Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

[franksinatra]

Yep,you're right.On reflection,just coincidence.

Fair play Fantasy.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I wouldn't mind if football just completely fucking imploded. It's irredeemably corrupted and needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

But who could be trusted to rebuild it ?

 

[franksinatra]

Instead of booing the UEFA anthem, we should now all sing; one down, six to go, one down, six to go, one down, six to go, in the theme of stand up for the champions.

Or what about to the tune of

Bianchi woah woah

Infantino woah, Infantino woah

He is not an italian striker,

But our UEFA benefactor

 

[Pacquiao]

But who could be trusted to rebuild it ?

I don't know. But don't let that be a deterrent to reform football. The status quo can't be the desired state.

 

[jrb]

But who could be trusted to rebuild it ?

FC United of Manchester?

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

FC United of Manchester?

Very good.

 

[Bozzie]

But who could be trusted to rebuild it ?

First thought was Gary Neville ... but then again, he's never actually managed to rebuild anything yet.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

First thought was Gary Neville ... but then again, he's never actually managed to rebuild anything yet.

Apart from his ego , following his spectacular spell in management.

Mind you as a rag, over - inflated egos come as standard .

 

[SebastianBlue]

I don't know. But don't let that be a deterrent to reform football. The status quo can't be the desired state.

This argument sounds very familiar.

 

[WRicko]

Let me see if I have this right

Some documents where illegally stolen Which tell us that City did not like or accept FFP (We already knew this ) That they negotiated wiht UEFA (We already knew this )

The documents dont tell us that They had the right to negotiated which they did (in fact the insinuation is that City did not have this right) They dont tell us why City dont like FFP True mainly because it could have or did negatively affect them but also because they changed the rules mid process and because they are not fair fair given the history of Bankrolled clubs and lack of regulation pre FFP. Its anti free markets possibly to such an extent that it would constitute illegal cartel like practices Hence the strong words from city now looked down on in these documents and the media reporting of them

The documents are meant to be about City hiding costs through other entities but but the reports are an insinuation more than proof. Also we knew that city had these companies and I am not sure they actual show us anything that is wrong. A because we know that City where charged for the costs incurred by these other entities on Cities behalf. I think other clubs have multiple companies and do similar. Certainly big multinationals and conglomerates do. The debate then is about the amounts that where involved or should have been involved. If City actually did anything wrong then they would have to have got it past their auditors, accountants, the tax man and UEFA

Cities strong words are one of three things either a guilty man protesting an innocent man protesting or an innocent man protesting very strongly one because they are innocent but because they are unfounded and do huge damage not just to City but to there auditors and accountants etc

These documents are also supposed to suggest city got more revenue than they should from Abu Dhabi but this to happen the companies involved would have to be related parties. Non related parties dont intentionally over pay. Neither the over paying nor the related party nature was picked up by Cities auditors and accountants or the tax man or UEFA although supposedly according to the reports if not these documents it was picked up but ignored but for no apparent reason

Clubs dont break down how much money they get from each sponsor so how can we judge whats paid or should have been paid ?

The % allegedly over paid seems very high given cities success and size of commercial review and possible fees paid by non Abu Dhabi companies and above what would be need to meet FFP as city understood it at the time. If city did this why not do it in such away they they got off FFP completely

If you look at these companies they dont meet related party definition rightly or wrongly because they are state business supposedly run at arms length to the government and City are privately owned by a member of that government not connected to these companies

The rumoured figures these companies pay other than Etihad are small fry and the figure Etihad pay is now good value and will be cheap once the campus is done and they get sponsorship all over it especially if its half as big and amazing as romoured