Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

Just watched the Shaktar press conference... I thought people were calling a reporter Ladyman for a joke but that is his actual name?
 
Chris in London said:
I largely kept my powder dry on this because I wanted to see all four parts of the story before forming a view, but given part 3 was so piss poor I think I have enough to articulate my thoughts.

The biggest criticism seems to be the complaint that City inflated sponsorship deals to circumvent FFP. Except they didn't inflate the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deal with Asabar, for instance was £15m. Not £3m, or any other figure, but £15m. That's the amount that Aabar were contractually obliged to pay.

There is absolutely nothing in the FFPR that requires that any third party sponsorship money must, for instance, come from distributable profits. Where a third party gets the money from to sponsor a team is neither here nor there: what matters for the purposes of the FFPR is the sponsorship income. And in the case of Aabar, the amount of sponsorship income was £15m.

The complaint, when properly understood, cannot be that City overstated the sponsorship deal, because they didn't. They reported sponsorship from Aabar of £15m, which is exactly what the contract said. The complaint must be that Aabar would not have entered into that contract in the first place if it had not been made clear to them that £12m would be provided from elsewhere. So in other words, the value of the sponsorship was artificially inflated (assuming the emails are genuine).

That however does not contravene the regulations. Nowhere does UEFA get to impose its own 'true and fair' valuation of the sponsorship deals other than in the case of related party transactions, which IIRC Aabar wasn't. So, assuming the emails are genuine, and the additional sponsorship money actually originated from HHSM, did we breach the spirit of the regulations? yep. Did we take advantage of what the regulations don't say? Absolutely. Did we actually breach the regulations then in force? Absolutely not.

So the complaint when you boil it down to its bare essentials is that we found a way round the regulations, and didn't tell UEFA what we had done.

Well cry me a fucking river. We all know these regulations were designed as a means of ossifying the status quo and making it more difficult for a team to progress in that competition. Der Spiegel actually say that in terms - they say that City could (and they imply should) have lowered their on-pitch expectations. So if people want to cry about it now because we found an arguably immoral way round regulations that themselves were immoral from the get-go, me my guest.

For my own part, and if you are reading this Matthew Syed, I'm talking to you, I have an absolutely clear conscience. The club I support has breached no regulations, and the worst that can be said of them is that they have fought fire with fire. If you have a problem with that, feel free to write more of your sanctimonious shite. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Take a bow.
 
Chris in London said:
I largely kept my powder dry on this because I wanted to see all four parts of the story before forming a view, but given part 3 was so piss poor I think I have enough to articulate my thoughts.

The biggest criticism seems to be the complaint that City inflated sponsorship deals to circumvent FFP. Except they didn't inflate the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deal with Asabar, for instance was £15m. Not £3m, or any other figure, but £15m. That's the amount that Aabar were contractually obliged to pay.

There is absolutely nothing in the FFPR that requires that any third party sponsorship money must, for instance, come from distributable profits. Where a third party gets the money from to sponsor a team is neither here nor there: what matters for the purposes of the FFPR is the sponsorship income. And in the case of Aabar, the amount of sponsorship income was £15m.

The complaint, when properly understood, cannot be that City overstated the sponsorship deal, because they didn't. They reported sponsorship from Aabar of £15m, which is exactly what the contract said. The complaint must be that Aabar would not have entered into that contract in the first place if it had not been made clear to them that £12m would be provided from elsewhere. So in other words, the value of the sponsorship was artificially inflated (assuming the emails are genuine).

That however does not contravene the regulations. Nowhere does UEFA get to impose its own 'true and fair' valuation of the sponsorship deals other than in the case of related party transactions, which IIRC Aabar wasn't. So, assuming the emails are genuine, and the additional sponsorship money actually originated from HHSM, did we breach the spirit of the regulations? yep. Did we take advantage of what the regulations don't say? Absolutely. Did we actually breach the regulations then in force? Absolutely not.

So the complaint when you boil it down to its bare essentials is that we found a way round the regulations, and didn't tell UEFA what we had done.

Well cry me a fucking river. We all know these regulations were designed as a means of ossifying the status quo and making it more difficult for a team to progress in that competition. Der Spiegel actually say that in terms - they say that City could (and they imply should) have lowered their on-pitch expectations. So if people want to cry about it now because we found an arguably immoral way round regulations that themselves were immoral from the get-go, me my guest.

For my own part, and if you are reading this Matthew Syed, I'm talking to you, I have an absolutely clear conscience. The club I support has breached no regulations, and the worst that can be said of them is that they have fought fire with fire. If you have a problem with that, feel free to write more of your sanctimonious shite. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this, I'm not sure whether Aabar are or are not considered as a related party. Due to the fact that we paid them, to pay us, it could be argued they are a related party.

Notwithstanding that, part one of these "Leaks" showed a table, which was taken from our financial report for that season, and clearly showed a subsidy to Abu Dhabi based sponsors, which included Aabar, and whoever else from AD was sponsoring us. We did this to the tune of £150m total.

I'm not here to offer my opinion on that, it is what it is, but the fact we declared it, and the fact that UEFA at the time IIRC adjusted at least one of our sponsorship deals to represent "Fair Market Value" shows that this was dealt with, by UEFA. This action was more than likely one contributory factor to why we failed FFP that season.

The point is, there is absolutely nothing new about that at all, apart from maybe the name of one of the sponsors implicated.
There is nothing wrong with party related sponsorship at all so long as it's declared and represents fair value. We declared it, UEFA adjusted the figures, and we moved on, with a "pinch".

Parts 1-3 so far have done nothing other than re-hash old news, but with a very clear, one sided narrative. Maybe apart from the odd snippet about Aabar being named specifically, and the alleged human rights issue with Arabtec.

Nothing at all to worry about, and by Friday this will all be yesterdays news, and probably nothing at all more!
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Just need to fuck Stelling & a few more front of housers out.

As for all these ****s producing shit articles, well apparently we've got thousands of empty seats, WiFi & they'll all have a mobile.......put the fuckers in random seats all around the ground so we can have friendly chats with them oh and make them drink/eat the stuff we have to put up with.

Preferential treatment for these shits who never ever say a good word & hate us while 'we' end up with no perks apart from the football...(I'm sure you know what I mean).
Click to expand...
I lost my seat of 27 years due to these free loading lying turds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.