Certainly ruined the type of owner.…or rather ”Qataris buying United is just a sign on how modern football operates. It has to be done to compete with City who has ruined football”
Hardly Niezsche and Goethe, but keep us posted.White and Jordan discussing interview on TS now
Fuck all else to talk about bar the cricket!White and Jordan discussing interview on TS now
Can’t believe he’s just said close Your eyes, think of who is the biggest football brand, discount what city have won and Man Utd are much bigger!
Well the sponsorships could fall foul of FFP in two ways.Thanks for that.
Got me thinking that alleged non compliance on FFP issues that have nothing to do with producing true accounts can be time barred, for example the Etisalat sponsorship?
Well having read that instead of being confident I’m a little bit despondent now.Well the sponsorships could fall foul of FFP in two ways.
One is that Etisalat (or whoever pays us far more than the consideration is deemed to be worth at fair market value. So they pay us £50m for a package which might only be worth £5m to another entity on a commercial basis. In that case, UEFA would probably disallow the additional £45m from our FFP calculation. They did this for PSG (although they seem to have been quite generous in what they did allow them for their Qatari Tourist Authority sponsorship). If you then failed FFP, as a consequence of that amount being disallowed, they'd sanction you, but I suspect there's no criminal offence been committed.
The other is that the owner pays all or part of the sponsorship income. Even that wouldn't be a problem if the owner was in control of the sponsoring entity. So if John Smith was our owner, and John Smith Ltd paid us a sponsorship, as long as that's fair value then that's perfectly OK within the FFP rules. The crux of the UEFA case against us though, was that ADUG had paid Etihad, who then paid us. That was proven to be a false claim at CAS but let's say it had been proven. That could amount to ADUG, the owner, putting in equity via a fake sponsorship agreement.
That's something Stefan and me never agreed on. He felt that as long as Etihad had paid the omeny and got fair value for that, it didn't matter. My argument was that this was disguised equity investment and it did matter. This argument wasn't tested though as it wasn't ADUG funding the majority of the Etihad sponsorship.
The point is that equity investment is a balance sheet item whereas sponsorship revenue goes into the P&L account. So we could be accused of artificially inflating our revenue by the amount paid to Etiahd by ADUG. Whether that would meet the threshold for criminality is open to debate though.
But my laying these charges going back over 10 years, the impication (by the PL) must be that criminality is alleged.
Does this tie in with the Der Spiegel email PB, where City informed Etihad they only needed to pay £8m of the £68m sponsorship, and how did we explain that away with CAS?Well the sponsorships could fall foul of FFP in two ways.
One is that Etisalat (or whoever pays us far more than the consideration is deemed to be worth at fair market value. So they pay us £50m for a package which might only be worth £5m to another entity on a commercial basis. In that case, UEFA would probably disallow the additional £45m from our FFP calculation. They did this for PSG (although they seem to have been quite generous in what they did allow them for their Qatari Tourist Authority sponsorship). If you then failed FFP, as a consequence of that amount being disallowed, they'd sanction you, but I suspect there's no criminal offence been committed.
The other is that the owner pays all or part of the sponsorship income. Even that wouldn't be a problem if the owner was in control of the sponsoring entity. So if John Smith was our owner, and John Smith Ltd paid us a sponsorship, as long as that's fair value then that's perfectly OK within the FFP rules. The crux of the UEFA case against us though, was that ADUG had paid Etihad, who then paid us. That was proven to be a false claim at CAS but let's say it had been proven. That could amount to ADUG, the owner, putting in equity via a fake sponsorship agreement.
That's something Stefan and me never agreed on. He felt that as long as Etihad had paid the omeny and got fair value for that, it didn't matter. My argument was that this was disguised equity investment and it did matter. This argument wasn't tested though as it wasn't ADUG funding the majority of the Etihad sponsorship.
The point is that equity investment is a balance sheet item whereas sponsorship revenue goes into the P&L account. So we could be accused of artificially inflating our revenue by the amount paid to Etiahd by ADUG. Whether that would meet the threshold for criminality is open to debate though.
But my laying these charges going back over 10 years, the impication (by the PL) must be that criminality is alleged.
I'll never get my head around this non-cooperation nonsense. It's like a turkey voting for Christmas. Why would anyone assist someone who is trying to fuck you over, burden of proof should be on the accuser/prosecution completely imhoGood question. Taken at face value I'd say no. They've spent 4 years investigating these so lack of evidence is unlikely to be an issue. The source is the hacked emails via Der Spiegel. And some of the charges are totally and solely dependent on a few others, so you can't say there's no evidence for them or that the source is unreliable.
But as I've said before, these charges are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and include things UEFA didn't think were worth pursuing. I'm still very confident the PL are going nowhere with these.
I actually feel more confident .Well having read that instead of being confident I’m a little bit despondent now.
The funny side is this, imo i doubt our owners ever really wanted a battle with Utd or Liverpool or Arsenal or whoeveragreed there is so much speculation however the video released yesterday reminded me of a poker player who was just about to turn his hand in knowing full well he'd won the pot, he's cool, relaxed and thoughtfull with his words, not one ounce of negativity, all that was missing was the cigar roll of Clint Eastwood, to asume were going to get the book chucked at us is fine and we sit and wait BUT have the PL the balls to take this man on i really dont think they have the stomach for the fight especially now that we are the flagship of the outfit that are trying to screw us over, we are their product of how sucesfull the PL have become, from day one when we released the statement that was enough for me to stay chilled and trust those in charge of the club,im 99.9% certain this will run its course and die its death, on the political side is it already there behind the scenes playing its part, we dont know and we will never know, i wouldnt raise an eybrow if it is, trust in Khaldoon he's not going to let us down
Just to add- no one should ever under estimate our owners, they bought the club with a plan and for that plan to work the school bully had to be taken down from the perch and dismantled 'the bully was manchester united' we self destructed them from the outside into a frenzy of panic buying and installing managers which resulted in a failed but very expensive futile attempt to keep up,all part of the plan from day one, we are years infront of anyone and that includes the PL
I believe the club has argued in the past that some of the information asked for was commercially sensitive and they were asking us to hand it over to our rivalsGood question. Taken at face value I'd say no. They've spent 4 years investigating these so lack of evidence is unlikely to be an issue. The source is the hacked emails via Der Spiegel. And some of the charges are totally and solely dependent on a few others, so you can't say there's no evidence for them or that the source is unreliable.
But as I've said before, these charges are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and include things UEFA didn't think were worth pursuing. I'm still very confident the PL are going nowhere with these.
Looking at those figures, that's the Etihad deal. From memory, the £8m came from Etihad's funds and the rest came from central funds, ie: the Abu Dhabi government, rather than - as UEFA and Der Spackel claimed - Mansour's own pocket. This was backed up by several witnesses AFAIKDoes this tie in with the Der Spiegel email PB, where City informed Etihad they only needed to pay £8m of the £68m sponsorship, and how did we explain that away with CAS?
They even went to law to get a ruling and lost, the judge said that the hearing should be made public, City supported by the PL, wanted to keep it private but lost on appeal. I think it was the appeal judge who commented how long it had been ongoing and that City had won 2 PLs in that timeI believe the club has argued in the past that some of the information asked for was commercially sensitive and they were asking us to hand it over to our rivals
That’s how I remember it tooLooking at those figures, that's the Etihad deal. From memory, the £8m came from Etihad's funds and the rest came from central funds, ie: the Abu Dhabi government, rather than - as UEFA and Der Spackel claimed - Mansour's own pocket. This was backed up by several witnesses AFAIK
Others have answered this correctly later in the thread.Does this tie in with the Der Spiegel email PB, where City informed Etihad they only needed to pay £8m of the £68m sponsorship, and how did we explain that away with CAS?
I might be overly positive but the fact that Khaldoon said he would have plenty to say after the case is done gives me a lot of reassurance that we will win this.
No that’s a fair point and something I had considered. I think if he thought we were hiding something, and was hoping it didn’t come out, he wouldn’t have been so angry. No doubt in my mind he thinks we are innocent and, if that is the case, he has the expectation of being found not guilty and wants to out those that caused this In the first place.Genuinely not trying to put a dampener on that optimism just for the sake of it, but wouldn't it be fair to assume he'd have plenty to say either way?