PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Metalartin]

Manchester City still making millions from image rights deals

Exclusive: Despite claiming they were forfeiting the income to help comply with Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules, The Independent understands the club are still making millions

www.independent.co.uk

There's a bit here

That reminds me, the FA Cup win bonus, is one argument the whatsapp group always like to bring up, while using their best smug face but it doesn't seem to be part of the PL charges and it wasn't with UEFA's.

Is that because it's not a significant enough amount, to argue a sporting advantage was gained(break even calculations). Or is it because City have a reasonable explanation for it?

Has anyone ever come up with a plausible answer City might have had, out of interest?

 

[monty silva]

If I'm correct that the crux of these allegations are that Sheikh Mansour paid the majority of the Etihad sponsorship himself then I highly doubt there would be a transfer from one of his accounts to Etihad for the exact amount of the shortfall. In fact, I doubt there would be any transfers of any amount between them. More likely the AD government could have added a couple of billion on to the billions they already give Etihad on the premise the sponsorship is paid. Therefore it would be almost impossible to prove any wrong doing.
Most likely however is that everything is above board especially with the intense scrutiny we are always under.

 

[bluenova]

Fancy voting for that. Haha.

I like Kieran Maguire, but Football Insider has become one of the most click-bait sites around. Pretty sure when it started, it had lofty ideals, but it's gone lowest common denominator really quickly.

That £500m include wages, agent fees and transfers, so we're probably not far off that most years anyway.

 

[paulchapo]

How to create to easy clickbait

Doest this mean those cultist at the other end of the East Lancs Rd, who like to portray themselves as shoestring fc can spend similar amounts

Some of these so called City accounts are worse than any opposition ones.

 

[ganganvince]

That reminds me, the FA Cup win bonus, is one argument the whatsapp group always like to bring up, while using their best smug face but it doesn't seem to be part of the PL charges and it wasn't with UEFA's.

Is that because it's not a significant enough amount, to argue a sporting advantage was gained(break even calculations). Or is it because City have a reasonable explanation for it?

Has anyone ever come up with a plausible answer City might have had, out of interest?

Would that be within the PL remit or are there FA charges to follow?

 

[KS55]

Having decent accommodation, enough to eat and water that doesn't contain raw sewage are also human rights. Ones that many in the UK don't have.

Emiratis have decent accommodation, education paid for up to tertiary level and good medical services. Better than us in many ways.

Only for citizens, though, who are a minority of residents.

 

[Metalartin]

Would that be within the PL remit or are there FA charges to follow?

I would think it's still part of the revenues/accounting data submitted to the PL and UEFA.

 

[Coatigan]

If I'm correct that the crux of these allegations are that Sheikh Mansour paid the majority of the Etihad sponsorship himself then I highly doubt there would be a transfer from one of his accounts to Etihad for the exact amount of the shortfall. In fact, I doubt there would be any transfers of any amount between them. More likely the AD government could have added a couple of billion on to the billions they already give Etihad on the premise the sponsorship is paid. Therefore it would be almost impossible to prove any wrong doing.
Most likely however is that everything is above board especially with the intense scrutiny we are always under.

There is that. And then there is the issue of Mancini and certain players supposedly being paid under the table. With the overarching claim of both of these combined, that the books do not show the real financial situation of the club is what we claim it to be. But as people keep pointing out, it would take some creativity to get that past not just in-house auditors but also bigger stakeholders etc.

 

[domalino]

I have no dog here, and I didn’t know anything about her husband. Nor do I really care.

But as a concept, and this could be anyone asking any such question, it doesn't disallow it, but it makes it quite hollow. It would be like asking her if she is comfortable part of her household income is coming from a person with an appaling employment rights record. A basic cheap shot. And journalists private lives do come into it, unfortunate or not, if it concerns accountsbility and pretense of integrity, and perceived hypocrisy can be biggie.

It only makes it hollow if you think she's asking for her own reassurance.

As a journalist, she's asking questions that she thinks the readership wants to know the answer to, and so it doesn't matter if she's married to a Sheikh herself, the question is on behalf of the reader, and at this point it's a question that should be easily answered by anyone.

The fact is 61% of the country thinks we should have less of a business relationship with the UAE because of their human rights records. Most of the people on this forum might be in the 20% that prioritises business, but you have to accept it's a minority position and every time anyone announces a big investment or partnership they should be able to answer the question. And if they can't or don't want to answer it then they probably shouldn't be doing the deal.

 

[Norbiton]

I was pretty surprised it was Tolmie who launched the personal attack on her given he's a journalist and presumably wouldn't want people digging into his personal life to attack his wife next time he posts a transfer rumour that rubs a fanbase the wrong way.

Did you not see the post revealing the husband of the person concerned did attack his wife? Of course it’s personal

 

[domalino]

Did you not see the post revealing the husband of the person concerned did attack his wife? Of course it’s personal

I did not, that explains fairly out of character behaviour.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I was pretty surprised it was Tolmie who launched the personal attack on her given he's a journalist and presumably wouldn't want people digging into his personal life to attack his wife next time he posts a transfer rumour that rubs a fanbase the wrong way.

Tolmie's a bot. He (it?) doesn't have a personal life.

 

[Coatigan]

It only makes it hollow if you think she's asking for her own reassurance.

As a journalist, she's asking questions that she thinks the readership wants to know the answer to, and so it doesn't matter if she's married to a Sheikh herself, the question is on behalf of the reader, and at this point it's a question that should be easily answered by anyone.

The fact is 61% of the country thinks we should have less of a business relationship with the UAE because of their human rights records. Most of the people on this forum might be in the 20% that prioritises business, but you have to accept it's a minority position and every time anyone announces a big investment or partnership they should be able to answer the question. And if they can't or don't want to answer it then they probably shouldn't be doing the deal.



I was pretty surprised it was Tolmie who launched the personal attack on her given he's a journalist and presumably wouldn't want people digging into his personal life to attack his wife next time he posts a transfer rumour that rubs a fanbase the wrong way.

I totally agree that it Shouldn't matter.

However, it very much does. Personality, political affiliation, stance on various matters, and household/private life all matters these days when it comes to journalists and the perception of their integrity.

That's not even my opinion, it is just a very noticable trend. And it is partly my opinion, to some degree.

 

[Coatigan]

It only makes it hollow if you think she's asking for her own reassurance.

As a journalist, she's asking questions that she thinks the readership wants to know the answer to, and so it doesn't matter if she's married to a Sheikh herself, the question is on behalf of the reader, and at this point it's a question that should be easily answered by anyone.

The fact is 61% of the country thinks we should have less of a business relationship with the UAE because of their human rights records. Most of the people on this forum might be in the 20% that prioritises business, but you have to accept it's a minority position and every time anyone announces a big investment or partnership they should be able to answer the question. And if they can't or don't want to answer it then they probably shouldn't be doing the deal.

Which btw just to add I also agree with, and have asked in a post myself, what his answer was.

 

[domalino]

I totally agree that it Shouldn't matter.

However, it very much does. Personality, political affiliation, stance on various matters, and household/private life all matters these days when it comes to journalists and the perception of their integrity.

That's not even my opinion, it is just a very noticable trend. And it is partly my opinion, to some degree.

I know where you're coming from, but really, her integrity doesn't matter.

This isn't a undercover or deep investigative piece of reporting where the reader is relying on the journalist to be honest and faithfully relay the information they've uncovered from people off the record. All she's doing is prompting the person being questioned to speak on a subject.

It could be a parrot asking the question, the only thing that matters is if the question is relevant and in the public interest, which this question obviously was, and what the answer was.

Neil Custis being a detestable person doesn't affect the validity of the answer Pep gives when he's asked what injuries we have.

You say it does matter, but who does it matter to? About 20 die hard Manchester City fans on a forum who were delighted they could discredit the questioner rather than accept the question is valid. No one reading her paper or any of the people in the room or listening to the answer cares/cared.

And that's the same in politics or the other walks of life you're referring to. It only matters to a very small, hyper partisan minority.

 

[Coatigan]

Her integrity really doesn't really matter though.

This isn't a undercover or deep investigative piece of reporting where the reader is relying on the journalist to be honest and faithfully relay the information they've uncovered from people off the record.

It could be a parrot asking the question, the only thing that matters is if the question is relevant and in the public interest, which this question obviously was.

You say it does matter, but who does it matter to? About 20 die hard Manchester City fans on a forum who were delighted they could discredit the questioner rather than accept the question is valid. No one reading her paper or in the room or listening to the answer cares.

Of course it matters. Not to the question itself, or the deal, but as part of an overall picture she is there to portray, it does. Perception always matters. She is not a parrot, she is a journalist, and a person.

Society tends to decide what matters, agree or disagree with it. Same as, for example, the appearance of human rights in that state matters to the perception of doing business with investors from there.

 

[Coatigan]

My response above is obviously to the pre-edit post. But just in case you missed it elsewhere, no issue with the queation whatsoever. It is a bit obvious and cliché, but it is fair.

No issue with the perception of hypocrisy either, which is just as fair. As noted previously, neither is as simplistic as the queations make out.

 

[Academica]

It only makes it hollow if you think she's asking for her own reassurance.

As a journalist, she's asking questions that she thinks the readership wants to know the answer to, and so it doesn't matter if she's married to a Sheikh herself, the question is on behalf of the reader, and at this point it's a question that should be easily answered by anyone.

The fact is 61% of the country thinks we should have less of a business relationship with the UAE because of their human rights records. Most of the people on this forum might be in the 20% that prioritises business, but you have to accept it's a minority position and every time anyone announces a big investment or partnership they should be able to answer the question. And if they can't or don't want to answer it then they probably shouldn't be doing the deal.

How many people do you think will give a toss about Human rights when attending an event at the new arena. Human rights won't come into it with 99% of people who just want to see a concert, just like us as fans of the club, who just want to get on with watching football.

 

[Coatigan]

I know where you're coming from, but really, her integrity doesn't matter.

This isn't a undercover or deep investigative piece of reporting where the reader is relying on the journalist to be honest and faithfully relay the information they've uncovered from people off the record. All she's doing is prompting the person being questioned to speak on a subject.

It could be a parrot asking the question, the only thing that matters is if the question is relevant and in the public interest, which this question obviously was, and what the answer was.

Neil Custis being a detestable person doesn't affect the validity of the answer Pep gives when he's asked what injuries we have.

You say it does matter, but who does it matter to? About 20 die hard Manchester City fans on a forum who were delighted they could discredit the questioner rather than accept the question is valid. No one reading her paper or any of the people in the room or listening to the answer cares/cared.

And that's the same in politics or the other walks of life you're referring to. It only matters to a very small, hyper partisan minority.

Depends on how small or partisan the minority. Which is becoming far more significant in all parts of life. As seen with Brexit, Indyref, etc.

 

[domalino]

How many people do you think will give a toss about Human rights when attending an event at the new arena. Human rights won't come into it with 99% of people who just want to see a concert, just like us as fans of the club, who just want to get on with watching football.

What point are you trying to make?

You think 99% of people don't give a toss..so? So what?

61% of people in this country do care when asked, which makes asking the public officials about it perfectly valid.