projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,247
Someone appears to have tried to piggyback that tweet with their own spin on the facts.
Not sure if this is correct or whether that would show we've done any wrong if it were true. Do they think City can just write "other income ;)" and not state where it came from? I sincerely doubt that.
Surely that's not correct, UEFA were already aware of those deals being related party and it's not like UEFA can't see what their value was each season.
The more of this that UEFA knew before the settlement the harder it is for any of UEFA's arguments to work. From what I can see, they disbelieved (or disagreed at best) with City's analysis (as they did with many other clubs), did their own calculations, showed City they had breached and decided to settle the matter with the agreement and a monitoring period/settlement regime. Not one article, journalist, source etc has yet identified what the City have actually been charged with or how it differed from matters covered in the settlement agreement and settlement regime.
Last edited: