Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

No Duncan it was most probably you that posted it.

Btw the account is banned.
You would imagine it was Duncan Castles planting his own fake quote, then saying it was a City fan. Sounds like gutter journalism you would expect from him.

Poster was called " Sun Jihad", Castles writes for the "Sun..day Times" and he might think he's on an ironic holy war against our club?

It would be interesting if the mods could trace his IP address to confirm it was him?
 

The trouble is that UEFA v City/PSG in a court battle would mean Bayern etc & their chums over here can't lose. Either way one side gets taken out, if it's us then job done, if it's UEFA they will be so damaged they will be swept away by the cartel's Super League and we will only allowed in that on their terms.

That's why it's so sad when PB claims the club could have easily avoided these attacks by rolling over and accepting FFP uncontested in 2011/12. He now endorses those who are part of the corrupt mob trying to destroy us - like Gabriel Marcotti and Rory Smith - when we should be fighting to support Oliver Holt and Martin Samuel. FFP was weaponised specifically against City at the behest of the G14. Its financial constraints were re-engineered not to to affect them and even then, the parameters were changed when it was clear we were going to comply. If we had gone down that path we would now, arguably, be a club without a PL title, without this team and this manager - possibly even without our current owners.

@Chris in London put it so well "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."

"given that the entire raisin d’etre of FFP is to fuck us over in favour of the G14 cartel, on this occasion I don’t see any problem with taking advantage of what the regulations don’t say. ... UEFA regulations are nothing more than the rules of a game. And we didn’t breach those rules."
 
Last edited:


I don't think that the basis of any case City brought would be that FFP is anti-competitive, though I believe it is. City's case would be that the ban on owner investment (which has been amended now!) is clearly contrary to Article 101 of the Treaty for the functioning of the EU.
 
It’s logical thinking for anybody without blue delusion; UEFA will face mass revolt if they don’t act on proven self-subsidised sponsorship that has facilitated artificial compliance with the rules, and the residual capacity to assemble a circa-£850m squad as a result.

This isn’t an attack on Manchester City, rather a crusade against Oil State’s using their infinite wealth to buy success, under the false guise of individual ownership and organic growth; winning in such an manner isn’t achievement, but inevitability.

Such an era of anti-sport is unprecedented, and ultimately unenjoyable for those without an inferiority complex; all of the bleating about the ‘G14’ is laughably paradoxical, considering we’ve now leapfrogged them all in terms of vulagarity and monopoly.

The ultimate goal, given all of the propaganda regarding the academy and a holistic approach etc, should have been our own Class of ‘92, but instead, the revelations of the past week have exposed those running the club as extremely dubious characters, and in reality have ended up with the Lacking Class of ‘18.

Fair play to Vicky Kloss for advising the snakes against accepting the Arabtec blood money; she’s one of the few morally sound elements of the club these days. It’s a shame those who used to dine out on being a ‘proper club’ aren’t similarly dignified.
So Duncan castles now posts on Bluemoon ? SAD !
 
He has a point to be fair.

City also had a third option. They could have done things comletely by the book, failed FFP by maybe £50m more than we did, taken the hit and moved on. Those 2013 accounts, with the sale of IP both intra-group and to this third-party, controlled by us or friends of ours, were cringeworthy in some respects. And in the end, it did us no good as, thanks to UEFA's change to the calculation of allowable wages in their toolkit, we failed anyway.

I agree we could've done that Col and Marcotti does have a point to an extent about how we handled things. It looks like we tried to "wing it" which is what I suggested after the sanctions were announced but my feeling is that the reason we did this is possibly because UEFA moved the goalposts towards the end of the monitoring period and in doing so they were kind of inadvertently inviting City to try and find, ahem, creative ways of passing the break-even requirement. That we still failed is typical City really but there you go.

Where I think Marcotti is bang out of order is him suggesting PSG went about things in a more acceptable way than City did. This marks a complete shift in opinion to the narrative that many were peddling in that while City weren't perfect, we weren't blatantly taking the piss like PSG were with that ridiculously high backdated sponsorship deal. Even some opposition fans were saying that we weren't taking the piss as much as PSG. Now all of a sudden, PSG are getting a relative free pass in some quarters.
 
The trouble is that UEFA v City/PSG in a court battle would mean Bayern etc & their chums over here can't lose. Either way one side gets taken out, if it's us then job done, if it's UEFA they will be so damaged they will be swept away by the cartel's Super League and we will only allowed in that on their terms.


Bayern & co. can't compete with unrestricted spending by Abu Dhabi, Qatar, and anyone else who comes along after FFP is ruled illegal. They can't then go and make a super league with a similar restriction, it would be stuck down immediately for failing the same laws.


They would lose massively if FFP was struck down.
 

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.