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

Seemingly he is writing about history.

The collective hatred of the cartel were not able to bring themselves to actually do what he says they were close to doing at a time when they saw themselves as invincible and accountable to no one. I wonder why they chose to be so lenient with us.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And completely misleading as well. The concept of fair market value only applies to transactions with what are known as related parties and Etihad, as I've said before, is not a related party. That's a standard and long-established accounting concept and, if they were, would have been declared as such in our accounts. The fact that our owner, a private individual, is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi is not enough, in itself, to make City & Etihad related parties.

Therefore UEFA had no grounds to investigate or adjust these, as he's trying to imply. So this wasn't done by or on behalf of UEFA. His "independent assessor" is probably our old friend Ed Thompson.
Click to expand...

It's the usual exercise in placing non-sequiturs to give an image of dodginess - the stadium naming thing for tenants and stadium owners is one that stood out. It's not a secret that the only reason City don't own the stadium is that it would deny income to the city council, and that they are almost de facto owners.

The related parties thing is funny - presumably Harris thinks that international guidelines on related parties don't apply!

He does appear to be quite a bitter man.
 
Ric said:
I see Nick Harris still hasn't got over his bitterness towards us. Phenomenally biased article, as always.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eague-bans-plea-bargain-punishments-2014.html
Click to expand...
I love the 'sources familiar with the process' quote. So it's not someone who was in the know regarding us or PSG (or even UEFA themselves) but someone who had read UEFA's rules? Could it have been the knob that does the Arsenal blog that seems to be as obsessed (and clueless) with us as Harris is?
 
ColinLee said:
I love the 'sources familiar with the process' quote. So it's not someone who was in the know regarding us or PSG (or even UEFA themselves) but someone who had read UEFA's rules? Could it have been the knob that does the Arsenal blog that seems to be as obsessed (and clueless) with us as Harris is?
Click to expand...
It was probably Ed Thompson I suspect. I very much doubt City would have needed to declare to UEFA how the Etihad deal was split, assuming they even had a split.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It was probably Ed Thompson I suspect. I very much doubt City would have needed to declare to UEFA how the Etihad deal was split, assuming they even had a split.
Click to expand...
So "Sources NOT familiar with the process" then. You're probably right, the piece has all the incompitance of Ed.

I can't be bothered digging up the proper facts (it's not worth the effort), but from memory:
UEFA only objected to about £10m of IPR.
The sponsorships from Aabar and Etisalat was let through but we were warned as to increasing it (so it was OK then).
As to a bonus for getting to the FA cup final - this also passed muster as paying for advertising for the FA cup final costs more than that (Arsenal got paid similar bonus payments from Emirates).
Then of course there is no mention of changing the compliance spreadsheet after we submitted our accounts in 2011/12. Old sheet gives us about £5m extra revenue - which would have allowed us to include pre 2010 wage s and thus pass FFP.

Nick Harris has passing similarity to a dog turd.
 
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.