We are accused of inflating sponsorships though...
It always struck me as strange that the Etihad sponsorship was questioned as fair value or not. Some 12 months or so before Etihad and City announced the sponsorship deal Arsenal had announced a deal for a similar level of sponsorship to cover the Emirates package. Compare the situation, Emirates got a stadium named after them and their name on a shirt of a team who had little in the way of success for several years and no obvious signs for improvement. Etihad got the same plus a state of the art training facility, a good opportunity for further development and the chance to be associated with one of Europe's rising brands and a very successful football club with great management behind it.I think the fair value rules only apply if it's a related party but I might be wrong
A couple of massive bids are going in next week for players, that should please us.
I presumed paying part of a Etihads sponsorship deal on their behalf was not inflating anything as the amount was set during the initial contractual arrangement at the commencement of the deal in 2011. Are you suggesting the emails from 2015 that make out the "financial irregularity" allude to inflating this original amount?
Thats how I see it. I'm not an expert although i've thoroughly read the details, am I wrong?
I think the fair value rules only apply if it's a related party but I might be wrong
And he should occasionally look over his should to get a nod of approval from one of them.Tolmie, you always make me feel tingly inside.
Khaldoon’s interview should be conducted with a team of lawyers behind him, with him sat in a Bond villain-esque chair. Maybe some menacing intro music.
Hi,
Please don't ban me as this is my first post and I'm just interested to get some answers. I came on here this morning as obviously we've all seen the news and I wanted to gauge what the average City fans reaction is.
Now (here comes the part where I fear I'll be banned) it seems that looking at the club from the outside there's obvious "financial doping" going on. I can't see how City could have achieved this much success in such a short space of time without it.
So, I am just wondering where the thoughts that UEFA have an agenda against City are coming from? I understand the opinion that FFP caters to the established big teams and ensures that they remain that way, but aside from that, I can't see what other reason there is to be angry? Surely UEFA are investigating/bringing charges for a reason other than they just don't like City.
They wouldn't just be looking into the club for no reason either, right? There's no smoke without fire & all that?
Apologies for signing up just to ask a simple questions but I know no City fans personally and there's no chance of getting sense out of anyone on Twitter etc
Even breaking it down to the most simple terms, as I (the average, not massively invested football fan) see it, City agreed to play by certain rules and have essentially broken or attempted to break those rules. Is this correct?
Again, please don't ban me for this. I'm just a confused neutral with no idea what's going on!
Thanks
I'd like to, there's not many places to get an articulate discussion these days and the Newport County forums are terrible. The abuse that's already been thrown at me for coming in with a genuine question after admitting I don't have a thorough knowledge of the issue is a bit OTT though.
Perhaps I'd be better suited to sticking to threads that aren't about City and just football in general.
They still wouldn’t get the massage.Thai is the problem with many supporters they dont want to do the research themelves.