cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,878
£7 billion to demolish & build a park & ride scheme in Trafford.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
£7 billion to demolish & build a park & ride scheme in Trafford.
Apart from my pettiness in arguing we move away from teamviewer costing them around 800k aia are the obvious anomaly
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
I could be mis-remembering but I thought UEFA didn't dispute the "fair value" of Etihad's sponsorship, it was the origin of the funds?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,896
Is the correct answer.
The 2014 settlement looked at fair values. UEFA produced an auditors report suggesting it was overvalued, IIRC, the club produced a different auditors report suggesting it wasn't and, in the end, UEFA dropped their objection.
The CAS award specifically stated that UEFA accepted the fair value of the contract.
I very much doubt the PL are trying to revalue the Etihad contract. By any metric, I would imagine they have had their money's worth.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,878
Nothing would surprise me with these.
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,442
As I understand it, besides the chairman of Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel(Jean-Luc Dehaene) saying: "I have some questions" a month after the major Etihad deal began. UEFA have never officially tried to make the accusation that it was overvalued. No official charges ever brought forward for that to my knowledge.
UEFA have a list of approved auditors, how many I'm not sure. The problem was, for a long time, all the information we had about that, was the lowest valuation. After it was leaked on social media, I assume(how typical is that?). Until we saw this in the CAS report:
As you can see, it says these were the CFCB's own valuations. CAS were clear on how they felt about that too:
Last edited:
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,442
The rest of the big 6 show Arsenal have just done poor negotiations on their side. They are getting the same as Chelsea and Spurs do for just their shirts. If I remember right, they tied themselves into a 15 year deal on the stadium naming rights and underestimated what they could ask for when they did it. The shirt and stadium deals have been extended since then though and they are the biggest club in London still. Maybe it was the lack of CL football and success that limited their cards in negotiations that played a part in that.
I've done a post on this before which includes information about what United were/are getting for naming rights for Carrington(who even United pundits say is shoddy and in need of a revamp). As well as comparing other clubs stadium deals, Barca, Atletico etc: https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/media-thread-2021-22.351471/post-14751010
Last edited:
This is where the PL is on dodgy ground. Interfering with such a freely negotiated contract would not be sympathetically viewed by a court, especially when the party who is paying says it’s great value.
Contrast this with the case against PSG which was ongoing at the same time. PSG valued the ‘world wide branding’ of their agreement with Qatar Airways at some ludicrous figure (70m?) but UEFA referred this to an expert company who came back with 5m euros iirc. That would have put PSG in the ffp shit, but luckily the brilliant M. Leterme rejected this and valued it at 100m euros. When the chair of the Adjudicatory Chamber found out, he appealed to CAS (!) who said Nope, not our jurisdiction.
NOTE: It occurs to me that with CAS having ruled in our favour on many of the same issues, we could, in a different context, plead ‘autrefois acquit’ (tried and acquitted previously). That comes from criminal law and is not applicable here. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how much our legal team bring CAS findings into their argument.
Last edited:
Something is worth what somebody values it at. On our last game at Maine Road I paid £150 for a ticket. Shit game and pretty average end of match entertainment but I had to be there because it had been a huge part of my life and I'd never be there or see it again. Some people said I was mad paying so much but for me it was worth every penny.
Whoever has sponsored us has had terrific value for money given our success. They were given a vision, saw the potential and thought, "I'm having some of that." They are clutching at straws.
City did not vote in favour of the new PL rules as the advice we had received indicated that the rules were illicit and unenforceable. I assume that sponsorship value rules was part of our objection.
Of course not we'd have been mad to vote for them. It would be like a lottery winner voting for rules that said, "You've won the lottery but you can only spend what you earn in McDonald's every year." Okay a far out analogy but you get the gist. What should be happening is the fans of club's who did vote for it, particularly the ones who might have attracted huge investment, should be up in arms their chairman did. The whole shitshow has been a failure anyway. I think more clubs have gone bust since it came in than before, or it seems that way, so it achieved fuck all except to be used by jealous clubs, the media and fans as a stick to beat us with.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Presumably they meant in a normal Court of Law?
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)
If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.
Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.
Last edited:
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I agree with you that the non-cooperation charge is a likely outcome. It fulfils the prime objective of labelling us as cheats, and therefore our achievements invalid. Since the layman who knows no different will simply assume that we were guilty of all charges and only got off by not cooperating. The same as getting off because things are time-barred, people just think, "Yeah but that's a technicality, obviously they are guilty really".
And whilst a correspondingly minor financial penalty (i.e. fine) from the PL might not be significant, the damage to our reputation and ability to secure more lucrative sponsorships, would be. The PL will have achieved its aims of damaging us.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Yes I've no idea who he's been talking to on the terraces at away games lol.
LeonardoDaVnci
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the response and that previous post was excellent. I think this is a critical aspect of the whole saga. If the PL attempt a line of attack that somehow invalidates a revenue source its high stakes. I'd be interested to see the Profit/Loss bottom line for the all years within the scope of the charges. IIRC after the initial heavy losses pre FFP we declared very low losses in some years and eventually modest profits, but always within the FFP thresholds. The worst case scenario would be financial years being "reclassified" as FFP non compliant. My guess is this is the main line of attack by the PL lawyers.
When the likes of spit the dog writes in his opinion column "Its impossible for City to generate more revenue than LFC', its not based on his expertise in forensic accountancy its because someone inside LFC, someone very senior has blabbed to him. As we know, he has issues controlling his gob.
Last edited: