Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

I know we are all biased but is anyone else a little surprised and concerned by the alleged financial back door injection of cash? I mean personally I see no problem with an owner investing in their own business. But that aside, can someone explain to me why this allegation, if true, that our owner channeled money through 3rd parties into our club, isn’t money laundering?

I doubt the Cartel clubs sponsorship deals are squeaky clean...It looks like one rule for City
 
Clearly PwC along with Octagon were trying to claim that the Etihad and Etisalat sponsorships were related parties by IAS-24. They are not.
 
That's not necessarily true. Sheikh Mansour is the chairman of IPIC, which is the owner of Aabar, not the owner in his own right. IPIC is owned by the state. Being the chairman doesn't make him a related party by definition. It's about the amount of control he exercises. Mohammed El Mazrouei, for instance, is a director of oth CFG/City and Etihad but that doesn't make him or Etihad a related party.
Quite right. I will rephrase it by saying PwC would make a case for Aabar being a related party and is probably why we agreed to limit their sponsorship as part of our settlement with UEFA.
 
Clearly PwC along with Octagon were trying to claim that the Etihad and Etisalat sponsorships were related parties by IAS-24. They are not.
Octagon were, as I understand it, asked to make an assessment of what they saw as the "true" market value of these sponsorships. But that's all relative and opinion to a large degree. But it only matters if they're related parties as that is the only circumstance that the "fair value" concept comes in. If Apple or Microsoft were to pay us £500m a year then there's absolutely nothing UEFA could do.
 
Quite right. I will rephrase it by saying PwC would make a case for Aabar being a related party and is probably why we agreed to limit their sponsorship as part of our settlement with UEFA.
Correct. But note that we agreed not to increase it. Had it been a related party and above market value then UEFA could have insisted on reducing it. We voluntarily agree to keep it at the same level which strongly suggests UEFA were on dubious grounds trying to make that case.
 
Correct. But note that we agreed not to increase it. Had it been a related party and above market value then UEFA could have insisted on reducing it. We voluntarily agree to keep it at the same level which strongly suggests UEFA were on dubious grounds trying to make that case.
Indeed it does.
 
This is all laughable!

The Sheikh could float a £1Bn bond tomorrow, service the debt with ease and make the club look like United, by shoveling the excess profits to outside interests and, apparently, UEFA and FFP auditors would have ZERO issues!

FFP is, was, and always will be a misnomer, as it was clearly designed to protect the cartel, because they thought only those clubs could meet the requirements based on their UEFA revenues and home market oligopolies.

When two wealthy investors saw it for what it was, they did what ANY investors would do and made certain their BUSINESS got in under the wire before the doors slammed shut on newcomers!

Fuck all of these pansyass whiners who are NOW trying to rewrite what happened....

...AGAIN!!!!

We are IN THE CLUB and there’s not a damned thing they can do about it now!!
 
It still staggers me how crap corporate email systems are.A corporate system should:
Use asymmetric encryption (public/private keys)
Public key to encrypt email.
Use private key to decrypt it.
Store mail encrypted.
Send different encryption of mail to each email recipient.
Store encryption keys in renote password vault.
Strong authentication and authorisation for access to the vault.
Backup of vault essential. Ba kup/restore tested regularly.
Authentication based on machines accessing email and ideally personal identification factors (face scan /retina scan).
Change users current encryption keys regularly.
Store recently used encryption keys locally in local hash table data store. Keys removed from locsl hash table as key usage ages. Set time in security policy.
When a person leaves the business authentication and authorisation to vault removed.

Any business not using secure email at corporate level needs CEO/CTO sacked.
.
 
Last edited:
It still staggers me how crap corporate email systems are.A corporate system should:
Use asymmetric encryption (public/private)
Public key to encrypt email.
Use private key to decrypt it.
Store mail encrypted.
Send different encryption to each email recipient
Store encryption keys in password vault
Change passwords regularly.
Yup, I agree ; )
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.