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

[Ban-jani]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I have read most of the thread but being a thick fuker are we in the shit .....yes or no please

No. We won't even get a fine as we've met FFPR.

These three clubs have basically soiled themselves because they've realised we're in business now. It's a last chance at flapping to UEFA but they haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[BlueRockape]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I have read most of the thread but being a thick fuker are we in the shit .....yes or no please

No. We won't even get a fine as we've met FFPR.

These three clubs have basically soiled themselves because they've realised we're in business now. It's a last chance at flapping to UEFA but they haven't got a leg to stand on.

Cheers blue :-)

 

[john@staustell]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

It's just a last desperate tabloid reaction to our annual accounts, nothing more. This time next year the accounts will be so good it will be obvious to the thickest, most biased of them.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Something tells me this wouldn't be an issue if we were currently pulling a United and sat in mid-table.

Well to be fair, Euro expulsion wouldn't be an issue for the rags right now.<br /><br />-- Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:01 pm --<br /><br />

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2550483/They-beat-City-pitch-Arsenal-Chelsea-Liverpool-ganging-squealing-UEFA-THATS-RICH-MARTIN-SAMUEL.html

You can always rely on Martin Samuel to tell it like it is.

 

[CityWest]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Something tells me this wouldn't be an issue if we were currently pulling a United and sat in mid-table.

Well to be fair, Euro expulsion wouldn't be an issue for the rags right now.

-- Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:01 pm --

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2550483/They-beat-City-pitch-Arsenal-Chelsea-Liverpool-ganging-squealing-UEFA-THATS-RICH-MARTIN-SAMUEL.html

You can always rely on Martin Samuel to tell it like it is.

I know ha ha....sorry I couldn't paste the full article on my phone!!

 

[M18CTID]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

That bitter hypocritical prick Tony Attwood who runs the Untold Arsenal website has got his tongue firmly wedged up Mourinho's arse on this one.

You know the score blues - let's put the **** in his place:

<a class="postlink" href="http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/33917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/33917</a>

Had my say already:

So City have brought in £10.5 million in transfer sales in the past year have we? I presume the bulk of that is the Tevez fee but funny how the sale of Balotelli for nearly £20 million exactly 12 months ago is conveniently forgotten.

A word of advice Mr Attwood – if you’re going to write a piece condemning Manchester City Football Club, I suggest you get your facts straight first. As for this pathetic straw-clutching attempt to get City banned from European competition, keep dreaming. I’ll also point out that your thinly-veiled accusation that City are in some way “cooking the books” is libellous and could potentially land you in a lot of trouble.

I’ll leave it there because I’m sure plenty of my fellow blue brethren will be along shortly to pull yet another one of your laughable articles to pieces.

 

[George Hannah]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2550483/They-beat-City-pitch-Arsenal-Chelsea-Liverpool-ganging-squealing-UEFA-THATS-RICH-MARTIN-SAMUEL.html

You can always rely on Martin Samuel to tell it like it is.[/quote]

I know ha ha....sorry I couldn't paste the full article on my phone!![/quote]

They can't beat City on the pitch so Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool are ganging up on them and squealing to UEFA... THAT'S RICH!
Clubs wrong to run to UEFA over City spending

By MARTIN SAMUEL
PUBLISHED: 3 February 2014

If you can’t beat them, sue them. That is the latest plan. Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea may use UEFA small print to derail Manchester City, if they fail to do it on the pitch.
Were City to fail UEFA’s financial fair play regulations, there is room to plea bargain, to promise to make good, to affect change by a certain time, and remain in the Champions League.
Yet if that happened, there is also a 10-day period in which other clubs can challenge the decision.
The suggestion is now that the English clubs would gang up on City and try to force UEFA to reconsider. Manchester United would be part of this too, no doubt, if they were in any position to contemplate Champions League football next season.


So let’s start with what is not Manchester City’s fault. It is not Manchester City’s fault that Arsenal, with immense financial resources, chose to recruit one player in the transfer window: Kim Kallstrom, a 31-year-old loan deal from Spartak Moscow, who turned up seriously injured. It is not Manchester City’s fault that Chelsea had to sell last year’s player of the season, Juan Mata, to Manchester United for £37million.

It is not Manchester City’s fault that Liverpool have failed to win the title in the modern era, despite spending significant money on players ranging from Phil Babb to Stan Collymore, Emile Heskey, Djibril Cisse, Fernando Torres, Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll — all of whom have been club-record signings since the formation of the Premier League, and about two of whom have lived up to expectations.

Finally, it is not Manchester City’s fault that, due to the arbitrary and misapplied nature of UEFA’s financial regulations, an expansion project that would have proceeded steadily had to be hiked up to ramming speed to get inside the fortress before the established elite raised the drawbridge.
In every other aspect, City are attempting to build from the roots up: academies, facilities, local regeneration. They are giving more back to the area of east Manchester than they have ever taken out.

The reason hundreds of millions had to be spent on players, however, was that Michel Platini came up with a plan for greater financial responsibility and then executed it so poorly that any team beyond the upper echelon was likely to remain so for ever.
City had to smash their way in or risk exclusion. This was Platini’s doing, not City’s choice; just as it is to please UEFA that balance sheets now have to be so expertly constructed.
Football club accountants must be more creative than coaches these days. The current complaints centre around vague calculations in Manchester City’s latest figures — image and intellectual property rights have been sold to an unnamed party for close to £50m, allowing the club to cut its losses by almost half - but they are unlikely to be any more brilliantly conceived than Chelsea’s profit of £1.4m to June 2012, with Roman Abramovich also converting £166.6m in loans to equity.

Unstoppable: None of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool look like beating Manchester City on the pitch

Unfairly targeted: It is not Manchester City's fault that their rivals cannot get their own houses in order

If it wasn’t so unjust it would almost be comic that Chelsea are among the most vocal objectors to City’s business strategy. Financial fair play was introduced as a way of stopping Abramovich, and other new money investors, buying up the prizes.
Having hijacked the idea and manoeuvred Platini into turning it into an elite-club protection scheme, to hear his minions pontificate on FFP compliance is a bit like watching the Corleone family trying to go legit, but without the inevitable bloodbath.

Dodge City? Jose Mourinho said UEFA should investigate clubs who are complying with FFP in a 'dodgy' way+22

Last week, without naming names of course, because everyone knew whom he was talking about anyway, Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho spoke of investigating the clubs who are complying with FFP in what he termed a ‘dodgy’ way. ‘If I was a journalist interested in football, it would be something interesting to do,’ he said.
So let’s get interesting.
In the eight seasons prior to that profit in 2012, Chelsea lost £630m. In 2009, Abramovich wrote off £710m in loans he had given the club since 2003 (this does not include the £166.6m figure converted to equity last year). Since 2012, Chelsea have lost another £49.4m, compared to Manchester City’s £51m. Maybe they sold the good accountant to Manchester United, too.

Spend, spend, spend: LIverpool have splashed out millions on the likes of Stan Collymore (left) and Luis Suarez over the past 20-odd years and haven't managed to win the title
It's your doing, Michel: The badly-executed plan thought up by Michel Platini (centre) lead to City having to smash their way into the elite
And do you know what? It shouldn’t matter. As long as a very wealthy man is giving his money to a football club — and not placing it in jeopardy, or holding it to ransom with loans — what is the problem?

This is money from outside football coming into football. It creates competition and trickle-down benefits and, as no investor wants to be putting in forever, in time they all try to run the business for a profit anyway.
It wasn’t fair when UEFA were moaning about Abramovich either. Indeed, the only reason Chelsea’s losses are of interest now is their hypocrisy in attacking City for doing exactly what Abramovich did, except with the good fortune of not having UEFA on his back at the time.
Abramovich threw money at Chelsea because he wanted to — City bought players because they had to. There’s the difference.
Now, remind us all again, Jose, what’s dodgy?


Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2550483/They-beat-City-pitch-Arsenal-Chelsea-Liverpool-ganging-squealing-UEFA-THATS-RICH-MARTIN-SAMUEL.html#ixzz2sFk3QIIq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z2sFk3QIIq</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Lord Blue]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

So "Jose Mourinho issues FFP warning", does he not realize that Chelsea's recent Gross spend and Net spend is higher than City's. see foryourselves...
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/manchester-city-transfers.html
http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/chelsea-transfers.html

 

[bobmcfc]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

In the eight seasons prior to that profit in 2012, Chelsea lost £630m. In 2009, Abramovich wrote off £710m in loans he had given the club since 2003 (this does not include the £166.6m figure converted to equity last year). Since 2012, Chelsea have lost another £49.4m, compared to Manchester City’s £51m. Maybe they sold the good accountant to Manchester United, too.

 

[bluetonium]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I remember speaking with a friend of my wife's at a friend's wedding last year about this, a united fan it turned out, but he was of the view that UEFA needs the buy-in of all its clubs to enforce this, and by that very measure can not afford to implement anything too strong, especially against one of the more prominent clubs, so they would always look to work with a club rather than take sanctions as they are on very shaky legal ground. They'd probably get away with banning a Bulgarian team due to lack of resources to fight it, but not Man City or PSG, for example.

Where it becomes potentially sticky, for UEFA certainly, is if other clubs are actively lobbying against another club. If this really is happening and any official requests or suggestions are recorded, it could really develop quite quickly into a very big mess.

I truly did not expect other clubs to make such a move, but FFP, although its basic manta is praiseworthy, is fundamentally flawed not just morally but potentially legally too, and the short-sightedness of some clubs in supporting it and even attacking other clubs will come back to haunt a few. That lot over the road could be a prime example.

A few of the papers, even SSN last week, started it by presenting it as City will pass so no story here. Now it seems to have developed into more of a negative against us, but I have no doubt at all that is due to the PR machines of certain clubs and the fact we play Chelsea tonight and are near the top of the table - if we were bottom half this would not be an issue and it really appears to be a case of scared rivals trying to protect their own interests.

Bottom line is UEFA would not dare to bring sanctions against us. Or PSG. Or anyone of that ilk. The reasons are many and varied but include, most importantly, that we have passed their supposed guidelines and been in regular contact with UEFA for months about this. Then we have the whole legality issue, you pull the tigers tail and don't be surprised if it bites - City have been very clever to not legally recognise FFP, if UEFA took action against us they would find themselves in a legal battle of epic proportions that could threaten their entire organisation - loss of earnings to & defamation of, multiple brands and players etc etc.

In addition, UEFA also have strongly facilitated money making opportunities for big clubs in Europe for many years, actively rewarding the biggest and the best, so in previous years spending big somewhat paid for itself. You cannot then alter this culture overnight, which is why FFP has such cut offs and acknowledges financial movement over multiple seasons, and why it positively has to take also into consideration future performance - if we were expected to not be a top team after such expenditure then there is clearly a problem, but instead we will be a self-perpetuating, money making top team for years with the groundwork we are setting in place. UEFA will have to recognise that, not least because they will be getting a slice of that pie.

Add to that the attitude and supposed actions of those who could gain financially from the apparent defamation of our club and you have a real explosive cocktail, so go on Jose or Arsene, light the fuse and lets see who is in the best position afterwards after we are awarded several millions. That would look great in our FFP income column, not so good in their expenditure one.

City are the most exciting thing to happen to the Premiership for years, possibly ever. High scoring games, a 'we'll score more than you' attitude, last minute league winning goals, real investment into the women's game, promotion and improvement of the local area, a long term commitment and philosophy to improve the standards of football and footballing ability in Manchester and therefore in England by encouraging and tutoring more complete, technically aware players, ensuring the best players in the world at least have one more reason to consider England as their place to ply their trade which in turn attracts sponsors and TV money... All this comes at a price, but will create a legacy that we, English football and eventually even UEFA will benefit from.

In short, don't be worried, be amused. Next year if we announce a profit, which seems extremely likely, I can't wait to hear their stuttering objections from our 'rivals'.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

It will be difficult for a UEFA to ban city without also banning PSG and a few more as well. There is no way they will do so as the division it would cause in football and the issues with sponsors and TV stations would be something UEFA wouldn't sanction.

Besides I doubt any team who qualifies would bother to go to war and make enemies of city so arsenal and Chelsea won't be doing anything and I am sure owner to owner we can ensure that. Our worry is the team who come 5th who actually have something to gain from it.

Very much doubt this story will come to anything - it's rag attention diverting propaganda

 

[Newman Noggs]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Very interested that, although United's finger prints are all over this, they aren't one of the club's mentioned as comprising the potential lobbyists. It could be because they are embarrassed to be named in case they don't qualify anyway, though, in truth they appear to be beyond such self-awareness. No. I suspect it's to do with the clear conflict of interest as regards David Gill. When it firms up, I fully expect the proposal to be that we be 'suspended' pending scrutiny of our books to be replaced by the English club with the highest coefficient whether they qualify in 4th or not. Happily all the major players at Uefa are corrupt fuckwits totally incapable of getting anything right even their own bent rules so we can sit back and enjoy.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: Re:

Keith, can you explain to
Me why it contravenes EU law?

In short, because it restricts competition. I believe that legal opinion given to our owners supports this.

Correct, a judicial challenge of the FFPR at ECJ will only have one outcome.

or C.A.S. to be fair, they have very strong opinions on legislative bodies trying to restrict funding coming into sports and will not see any anti-competitive measures as 'fair play'.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re: Re:

In short, because it restricts competition. I believe that legal opinion given to our owners supports this.

Correct, a judicial challenge of the FFPR at ECJ will only have one outcome.

or C.A.S. to be fair, they have very strong opinions on legislative bodies trying to restrict funding coming into sports and will not see any anti-competitive measures as 'fair play'.

If you appeal against your assessment and the Adjudicatory Panel at UEFA uphold the original assessment then you can go to CAS anyway.

If you want to challenge FFP generally then it would have to be through the European Court.

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I remember speaking with a friend of my wife's at a friend's wedding last year about this, a united fan it turned out, but he was of the view that UEFA needs the buy-in of all its clubs to enforce this, and by that very measure can not afford to implement anything too strong, especially against one of the more prominent clubs, so they would always look to work with a club rather than take sanctions as they are on very shaky legal ground. They'd probably get away with banning a Bulgarian team due to lack of resources to fight it, but not Man City or PSG, for example.

Where it becomes potentially sticky, for UEFA certainly, is if other clubs are actively lobbying against another club. If this really is happening and any official requests or suggestions are recorded, it could really develop quite quickly into a very big mess.

I truly did not expect other clubs to make such a move, but FFP, although its basic manta is praiseworthy, is fundamentally flawed not just morally but potentially legally too, and the short-sightedness of some clubs in supporting it and even attacking other clubs will come back to haunt a few. That lot over the road could be a prime example.

A few of the papers, even SSN last week, started it by presenting it as City will pass so no story here. Now it seems to have developed into more of a negative against us, but I have no doubt at all that is due to the PR machines of certain clubs and the fact we play Chelsea tonight and are near the top of the table - if we were bottom half this would not be an issue and it really appears to be a case of scared rivals trying to protect their own interests.

Bottom line is UEFA would not dare to bring sanctions against us. Or PSG. Or anyone of that ilk. The reasons are many and varied but include, most importantly, that we have passed their supposed guidelines and been in regular contact with UEFA for months about this. Then we have the whole legality issue, you pull the tigers tail and don't be surprised if it bites - City have been very clever to not legally recognise FFP, if UEFA took action against us they would find themselves in a legal battle of epic proportions that could threaten their entire organisation - loss of earnings to & defamation of, multiple brands and players etc etc.

In addition, UEFA also have strongly facilitated money making opportunities for big clubs in Europe for many years, actively rewarding the biggest and the best, so in previous years spending big somewhat paid for itself. You cannot then alter this culture overnight, which is why FFP has such cut offs and acknowledges financial movement over multiple seasons, and why it positively has to take also into consideration future performance - if we were expected to not be a top team after such expenditure then there is clearly a problem, but instead we will be a self-perpetuating, money making top team for years with the groundwork we are setting in place. UEFA will have to recognise that, not least because they will be getting a slice of that pie.

Add to that the attitude and supposed actions of those who could gain financially from the apparent defamation of our club and you have a real explosive cocktail, so go on Jose or Arsene, light the fuse and lets see who is in the best position afterwards after we are awarded several millions. That would look great in our FFP income column, not so good in their expenditure one.

City are the most exciting thing to happen to the Premiership for years, possibly ever. High scoring games, a 'we'll score more than you' attitude, last minute league winning goals, real investment into the women's game, promotion and improvement of the local area, a long term commitment and philosophy to improve the standards of football and footballing ability in Manchester and therefore in England by encouraging and tutoring more complete, technically aware players, ensuring the best players in the world at least have one more reason to consider England as their place to ply their trade which in turn attracts sponsors and TV money... All this comes at a price, but will create a legacy that we, English football and eventually even UEFA will benefit from.

In short, don't be worried, be amused. Next year if we announce a profit, which seems extremely likely, I can't wait to hear their stuttering objections from our 'rivals'.

I like this post.<br /><br />-- Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:39 pm --<br /><br />

Correct, a judicial challenge of the FFPR at ECJ will only have one outcome.

or C.A.S. to be fair, they have very strong opinions on legislative bodies trying to restrict funding coming into sports and will not see any anti-competitive measures as 'fair play'.

If you appeal against your assessment and the Adjudicatory Panel at UEFA uphold the original assessment then you can go to CAS anyway.

If you want to challenge FFP generally then it would have to be through the European Court.

Very true, so we have two possible avenues of appeal if UEFA were to crumble under pressure from the spoilt children at pool arse and chelski (which I doubt they will anyway, it would cause worlds of trouble) and neither of these avenues of appeal have any reason to protect the old guard of elite clubs.

ps. we should turn a profit this season, Chelsea are going to seriously struggle not to lose another 40-50m, how likely are they to pass the second monitoring period? (2011-12 to 2013-14)

 

[better dead than red]

Re: "City face Euro Expulsion"

So Uefa are going to ban the most exciting team in Europe from their competition? That's not going to devalue the product, is it?

Your point is good. However, I'm not sure UEFA worries about that YET. Reason being, despite City's growing reputation outside England foreign football fans still associate the old "Big 4" as English powerhouses. Additionally, I believe, clubs like Real, Barcelona, Juventus and AC Milan might still carry more weight on the continent.

Platini, et al, might think if they have a chance to shut the door on City, PSG, Monaco and the like now is the time before they become "big clubs."

 

[BlueRockape]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I remember speaking with a friend of my wife's at a friend's wedding last year about this, a united fan it turned out, but he was of the view that UEFA needs the buy-in of all its clubs to enforce this, and by that very measure can not afford to implement anything too strong, especially against one of the more prominent clubs, so they would always look to work with a club rather than take sanctions as they are on very shaky legal ground. They'd probably get away with banning a Bulgarian team due to lack of resources to fight it, but not Man City or PSG, for example.

Where it becomes potentially sticky, for UEFA certainly, is if other clubs are actively lobbying against another club. If this really is happening and any official requests or suggestions are recorded, it could really develop quite quickly into a very big mess.

I truly did not expect other clubs to make such a move, but FFP, although its basic manta is praiseworthy, is fundamentally flawed not just morally but potentially legally too, and the short-sightedness of some clubs in supporting it and even attacking other clubs will come back to haunt a few. That lot over the road could be a prime example.

A few of the papers, even SSN last week, started it by presenting it as City will pass so no story here. Now it seems to have developed into more of a negative against us, but I have no doubt at all that is due to the PR machines of certain clubs and the fact we play Chelsea tonight and are near the top of the table - if we were bottom half this would not be an issue and it really appears to be a case of scared rivals trying to protect their own interests.

Bottom line is UEFA would not dare to bring sanctions against us. Or PSG. Or anyone of that ilk. The reasons are many and varied but include, most importantly, that we have passed their supposed guidelines and been in regular contact with UEFA for months about this. Then we have the whole legality issue, you pull the tigers tail and don't be surprised if it bites - City have been very clever to not legally recognise FFP, if UEFA took action against us they would find themselves in a legal battle of epic proportions that could threaten their entire organisation - loss of earnings to & defamation of, multiple brands and players etc etc.

In addition, UEFA also have strongly facilitated money making opportunities for big clubs in Europe for many years, actively rewarding the biggest and the best, so in previous years spending big somewhat paid for itself. You cannot then alter this culture overnight, which is why FFP has such cut offs and acknowledges financial movement over multiple seasons, and why it positively has to take also into consideration future performance - if we were expected to not be a top team after such expenditure then there is clearly a problem, but instead we will be a self-perpetuating, money making top team for years with the groundwork we are setting in place. UEFA will have to recognise that, not least because they will be getting a slice of that pie.

Add to that the attitude and supposed actions of those who could gain financially from the apparent defamation of our club and you have a real explosive cocktail, so go on Jose or Arsene, light the fuse and lets see who is in the best position afterwards after we are awarded several millions. That would look great in our FFP income column, not so good in their expenditure one.

City are the most exciting thing to happen to the Premiership for years, possibly ever. High scoring games, a 'we'll score more than you' attitude, last minute league winning goals, real investment into the women's game, promotion and improvement of the local area, a long term commitment and philosophy to improve the standards of football and footballing ability in Manchester and therefore in England by encouraging and tutoring more complete, technically aware players, ensuring the best players in the world at least have one more reason to consider England as their place to ply their trade which in turn attracts sponsors and TV money... All this comes at a price, but will create a legacy that we, English football and eventually even UEFA will benefit from.

In short, don't be worried, be amused. Next year if we announce a profit, which seems extremely likely, I can't wait to hear their stuttering objections from our 'rivals'.

Cheers blue that has made me feel better

 

[i kne albert davy]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

I have read most of the thread but being a thick fuker are we in the shit .....yes or no please

Lets put it this way I reckon i'll still be working overtime to help pay for Champions league away games next season.

Lucky you get overtime, 'er indoors has already suggested I become a weekend gigolo such is the cost of football at the moment.

LOL I have less trouble getting the overtime than explaining to the missus why 90 minutes football always takes between 3 or 4 days.

 

[Damocles]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

That bitter hypocritical prick Tony Attwood who runs the Untold Arsenal website has got his tongue firmly wedged up Mourinho's arse on this one.

You know the score blues - let's put the **** in his place:

<a class="postlink" href="http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/33917" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blog.emiratesstadium.info/archives/33917</a>

Had my say already:

So City have brought in £10.5 million in transfer sales in the past year have we? I presume the bulk of that is the Tevez fee but funny how the sale of Balotelli for nearly £20 million exactly 12 months ago is conveniently forgotten.

A word of advice Mr Attwood – if you’re going to write a piece condemning Manchester City Football Club, I suggest you get your facts straight first. As for this pathetic straw-clutching attempt to get City banned from European competition, keep dreaming. I’ll also point out that your thinly-veiled accusation that City are in some way “cooking the books” is libellous and could potentially land you in a lot of trouble.

I’ll leave it there because I’m sure plenty of my fellow blue brethren will be along shortly to pull yet another one of your laughable articles to pieces.

Why didn't he just quote from our annual report? It gives a precise breakdown of transfer spending. I imagine it's because he's never bothered to actually look at it

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/January/Club-annual-report" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... ual-report</a>

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Re: Sunday Press. "City may face Euro Expulsion"

Are there any potential consequences for suggesting that the firm of accountants responsible for signing off our accounts are complicit in "cooking the books"?