CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

jimharri said:
I seem to remember rumours going around a year or so back that we may (repeat for the hard of hearing, MAY) be looking to replace Etihad as our main sponsor. But that seems to have disappeared without trace.
Click to expand...

Yep, it was put out in the sponsorship agency world sometime before covid in either 2018 or 2019 and was for the shirt sponsorship only.
 
Metalartin said:
It's a good deal which City are well worth but if you break the deal down across shirt, stadium and training complex rights and compare to any top 6 club bar Arsenal, it looks about the going rate if anything. As the most successful club of the last decade, we could probably ask for more and justify it(if it weren't for the economic impact of COVID and Ukraine). Look at what Barca have signed recently, without the training complex component if I remember right and it makes it an easy argument to make.

Also, we haven't been on 67.5m for 10 years, it started out at 45m per season. They've nothing to fume about at all. We renegotiated a few years back, it's probably more like 3-5 years we've been on that deal. I'm not quite sure which year it happened, there are some ITKs who might be able to clear that up on here.
Click to expand...

Based on the CAS document the Etihad deal was renogotiated 4 times between 2013 and 2016. Back in 2014 the terms were expressed as £67.5 million.

It seem implausible it has not been increased since but as far as I'm aware there's nothing come out about it - we just don't know how much it is now.
 
petrusha said:
This is an anniversary well worth commemorating -
Just as the swingeing and disproportionate FA punishments in 1906 ensured that a vibrant City wouldn't then seriously compete at the top of the game until well after the end of World War One, so this would also have seriously crippled us over an extended period. I hope the full story is revealed one day, because I'm convinced it will show just what a set of odious, venal cunts we've been up against.
Click to expand...
I didn't know about 1906 but found this after your post petrusha - others (here, the grauniad) made sure they found it and drew a parallel: "after the latest scandal it's as if some ribbon of DNA runs through the club"
www.theguardian.com

The forgotten story of ... Manchester City flouting finance rules in 1906

A punch thrown in 1905 culminated in 17 City players and four directors being banned over the club’s illegal overspending
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
@Gary James is the essential reading for anyone interested in reading about the bribery and illegal payments scandal of 1906. It's covered in great detail in his peerless history of the club and also, IIRC, in the excellent Manchester - A Football History.

It's an involved and complicated story, but my memory is that at the heart of it was a desire on the part of the football establishment to punish a club regarded as an upstart. The authorities trawled remorselessly to find grounds for punishment and hammered us beyond any degree of fairness for offences that were known to be standard practice throughout the game yet were ignored in other cases.

Unfortunately, back in the early 20th century there was no legal recourse for a club in our position. Thankfully, that had changed by the time UEFA banned us in 2020.
 
petrusha said:
@Gary James is the essential reading for anyone interested in reading about the bribery and illegal payments scandal of 1906. It's covered in great detail in his peerless history of the club and also, IIRC, in the excellent Manchester - A Football History.

It's an involved and complicated story, but my memory is that at the heart of it was a desire on the part of the football establishment to punish a club regarded as an upstart. The authorities trawled remorselessly to find grounds for punishment and hammered us beyond any degree of fairness for offences that were known to be standard practice throughout the game yet were ignored in other cases.

Unfortunately, back in the early 20th century there was no legal recourse for a club in our position. Thankfully, that had changed by the time UEFA banned us in 2020.
Click to expand...

Plus ça change ....
 
jimharri said:
I seem to remember rumours going around a year or so back that we may (repeat for the hard of hearing, MAY) be looking to replace Etihad as our main sponsor. But that seems to have disappeared without trace.
Click to expand...
I expect we are still looking to do this, but companies are not flush post covid and in a low growth period.
 
Auden night mail said:
Apologies if not the right place to discuss this and probably buried some where in the many pages, just curious about our current Etihad sponsorship deal of 67.5m a year which I've just googled now as I had no idea we received this, seems like a good deal, that's equivalent to 675m over 10 years.

Was hoping we would announce another 10 year deal, the shit would really hit the fan if we announced a new 10 year deal for 675m or more, would be pleasure to sit back and watch the fallout from this.
Click to expand...
Well said Wystan!
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Based on the CAS document the Etihad deal was renogotiated 4 times between 2013 and 2016. Back in 2014 the terms were expressed as £67.5 million.

It seem implausible it has not been increased since but as far as I'm aware there's nothing come out about it - we just don't know how much it is now.
Click to expand...
I didn't know the 2014 value was given in the CAS report, that's probably my own fault for being lazy and relying on second hand information then. That means £67.5m was fair market value for City back in 2014. The anti-city clowns would be mad to argue City haven't grown loads under Pep. He's been brilliant for City.

Regarding the current amount, we do know what our commercial revenue is from the financial reports that are released each season. BlueCityBrain has done some good work collecting the information on how much each sponsor is paying. I think it's still at £67.5m judging by those figures. The only thing I'm not sure on is how the Puma deal works, ie how much of that can be used in City's accounts.
 
petrusha said:
@Gary James is the essential reading for anyone interested in reading about the bribery and illegal payments scandal of 1906. It's covered in great detail in his peerless history of the club and also, IIRC, in the excellent Manchester - A Football History.

It's an involved and complicated story, but my memory is that at the heart of it was a desire on the part of the football establishment to punish a club regarded as an upstart. The authorities trawled remorselessly to find grounds for punishment and hammered us beyond any degree of fairness for offences that were known to be standard practice throughout the game yet were ignored in other cases.

Unfortunately, back in the early 20th century there was no legal recourse for a club in our position. Thankfully, that had changed by the time UEFA banned us in 2020.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Yes, it’s one of my pet topics. City were the upstarts and traditional successful teams like Villa and Everton hated it. It’s no coincidence that it was games against those clubs that led to the investigation. It was a truly shocking tale. Maybe I’ll post the full story on my website soon?
www.gjfootballarchive.com
 
petrusha said:
@Gary James is the essential reading for anyone interested in reading about the bribery and illegal payments scandal of 1906. It's covered in great detail in his peerless history of the club and also, IIRC, in the excellent Manchester - A Football History.

It's an involved and complicated story, but my memory is that at the heart of it was a desire on the part of the football establishment to punish a club regarded as an upstart. The authorities trawled remorselessly to find grounds for punishment and hammered us beyond any degree of fairness for offences that were known to be standard practice throughout the game yet were ignored in other cases.

Unfortunately, back in the early 20th century there was no legal recourse for a club in our position. Thankfully, that had changed by the time UEFA banned us in 2020.
Click to expand...
You're spot on. The FA didn't want some riff raff club from the north dominating English football in the coming years which it very much looked like City would be doing. Unlike today with the red shirts their pet club then was Aston Villa.

It's notable that when United bribed Liverpool players to throw the last game of the season in 1915 to save them from relegation the club went unpunished. A few players were subsequently banned but with football suspended for the remainder of the First World War as far as the club was concerned it was swept under the carpet and coveniently forgotten about.
 
laserblue said:
You're spot on. The FA didn't want some riff raff club from the north dominating English football in the coming years which it very much looked like City would be doing. Unlike today with the red shirts their pet club then was Aston Villa.

It's notable that when United bribed Liverpool players to throw the last game of the season in 1915 to save them from relegation the club went unpunished. A few players were subsequently banned but with football suspended for the remainder of the First World War as far as the club was concerned it was swept under the carpet and coveniently forgotten about.
Click to expand...
True - I wrote an extremely long article on this for my website (for subscribers):

gjfootballarchive.com

Match Fixing – Manchester United v Liverpool: A Long Read

Liverpool and Manchester United meet this weekend (17th January 2021) in the Premier League. It's a game that throughout the modern era has been played between two major clubs, hoping for success. This has not always been the case of course and in 1914-15 a notorious game between the two teams...
gjfootballarchive.com gjfootballarchive.com

One of the investigators appointed to see if Utd had done anything wrong was… MUFC’s own solicitor!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PPT
I may be wrong but as I understand it Masters and the Premier League hired a tranche of lawyers ,Solicitors and anyone else they could find to conduct this investigation.
I did have the list , but can't locate it now.

How are investigations initiated, does there need to be 14 signatures or just TWO.
 
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