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

cheekybids

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Messages
3,926
That comment was directed at us, not the PL. He also made the very un-judge-like observation that we'd won the PL twice since the enquiry began which was unnecessarily pointed in my opinion.

How can you be sure the warning was to us?
 

JASR

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 Sep 2015
Messages
5,005
Regarding sponsorships, these are the main sponsors now listed on the OS:
1642758460721.png
The 2 new ones, Emirates Palace and Masdar, are there.
I'm guessing the positioning (row) of each sponsor aligns with the value of the sponsorship, which implies that Emirates Palace could be a lot?

Of the top row 5/10, could be described by some as 'related'
Of the 2nd row 0/10, I don't think any are
Of the 3rd row 0/10, I don't think any are
Of the bottom row 1/8, I think only Masdar is.
(anyone know different, please PM and I'll edit)

So 48 main global sponsors, of which 6 are sometimes maliciously described as 'related'. 1/8th...
Not too sure how many others are headquartered/founded in 'dubious' countries, but lets say China is one, so I think that's a couple. So we're up to 8 headline sponsors from 'dubious' places.


Picking the Trafford Rangers to compare:
1642759034399.png
So that'll be TeamViewer, Kohler, Chevrolet, DHL, ecolab, Marriot, Maui Jim Remington and Renewable Energy Group, which can (by applying the same association of country ownership that gets forcibly applied to City) be described as 'related'.

So 23 main global sponsors, of which 9 are never maliciously described as 'related'. Almost 2/5ths...

On the 'dubious' front, well, there's Aeroflot (many many years), Mlily, HTH (almost non-existent Chinese betting company).

Digging further into the Trafford's website reveals a few more 'dubious' sponsorships.
Under Financial, out of 13 sponsors: C B bank (Myanmar), Emirates NBD (oopsie UAE), Krungsri (Thailand), Ping An bank (China). And 2 could be described as 'related'
And there's a few more China based ones in other categories.

Whats noticeable is the lack of information about anything Saudi related on their OS:
https://www.themag.co.uk/2020/04/ma...th-deals-wheres-the-outrage-newcastle-united/ has references to various sponsorships - I'm not sure whether they have now quietly expired...


Lets look at the M62 stealers:
1642760796842.png
...it's like they were made to be discussed as 'related' (going by the aforementioned City bashing criteria)

And of course we all know the complete lack of 'dubious' associated with Standard Chartered...


Moving onto Arteta Arsenal:
1642761054588.png

Well, I think we can clarify Arsenal do do it right... not many 'related' sponsors. well done.

oh... but wait
Visit Rwanda? 'Dubious'
Emirates? 'Dubious'
Expo 2020? 'Dubious' and how odd, fancy sponsoring a football team...

...and Premier League? WTF!
 

117 M34

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Messages
9,289
Are tinder still one of our partners?
They signed a multi year deal in 2020 but never appear on the partner lists.
 

BeerIsTheBest

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
981
That comment was directed at us, not the PL. He also made the very un-judge-like observation that we'd won the PL twice since the enquiry began which was unnecessarily pointed in my opinion.
Newman. I understood that the observation from the Judge on the two PL titles was an unsubtle poke at the PL. The point being that it was perverse that the PL were trying to bring us to heel whilst spinning things out and allowing us to win the main trophy twice.
Maybe those posters with an understanding of the statute of limitations point can calm us down again.
 

Newman Noggs

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Messages
8,879
Location
Gone fishin'
How can you be sure the warning was to us?

The remarks were in the context of a failed appeal made by us to keep proceedings out of the media. In the Appeal Judgement it was clear we have not been co-operating with the witch-hunt (and with good reason imo). For example;

"During the course of its investigation, the PL requested information and documents from the Club (including copies of various documents identified in those media reports) under Rule W.1. The Club objected to disclosure of that material"

And

  1. On 21 August 2019, the PL issued a disciplinary complaint against the Club under Section W seeking disclosure of certain documents and information. A Commission was appointed pursuant to Rule W.21, but its composition and the disciplinary system were challenged by the Club as not sufficiently independent or impartial. Although the PL proposed an ad hoc procedure for the appointment of a new Commission, the Club objected.
  2. By a request dated 22 October 2019, the PL then commenced an arbitration against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld.
Against that background, I don't think that we can interpret his comments as anything other than remarks directed at us.
 

cheekybids

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Messages
3,926
The remarks were in the context of a failed appeal made by us to keep proceedings out of the media. In the Appeal Judgement it was clear we have not been co-operating with the witch-hunt (and with good reason imo). For example;

"During the course of its investigation, the PL requested information and documents from the Club (including copies of various documents identified in those media reports) under Rule W.1. The Club objected to disclosure of that material"

And

  1. On 21 August 2019, the PL issued a disciplinary complaint against the Club under Section W seeking disclosure of certain documents and information. A Commission was appointed pursuant to Rule W.21, but its composition and the disciplinary system were challenged by the Club as not sufficiently independent or impartial. Although the PL proposed an ad hoc procedure for the appointment of a new Commission, the Club objected.
  2. By a request dated 22 October 2019, the PL then commenced an arbitration against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld.
Against that background, I don't think that we can interpret his comments as anything other than remarks directed at us.


Newman. I understood that the observation from the Judge on the two PL titles was an unsubtle poke at the PL. The point being that it was perverse that the PL were trying to bring us to heel whilst spinning things out and allowing us to win the main trophy twice.
Maybe those posters with an understanding of the statute of limitations point can calm us down again.

I don’t know enough on the subject but I was of the opinion as @BeerIsTheBest but I may have been guided to that by others. I was certain I’d read the judge criticising the PL for dragging this out.
 

Blootoof

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
3,353
Location
Manchestah na na na Manc...
Or, as I read on Sad Cafe recently (sorry, yes, I do have a look in there for giggles from time to time)

View attachment 34885


Reading this, I cannot help laughing again.
Used to be a good site to read. Since being shite, they've turned into Rawk2. If you want to earn your badges(get out of their newbies)head to one of the many(they don't care about us) 'Citeh' threads and slag us off. Bitter cunts
 

schfc6

Well-Known Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
6,608
We can't argue that at this point because we delayed the enquiry going to Court. Having said that, it's clearly a witch-hunt and "a fishing exercise" both of which are manifestly oppressive and that will no doubt be argued once the PL do charge us, judge us and find us guilty of whatever trumped-up charge united and liverpool decide.

The only cast-iron certainty in this whole sordid affair is that we won't be cleared. Too much has been invested by too many to admit establishment wrongdoing.

Difference is they now know we’ll take them straight to an actual court.
That aside, the PL will be beginning to realise we are far too powerful now.
Yes, the red shirts will moan, but we are a key component of the product they sell now.

The only way they’ll charge us with anything is if it’s 110% irrefutable. As we are well run and aggressive in the boardroom, they’ll go nowhere near us now. (in my opinion) Especially at the behest of the Red Shirts after some minor infractions or more like trumped up charges.
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account?

Register now!
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.