City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

Didn’t take long. Expect the story to gather pace over the coming days.

No website name. No link.

Manchester City ‘mega-exchange’ being investigated – Trying to crack down on ‘dangerous phenomenon’​

 
jrb said:
Didn’t take long. Expect the story to gather pace over the coming days.

No website name. No link.

Manchester City ‘mega-exchange’ being investigated – Trying to crack down on ‘dangerous phenomenon’​

Click to expand...
Great what is it all about @jrb? Where can I read this garbage?

it’s ok I found it. Clubs can put any value they deem acceptable on a player. Fuck all to do with anyone else apart from the seller and the buyer.

If anything needs investigating it is how lukaku cost Chelsea £98 & United £80m for Pogba. Both players not currently worth a fraction of the original fee. Cancelo has improved and is worth at least the £60m outlay.
 
Last edited:
MillionMilesAway said:
I saw that bit - hilarious in the almost complete wrongness that he was arguing. His only point was "but they've got emails", and he ignored the response of "context". He also claimed that Der Spiegel had released some more after the case which were even worse - because, of course they would wait until after a final closure before releasing something, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in the way of a conspiracy theory…. The UK media keep hitting new lows….
 
wolviedinho said:
Great what is it all about @jrb? Where can I read this garbage?

it’s ok I found it. Clubs can put any value they deem acceptable on a player. Fuck all to do with anyone else apart from the seller and the buyer.

If anything needs investigating it is how lukaku cost Chelsea £98 & United £80m for Pogba. Both players not currently worth a fraction of the original fee. Cancelo has improved and is worth at least the £60m outlay.
Click to expand...
Makes no sense for financial purposes it’s costs of player amortized over contract length
 
Martin Ziegler with PL "related party" update:



The scary thing is that Ziegler is supposed to be on top of these things, has reported widely on City FFP and even at times briefed by City YET he still refers to Etihad as a fucking related party transaction


Times.jpg
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Martin Ziegler with PL "related party" update:



The scary thing is that Ziegler is supposed to be on top of these things, has reported widely on City FFP and even at times briefed by City YET he still refers to Etihad as a fucking related party transaction


View attachment 28928
Click to expand...

Etihad is not a related 3rd party Numnuts!

Talking & writing shit.
 
if they really push this new rule Mansour and the Saudi boss has to sit down shake hands and agree a sponsorship contract to each other's clubs. Dubai Invements to put 300m into Newcastle just for fun per year, same from Saudi Investment to City. could FFP/PL do anything with that as surely nothing related party madness could be attacked.
 
Unbelievable that this is going to take place(maybe). But it’s all a bit silly that hypocritical shit like this may happen. A business whether private or public should be nobodies business in the real world but because it’s the richest league in the world can be stymied by other clubs(businesses) and nobody bats an eyelid.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
@projectriver correcting Ziegler and PB's old adversary Ed Thomson jumps in talking shit as usual and stefan goes for him as well LOL

Click to expand...

Whilst this is obviously spot on, it is based on the assumption that the PL will also use IAS24 as their test for 'related' parties. The only worry would be that they know IAS24 clears us so may look for a different definition. Or have they confirmed they're using IAS24?
 
Spanishbob said:
Unbelievable that this is going to take place(maybe). But it’s all a bit silly that hypocritical shit like this may happen. A business whether private or public should be nobodies business in the real world but because it’s the richest league in the world can be stymied by other clubs(businesses) and nobody bats an eyelid.
Click to expand...
And in the end, it's probably going to backfire and negatively impact some team other than Newcastle or City who could probably have benefitted from it more.
 
citizen_maine said:
Whilst this is obviously spot on, it is based on the assumption that the PL will also use IAS24 as their test for 'related' parties. The only worry would be that they know IAS24 clears us so may look for a different definition. Or have they confirmed they're using IAS24?
Click to expand...

They haven't confirmed anything yet.

UEFA reacted to our settlement in 2014 with this:

FFP sponsor short.jpg
Seemingly we didn't push back presumably because we were fine with it. PL could potentially introduce something similar and with a lower percentage to impact NUFC. No doubt if they did it could be subject to a legal challenge.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
They haven't confirmed anything yet.

UEFA reacted to our settlement in 2014 with this:

View attachment 28932
Seemingly we didn't push back presumably because we were fine with it. PL could potentially introduce something similar and with a lower percentage to impact NUFC. No doubt if they did it could be subject to a legal challenge.
Click to expand...
Just occurred to me that this clause makes the Premier League a related party to all or most of the 20 clubs it controls.
 
In the entertainment industry clubs supposedly want to provide the best entertainment for their customers ( fan base) If they want fair play then set a transfer and wage cap so everybody can sign and pay the best players. That would be illegal and so should the whole ffp shitshow.
 
wolviedinho said:
Great what is it all about @jrb? Where can I read this garbage?

it’s ok I found it. Clubs can put any value they deem acceptable on a player. Fuck all to do with anyone else apart from the seller and the buyer.

If anything needs investigating it is how lukaku cost Chelsea £98 & United £80m for Pogba. Both players not currently worth a fraction of the original fee. Cancelo has improved and is worth at least the £60m outlay.
Click to expand...
But City never paid £60 million for Cancelo. It was £27 million plus Danilo, who cost City £26.5 million two years earlier. So the actual cost of Cancelo is notional. I think Juventus wanted Danilo’s value to be inflated for their own accounting reasons.

Arguably Cancelo has proved to be good value a whatever valuation you put in.
 
JGL07 said:
But City never paid £60 million for Cancelo. It was £27 million plus Danilo, who cost City £26.5 million two years earlier. So the actual cost of Cancelo is notional. I think Juventus wanted Danilo’s value to be inflated for their own accounting reasons.

Arguably Cancelo has proved to be good value a whatever valuation you put in.
Click to expand...
I don’t care either way. The only reason we may have allegedly inflated the fee was to combat the absurd ffp rules. I thought the two deals were separate? It does not matter anyway. Cancelo has been a decent buy albeit frustrating at times
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Martin Ziegler with PL "related party" update:



The scary thing is that Ziegler is supposed to be on top of these things, has reported widely on City FFP and even at times briefed by City YET he still refers to Etihad as a fucking related party transaction


View attachment 28928
Click to expand...


So, the meeting will be chaired by Richard Masters, the same Richard Masters who was selected and approved by the two scheming American owned shithouse red clubs, what obstacles will his puppet masters demand he puts in place.
 
citizen_maine said:
Whilst this is obviously spot on, it is based on the assumption that the PL will also use IAS24 as their test for 'related' parties. The only worry would be that they know IAS24 clears us so may look for a different definition. Or have they confirmed they're using IAS24?
Click to expand...
Yes, I posted a similar thought on our media thread. Keep an eye out for Red Shirt shenanigans.
Since there is a universally accepted standard, a new definition might be considered a restraint of trade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top