Nicely put by Henkeman. We are though relying on media interpretations / information about UEFA's position.Agree that's my take on this as well.
From our friends 'close to the investigation' it seems that our financials are ok but we have been charged as we misled the FFP investigation.
Why would this matter when the audited accounts show definitive proof of our income? Can anyone think of a reason why misleading the investigation could be such a serious breach and lead to a one years expulsion from the CL?
Is there some clause in FFP about being open and transparent maybe or is there something else I'm missing?
Huawei - to validate our pariah status.The relationship with Etihad has been a tremendous success, although perhaps the time is coming (with their own financial issues) that City may seek a new separate shirt sponsor?
Not sure if that is too much of a pride thing though? Etihad could still sponsor the stadium and campus, in addition to our training gear, which is easily worth £40m per annum.
However, a new shirt sponsor, in light of our elevated status in recent years, must surely be worth the thick end of £60-£70m a year?
I'm sure this is where the next influx of commercial cash is coming from and that China will have a big part to play?
I'm perhaps looking at this from a procedural angle rather than a technical one, but appreciate your input as I hadn't followed this UEFA investigation into PSG and was just commenting on the link. What I don't understand is if UEFA had deemed their initial investigation into PSG's sponsorship deals as appropriate, why did they then try to re-open it? What was UEFA's reasoning?Having inflated deals is not a problem if you can satisfy the break even rule after UEFA put them at a fair market value. PSG sold players to balance their account, which means no wrongdoing was found. This is the final verdict that stood in their case.
Manchester City has, so far, no problem with the break even rule. Thus, i don't see what is similar here.
The whole case of PSG could be read, instead of PSG cheating UEFA again with inflated deals, as UEFA fails again to put a definite "fair market value" on PSG contracts.
We won that game anyway, so it counting as double wouldn't have affected our points total.Was was Vincent's goal against Leicester then?
This cnut has a real hard on for us lately ..
The BBC's Dan Roan says that "Portuguese judge Jose Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues is the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber and will look at the case with at least three of its four members - vice-chairmen Christiaan Timmermans, of the Netherlands, Switzerland's Louis Peila, English QC Charles Flint and Adam Giersz, Poland's former sports minister.
I assume he has been reading UEFA's disciplinary processes. They publically detail their structure and members of their committees. It maybe that Charles Flint does not play a part?
You need to get a dictionary and look up the word genuine.
Anyone should be allowed to post genuine posts on any forum but your 69 posts on red cafe have confused me somewhat. I couldn’t be arsed to go through them all so I’ve picked out three
4/4/19. (About City). “Leeds,Newcastle, Everton have much bigger following and are therefore bigger clubs for me.”
28/4/19. “Fecking embarrassing all the City love in here”
23/4/19. “Nah I’m a neutral with a slight leaning towards Liverpool if I’m honest. Mostly because feck City and their bottomless pit of cash ruining the PL.”
The last post is the one that really confused me when it’s put alongside your 1st post yesterday.
You slimey little fucking turd.
Imagine my surprise to see how many stories Tariq Panja has seemingly done on/with David Gill down the years, the inside track he seemingly has with regards United's commercial activities for over a decade/what Gill's career status is.
Feel free just to put the two names together into Google.
Rick Parry might be cut from the same cloth but the boogie monster leaker might be a little closer to home, especially when you research Panja's work history.
Just saying.