LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
No idea mate, sorry. I do know it was examined by CAS, I remember reading it previously
CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)
- Thread starter jimharri
- Start date
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
Smear attacks like this won’t ever stop. Nick Harris has got a hard on at the minute, I can’t for us to be cleared again and that **** crawls back under his rock.
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
Wasn't this email one that was discussed at CAS? If the MoS have corroborating documents then let's see those as well please. But for goodness sake the figures being discussed are less than we spent on Mangala. Where was our advantage?
goater1985
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,001
Embrace it my friend. Not the first or last.So they've published a few articles, but this one is like out of a fanfiction.
The day Man City's plea to hide Premier League inquiry was dismantled
EXCLUSIVE REPORT BY DANIEL MATTHEWS: For years, only a few crumbs of detail emerged about the secret battle between Manchester City over their alleged violation of Financial Fair Play rules.www.dailymail.co.uk
I'd recommend you all get in your bunkers for the next few days, it's going to be loud.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I've no intention of reading anything that obsessed and bitter lunatic writes but, if I remember rightly, he claimed at the time of the CAS hearing that Etihad were paying us far more than the amount in the contract. He claimed they'd paid us £220m over 3 years, making the deal worth £75m a year.
In fact, he'd missed out a year, one that UEFA didn't investigate (2014/15 or the following year, from memory). It wasn't explicitly stated why but my guess was that we staggered the payments, taking more than the annual contracted amount in those 3 years but less (if anything at all) in the unreported year.
In other words, Etihad may have contracted to pay us £55m a year but that didn't mean we couldn't vary the amount in any individual year to suit our needs. So in 2012/13, when we were trying to meet the first assessment, we needed more money after sacking Mancini and paying him out £20m contractual severance. Yet CAS were clear that the contractual relationship with Etihad had been met, with Etihad having received full value for their sponsorship.
In fact, he'd missed out a year, one that UEFA didn't investigate (2014/15 or the following year, from memory). It wasn't explicitly stated why but my guess was that we staggered the payments, taking more than the annual contracted amount in those 3 years but less (if anything at all) in the unreported year.
In other words, Etihad may have contracted to pay us £55m a year but that didn't mean we couldn't vary the amount in any individual year to suit our needs. So in 2012/13, when we were trying to meet the first assessment, we needed more money after sacking Mancini and paying him out £20m contractual severance. Yet CAS were clear that the contractual relationship with Etihad had been met, with Etihad having received full value for their sponsorship.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Nick Harris is the bellend who made up a wild paranoid fantasy on a podcast involving City fans supposedly driving all the way up to his house in the wilds of Scotland and putting his windows through. He is a damaged and deranged individual and probably needs protecting from himself more than he does from fictional blue vandals
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I've not read it and won't be but I've answered what I presume he's foaming at the mouth about in the Media thread.
To summarise, if the contract with Etihad was for £50m per annum, it doesn't mean that they paid us exactly that same sum every year, as long as it averaged out to £50m a year over the length of the contract.
CAS were happy we accounted for it correctly.
To summarise, if the contract with Etihad was for £50m per annum, it doesn't mean that they paid us exactly that same sum every year, as long as it averaged out to £50m a year over the length of the contract.
CAS were happy we accounted for it correctly.
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
Just shows you how low of a standard the Daily Mail have when the employ the likes of him. You’ve got Martin Samuel who has been fair towards City for years but also not to bias and then you get Harris who has a clear agenda against us.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
Harris is a freelancer tbf
bigquinn772
Well-Known Member
4 stories in the Mail. Ffs.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Slight edit.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
There is literally nothing new whatsoever. Harris is just adding a load of innuendo dressed as ‘context’ to flesh out the not very exciting fact that they were the only paper who could be arsed sending a reporter to the high court last week.
Woodward and Bernstein it ain’t
MadchesterCity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 18,265
Sorry what does this mean?
Nick Harris got so badly burned when City won their case with UEFA that the sniffling twat was bound to rake up this old shit again. If you read it it's just the UEFA accusations re packaged because he lost all his credibility with the crap he wrote back then!
The Daily United hatchet job. The rag and it’s journalists have been building up to this.
The Daily United had the only reporter in court.
Are City finally going to ban this Rag fanzine piece of sh*t from the Etihad once and for all?
You absolute c*nts!
The Daily United had the only reporter in court.
Are City finally going to ban this Rag fanzine piece of sh*t from the Etihad once and for all?
You absolute c*nts!
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but his article is still the headline tonight:
MadchesterCity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 18,265
Think we've all had enough of this, where is the consistency?So they've published a few articles, but this one is like out of a fanfiction.
The day Man City's plea to hide Premier League inquiry was dismantled
EXCLUSIVE REPORT BY DANIEL MATTHEWS: For years, only a few crumbs of detail emerged about the secret battle between Manchester City over their alleged violation of Financial Fair Play rules.
I'd recommend you all get in your bunkers for the next few days, it's going to be loud.
Why are City the only team being investigated?
Do we need to hire our own hackers to expose the Liverpool and United cheating