This alleged payment to Etihad was from a reference in one of the stolen e-mails that “HH” Would Pay a sum to Etihad It’s been assumed by some that HH was Sheikh Mansour. People will knowledge of the UAE said that HH would only every be used to refer to President of Abu Dhabi Khalifa bin Zayed Al NahyanA query from Len 'the non conformist of Neasden' Rum.
If Sheikh Mansour is deemed not to be a related party to Etihad then under FFP he cannot provide funds to Etihad for them to subsequently sponsor City?
So such a practice would be against FFP rules but the problem for UEFA is proving it?
It’s not wrong.Funny thing is, that when you strip it back - people will say FFP is designed to stop clubs overspending and going bump... well, where was it for Bolton or Bury?
Also, even if Mansour himself had rocked up, opened his wallet and said there's £60mil quid... it's his fucking club, his business - how can they say that an owner, investing his own cash to better his club, is wrong?
Yup. That's what pisses me off more. So before we were bought by Mansour, it was okay for clubs to spend and go bankrupt. But when we started spending without any debts, it was bad for football. Hypocrites the lot of them.Funny thing is, that when you strip it back - people will say FFP is designed to stop clubs overspending and going bump... well, where was it for Bolton or Bury?
Also, even if Mansour himself had rocked up, opened his wallet and said there's £60mil quid... it's his fucking club, his business - how can they say that an owner, investing his own cash to better his club, is wrong?
When UEFA leaks a lot of things like that, it is usually what they intend to do.Do you think UEFA will ratify this ban?
I just don’t like the word doping. Who ever came with that word in this context needs some tight slapping. When others do they gloss with everything under the sun and glitters but when we follow the same exact path paved by so called elites , it’s called doping . This is where it all stems from , pure jealousy.
This is their very, very last chance to get us. The 5 year limit was up today hence the rush to get us. Even if, and that is a big IF, they ban us it is the last time they can do us because we are completely and utterly above board FFP wise.
A year ban is a big deal.What's the worst that can happen?
It looks like a one year CL ban. Even if that happens and we can't overturn it then it's hardly a fatal blow. The upside is that the softly softly, take a pinch approach is well and truly over regardless of the outcome now and I welcome that. From now on we'll do what the fuck our owner wants to do by any means he chooses.
Let's enjoy the ride, even if there are one or two bumps on the way.
Wenger is the first I remember using the phrase.I just don’t like the word doping. Who ever came with that word in this context needs some tight slapping. When others do they gloss with everything under the sun and glitters but when we follow the same exact path paved by so called elites , it’s called doping . This is where it all stems from , pure jealousy.
I find it incredible that the BBC in.s latest release seem to.know a complete breakdown of what City have allegedly been accused of to the details of what will happen next and what this Belgium geezer had referred back to UEFA, this is definitely I stich up and glad to heat that at the end of this report the BBC state City have three of the mast prestigious law firms already working.pn this.I don't think the context of "inflated" where FFP is concerned, has anything to with anything other than fair market value. So it has nothing to do with what UEFA think Etihad can afford, it's if they feel we wouldn't be able to to get the same deal elsewhere and UEFA already said that's not the case from what we've heard.
Also fair market value would only be relevant if Etihad were a related party and they have not established that link. An unrelated party can pay whatever they feel the deal is worth to them. If Etihad aren't related but Sheikh Mansour has been paying them directly for our sponsorship, the problem isn't inflation but deception/not disclosing things they legally have to. Which I don't think is happening given what City have said.
I’m not clicking that.Waffle, dither and fudge....
Manchester City & FFP: What could happen next - Q&A
By Dan Roan
BBC sports editor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885
I heard that,the club should send me in to give them a slap lolSpeak for yourself ; )
I believe this is the must probable outcome, however if cas rule the investigation if you can call it that was prejudice and city can prove uefa were the source of the leaks that full civil action is taken in Europe and the US. The commercial damage potential could easily be 5-10 years of chumps league prize money depending on how good the lawyers are and expect city’s to be top end.When UEFA leaks a lot of things like that, it is usually what they intend to do.
As what stated by your club, it is disappointing but not surprising. UEFA will go all the way and let you test their decision with CAS.
But i don't think UEFA will go further. They will accept it if CAS rule in your favor.
I find it incredible that the BBC in.s latest release seem to.know a complete breakdown of what City have allegedly been accused of to the details of what will happen next and what this Belgium geezer had referred back to UEFA, this is definitely I stich up and glad to heat that at the end of this report the BBC state City have three of the mast prestigious law firms already working.pn this.
Yep, reading what you described earlier with UEFA trying for a 3rd time to devalue your fair market value, is exactly why I'm glad they have not been able to establish the related party link. That seems blatantly biased and possibly corrupt that they can get away with that.But the whole thing of fair market value is a joke as well.
I'm still referring to PSG case but FFP bodies are still disagreeing among themselves about a contract of PSG that has been known for 7 years ! They used several external audit companies and they still fail to give a value.
And let's be serious, MU is a big PR machine but at the time, when they got their Chevrolet deal, it was not at a fair market value either. The guy responsible for the deal got sacked : https://www.autonews.com/article/20...-manchester-united-deal-turning-into-a-fiasco
And wait for it ! Two agencies (Repucom et Octagon) was valueing QTA deal around 123 000 euros and 2,78 millions euros yearly according to the Football Leaks. I mean seriously, what kind of club will sign a 123 000 € deal ? Certainly not one of the size and with the brand of PSG. Just think in reverse : how much money Qatar should have paid to get the publicity they got from PSG with traditional PR ? Certainly not 123 k€/year.
And as i pointed out, even the big clubs have some untangled relationships with their sponsors. Bayern with Allianz, Audi, Adidas. They are not related parties by definition but they do have some deep relationship being shareholders of Bayern Munich.
Waffle, dither and fudge....
Manchester City & FFP: What could happen next - Q&A
By Dan Roan
BBC sports editor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48296885
agreed, and i'm already tired of it,
uefa controls enough without having the right to essentially run every football club in europe.
a MAN pays his money for a club and takes his chances. no one asked anybody to buy a club ever.
luckily in football terms, proportionately, very few teams fail.
either a business can stay afloat or it can't.
It's been that way since we've been enlightened,
coming out of the dark ages.
We have an owner who has invested in a community of a city in a foreign country and positively enhanced for the better pretty much every aspect in that area for youth to adults alike, with opportunities undreamed of before. not to mention the worldwide followers.
If a man has the personal resources to fund all of that and provide the joy that it does then it's his business and no one else.
furthermore his business should be heralded, and not tried to be torn down.
makes no sense.
What's the worst that can happen?
It looks like a one year CL ban. Even if that happens and we can't overturn it then it's hardly a fatal blow. The upside is that the softly softly, take a pinch approach is well and truly over regardless of the outcome now and I welcome that. From now on we'll do what the fuck our owner wants to do by any means he chooses.
Let's enjoy the ride, even if there are one or two bumps on the way.
A year ban is a big deal.
First, you lose the CL money.
Then you also lose a lot of sponsoring money + stadium attendance money.
But more importantly than the rest, it is a direct slap in the face of the club and your owners. You are branded as cheats (well you were branded before, but now people has a "reason" to do so).
Your owners wouldn't accept that infamous reputation and it would alter your development a bit (you would still grow as you keep winning but some casual could become anti-fans, some sponsor could be deterred to invest as much money as they otherwise would, etc.).