanctions end up at the CAS and the punishments have to be proportional. They can not just do what they want. Whatever the likes of Martyn Ziegler and a few obsessive journalists who have an axe to grind with City think, City have gone from huge losses to surpluses. We're not a rogue club who are continuing to evade FFP circumventing the FFP rules with all kinds of tricks. This is a historical argument when City were under investigation hence 'evasion'. Since then the FFP record is exemplary.
The Leaks purport to show that City were adjusting the Aabar and Tourism Authority deals to evade the worst effect of the sanctions. Simon Pearce is claimed to have said 'we can do what we like' re these deals. However these amounts are small. I think it was about £2m we're talking about. The Etihad deal is the major deal and they have already made a statement to the effect that they are fully liable for their sponsorship deal.I might be wrong but weren't the Aabar & Etisalat deals (presuming these are the ones we're talking about) already in place and the books submitted before UEFA moved the goalposts? I thought that was the crux of the matter and why City were so pissed with them.
Whether we have done right or wrong or its all grey, the media have got what they wanted, they are running the show now and our guilt or innocence wont matter. The press and media can now push this until public opinion forces something to happen.
It's annoying that all clubs have these skeletons
They were running the show now it's been taken out of their hands. They may print stories but they aren't controlling it now the investigation is between UEFA and City.Whether we have done right or wrong or its all grey, the media have got what they wanted, they are running the show now and our guilt or innocence wont matter. The press and media can now push this until public opinion forces something to happen.
It's annoying that all clubs have these skeletons