City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[SilverFox2]

I still cart believe that its OK for Addis to hold 7% in b Munich and its OK with ufea

Consistent with the members of UEFA who make the rules then decide who to enforce them against.
Not many Police Cars get booked for parking.

 

[chesterguy]

I would argue it is a mere technicality but you are right since UEFA/FIFA doesn't think so then it is anyways a moot point.

What is this mere technicality that you would argue. Etihad is owned by the UAE government, CFG is owned by Sheikh Mansour spot the difference. Now I dont mean to be rude but I would suggest I will listen to the lawyers and investigators at City and UEFA have deemed that these two entities are not related in anyway to a Chelsea fan wishing to denigrate what City have achieved in the past 5 years.

You second point that I am right is correct

 

[waspish]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

The attack dogs are assembling.

Its amazing though how chelsea fans winge about mansour's money when the mafia king spunked a fortune when no one else could compete with them! Then a guy comes along who was 20 times richer and they complain to uefa about spending etc!

yep and Chelsea still owe Abramovitch 1 billion but it is interest free..

 

[Damocles]

The attack dogs are assembling.

Its amazing though how chelsea fans winge about mansour's money when the mafia king spunked a fortune when no one else could compete with them! Then a guy comes along who was 20 times richer and they complain to uefa about spending etc!

I'm guessing you mean me so let me ask , When did I whine about it? Chelsea if you noticed wasn't a part of that Arsenal branded letter circulated.

I think the original discussion got digressed from. I was purely discussing how Etihad and CFG owners were effectively one and the same. In modern era, these things are emerging to be important as clubs which stick by the FFP rules to the point would feel hard done by if others find 'creative' maneuvers. Pre-FFP CIty and Chelsea competed in the market and the only people whining were Manchester United and Arsenal fans. I infact cheered City on vs United in 2012 so I am not sure why you believe Chelsea harbor some animosity towards MCFC. ( Maybe the other way round is true and I am not sure why that is though)

And this is categorically, provably incorrect and wrong. Even UEFA stated that Etihad and City are NOT related parties and they screw us every which way possible.

This is the point numerous people have tried to make to you.

At this point you're trolling and you'll be lucky to survive the rest of the night

 

[George Hannah]

Any news on when any of the legal challenges M DuPont etc are due to be heard?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNM-skJZGq0[/video]

 

[PixieScott]

I would argue it is a mere technicality but you are right since UEFA/FIFA doesn't think so then it is anyways a moot point.

What is this mere technicality that you would argue. Etihad is owned by the UAE government, CFG is owned by Sheikh Mansour spot the difference. Now I dont mean to be rude but I would suggest I will listen to the lawyers and investigators at City and UEFA have deemed that these two entities are not related in anyway to a Chelsea fan wishing to denigrate what City have achieved in the past 5 years.

You second point that I am right is correct

And this is categorically, provably incorrect and wrong. Even UEFA stated that Etihad and City are NOT related parties and they screw us every which way possible.

This is the point numerous people have tried to make to you.

At this point you're trolling and you'll be lucky to survive the rest of the night

The mere technicality I addressed in these 2 posts : <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539562#p8539562" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539562#p8539562</a> and <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539622#p8539622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539622#p8539622</a> where I illustrated how the Abu Dhabi Goverment and Sheikh Mansour are basically intertwined. Anyways you have your answer here, ADUG and Etihad aren't legally related is because of pre-defined equity requirement while I was discussing the relation between the owners. Also, at no point did I denigrate what City have achieved in the past 5 years.

I still cart believe that its OK for Addis to hold 7% in b Munich and its OK with ufea

The magic number is 20% , at which point the holding is classed as an associate of which they have significant influence.

The same accounting standards that rule our relationship with etihad as an unrelated party, namely ias28 & ias24

@Damocles
I agree and even conceded that UEFA has adjudicated them to be not related ( see above ). I disagree that I have been trolling unless you are insinuating that I made an account in 2014 to randomly come online on a Wednesday to troll and to what avail? I feel I've had a decent debate so far, while some feel the unnecessary need to be either too aggressive or defensive. My entire discussion was centered around Etihad/ADUG from a structural perspective , while the UEFA adjudicates these matters on an equity perspective. You're right though, this discussion seems to be going in circles and at this point everybody is echoing what they've already said. Hence, case closed.

 

[Damocles]

Let me make this as simple as I can as you are seemingly to struggle with this incredibly basic concept. I swear to God if you can't pick this up then you're not even trying.

Sheikh Mansour owns Manchester City lock, stock. 100% share ownership. The investment into the club is derived from his personal wealth.

Etihad Airways is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi just like General Motors were owned by your Government or these other 146 airlines that are Government owned.

A Government consists of many different people in many different roles. The UAE Government has somewhere in the region of ~500 employees across its various ministries and departments. One of those 500 people is Sheikh Mansour, who is Joint Deputy Prime Minister which is mainly ceremonial and also runs the Department of Presidential Affairs which looks after protocols for the President.

You are suggesting that Manchester City and Etihad are owned by the same people. This is because Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi Government, which is the Government of the Emirate, and Sheikh Mansour is from that Emirate but works for the Government of the UAE which is the country.

This is like suggesting that because the state of Hawaii owns Honolulu Airport and Barack Obama is the US President, than Barack Obama actually owns Honolulu Airport.

As I pointed out earlier, the reason you have gotten this wrong is because it's an Arab country and you couldn't give a shit about the details because all Arabs are the same person to you lot. Thanks, and bye bye.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I am pretty sure we are waiting for UEFA's evaluation of our FFP position,1 year on, before announcing a whole raft of sponsorship deals. This could be dangerous however as UEFA will do everything possible to shaft us. Indeed, I fully expect that we will have to go to court this summer - it will not be a "pinch".

Why? UEFA have already classed the Etihad deal as non related.

I don't think you could be further from the truth.

A pit of snakes cannot be trusted. Ever.
They will always try and strike and enforce restrictions on us.
Only by being vigilant and having a regiment of mongeese and a squadron of secretary birds protecting MCFC will we defeat them.

And the above will also have to be backed up by Honey Badgers and Eagles.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I would argue it is a mere technicality but you are right since UEFA/FIFA doesn't think so then it is anyways a moot point.

What is this mere technicality that you would argue. Etihad is owned by the UAE government, CFG is owned by Sheikh Mansour spot the difference. Now I dont mean to be rude but I would suggest I will listen to the lawyers and investigators at City and UEFA have deemed that these two entities are not related in anyway to a Chelsea fan wishing to denigrate what City have achieved in the past 5 years.

You second point that I am right is correct

And this is categorically, provably incorrect and wrong. Even UEFA stated that Etihad and City are NOT related parties and they screw us every which way possible.

This is the point numerous people have tried to make to you.

At this point you're trolling and you'll be lucky to survive the rest of the night

The mere technicality I addressed in these 2 posts : <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539562#p8539562" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539562#p8539562</a> and <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539622#p8539622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=308853&p=8539622#p8539622</a> where I illustrated how the Abu Dhabi Goverment and Sheikh Mansour are basically intertwined. Anyways you have your answer here, ADUG and Etihad aren't legally related is because of pre-defined equity requirement while I was discussing the relation between the owners. Also, at no point did I denigrate what City have achieved in the past 5 years.

I still cart believe that its OK for Addis to hold 7% in b Munich and its OK with ufea

The magic number is 20% , at which point the holding is classed as an associate of which they have significant influence.

The same accounting standards that rule our relationship with etihad as an unrelated party, namely ias28 & ias24

@Damocles
I agree and even conceded that UEFA has adjudicated them to be not related ( see above ). I disagree that I have been trolling unless you are insinuating that I made an account in 2014 to randomly come online on a Wednesday to troll and to what avail? I feel I've had a decent debate so far, while some feel the unnecessary need to be either too aggressive or defensive. My entire discussion was centered around Etihad/ADUG from a structural perspective , while the UEFA adjudicates these matters on an equity perspective. You're right though, this discussion seems to be going in circles and at this point everybody is echoing what they've already said. Hence, case closed.

International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) say Etihad, ADUG or CFG are not related parties to Etihad. As this is the body that sets International Law on business accounting I know you're talking out of your arse. Indeed huge chunks were cut out of IASB standards and dropped into FFP regulations, word for word, to try and legitimize it. Believe me when I say if they were related parties (and the term "related party" has nothing to do with non-parent/sibling blood ties) then UEFA would have ruled against us on this point last season. Strangely enough they didn't and that is because they are NOT related parties.
Read the definition here: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ifrs.org/Documents/IAS24.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ifrs.org/Documents/IAS24.pdf</a>

That said UEFA got round this inconvenient problem by allowing a small change to the FFP returns spreadsheet AFTER City submitted the 2012-13 accounts, that allowed UEFA to screw City and prevent Wages for June 2010 to be excluded. Meaning City failed FFP by a vast amount rather than a couple of million. Thus allowing UEFA to treat City in the same way they treated PSG (even though PSG never tried a jot to meet FFP while CIty did).

City decided that resorting to law would cost more than taking a €20m fine. With all sanctions lifted this summer as City have clearly met the FFP deal agreed with UEFA last May. That said I don't trust UEFA one jot so I'll expect them to have another try at shafting us,

Further, Etihad clearly made a shrewd deal in sponsoring City as the deal is far less than City could get today.

As to you PS. PS off if you're not prepared to accept facts
Signed Billy Goat Gruff.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Not sure why people are trying to engage with him. He's a living, breathing non sequitur.