BlueAnorak said:Damocles said:BlueAnorak said:City can't improve commercial deals with 2nd tier sponsors in Abu Dhabi with firms where Sheikh Mansour is a major shareholder or is a director of.
That's not what that says. It points to two specific second tier commercial deals which City have agreed not to currently seek improved terms upon. Not all second tier, not Mansour related second tier are included, just those two specific ones.
Agreed it is two specific ones. but it is not Etihad - which is great news!
I believe one is AABAR that is 71% owned by the International Petroleum Investment Company that Sheikh Mansour sits on the board of - so he exhorts some sort of control on that companies policy.
I changed the comment to read:
City can't improve commercial deals with TWO 2nd tier sponsors in Abu Dhabi with firms where I believe Sheikh Mansour is a major shareholder or is a director or has direct major influence. An insignificant penalty really.
Graceyboy said:BlueAnorak said:Damocles said:That's not what that says. It points to two specific second tier commercial deals which City have agreed not to currently seek improved terms upon. Not all second tier, not Mansour related second tier are included, just those two specific ones.
Agreed it is two specific ones. but it is not Etihad - which is great news!
I believe one is AABAR that is 71% owned by the International Petroleum Investment Company that Sheikh Mansour sits on the board of - so he exhorts some sort of control on that companies policy.
I changed the comment to read:
City can't improve commercial deals with TWO 2nd tier sponsors in Abu Dhabi with firms where I believe Sheikh Mansour is a major shareholder or is a director or has direct major influence. An insignificant penalty really.
So is it OK for QPR to have their Major sponsor as Air Asia, which is another Tony Fernandez company?
I know they are not in Chumps league, so they don't have their accounts scutinised like we do, but come on, I thought FFP was for the good of all football, not just Champ league teams. There has to be a set of rules for all clubs under UEFA or not at all...
Its just all a load of corrupt nonsense
Didsbury Dave said:tolmie's hairdoo said:It would appear we have been allowed to book the entire amount of the Negredo sale in this current monitoring period - about £27m inc £3m loan fee.
We had a £13m underspend from the summer.
In essence, we have around £40m to spend in this window BEFORE any sales of Guidetti, Sinclair and Nastasic.
Bony is more than covered, as is the potential for another circa £20m plus player if we so wished.
More and more, I believe UEFA and City concocted this whole show.
Correct mate. Mullock's got the steer. And we appear to be structuring deals around milestones, ensuring that large payments fall outside the accounting period.
I think City struck a deal they were happy with, having UEFA largely over a barrel with regards to ramifications, and UEFA went along with it on the understanding that the wider perception was that the punishment was much more severe than it was. I sensed it at the time with our bullish statement.
There's nothing to stop them having Air Asia as a sponsor but if they're a related party then that will be disclosed in the accounts plus if the sponsorship is at market value then there's no problem.Graceyboy said:BlueAnorak said:Damocles said:That's not what that says. It points to two specific second tier commercial deals which City have agreed not to currently seek improved terms upon. Not all second tier, not Mansour related second tier are included, just those two specific ones.
Agreed it is two specific ones. but it is not Etihad - which is great news!
I believe one is AABAR that is 71% owned by the International Petroleum Investment Company that Sheikh Mansour sits on the board of - so he exhorts some sort of control on that companies policy.
I changed the comment to read:
City can't improve commercial deals with TWO 2nd tier sponsors in Abu Dhabi with firms where I believe Sheikh Mansour is a major shareholder or is a director or has direct major influence. An insignificant penalty really.
So is it OK for QPR to have their Major sponsor as Air Asia, which is another Tony Fernandez company?
I know they are not in Chumps league, so they don't have their accounts scutinised like we do, but come on, I thought FFP was for the good of all football, not just Champ league teams. There has to be a set of rules for all clubs under UEFA or not at all...
Its just all a load of corrupt nonsense
The Fat el Hombre said:Didsbury Dave said:tolmie's hairdoo said:It would appear we have been allowed to book the entire amount of the Negredo sale in this current monitoring period - about £27m inc £3m loan fee.
We had a £13m underspend from the summer.
In essence, we have around £40m to spend in this window BEFORE any sales of Guidetti, Sinclair and Nastasic.
Bony is more than covered, as is the potential for another circa £20m plus player if we so wished.
More and more, I believe UEFA and City concocted this whole show.
Correct mate. Mullock's got the steer. And we appear to be structuring deals around milestones, ensuring that large payments fall outside the accounting period.
I think City struck a deal they were happy with, having UEFA largely over a barrel with regards to ramifications, and UEFA went along with it on the understanding that the wider perception was that the punishment was much more severe than it was. I sensed it at the time with our bullish statement.
What about them screwing us over last summer with us failing on a technicality or them moving the goalposts or whatever it was? Are you thinking that UEFA are on-side with us since that?
That's exactly the point I made when the sanctions were announced:Didsbury Dave said:The Fat el Hombre said:Didsbury Dave said:Correct mate. Mullock's got the steer. And we appear to be structuring deals around milestones, ensuring that large payments fall outside the accounting period.
I think City struck a deal they were happy with, having UEFA largely over a barrel with regards to ramifications, and UEFA went along with it on the understanding that the wider perception was that the punishment was much more severe than it was. I sensed it at the time with our bullish statement.
What about them screwing us over last summer with us failing on a technicality or them moving the goalposts or whatever it was? Are you thinking that UEFA are on-side with us since that?
Tolm appears to be insinuating that. I'm not. I think UEFA moved the goalposts, we came down on them strong with heavy threats of ramifications, and a deal was struck which City could easily work to and made UEFA look to have come down hard when in reality they couldn't.
Prestwich_Blue said:I'm not sure we'd say we've won but it seems like we're relatively unscathed. The sanctions are largely non-sanctions given where we are and our future plans. But they look tough.chaddblue said:I'm on a train and pissed. But reading the official city statement it seems we've won, but made to look like uefa have won?
We're not doing too badly without them tbf.ManCityX said:The biggest blow with regards to the sanctions is that we'd have Di Maria, Sanchez or Fabregas in our team now if they hadn't been put in place.
gordondaviesmoustache said:We're not doing too badly without them tbf.ManCityX said:The biggest blow with regards to the sanctions is that we'd have Di Maria, Sanchez or Fabregas in our team now if they hadn't been put in place.
IanBishopsHaircut said:gordondaviesmoustache said:We're not doing too badly without them tbf.ManCityX said:The biggest blow with regards to the sanctions is that we'd have Di Maria, Sanchez or Fabregas in our team now if they hadn't been put in place.
Back of the net gord