Good post pal but I am a little confused by what you refer to as our breach of FFP? Do you mean the 2014 punishment when UEFA amended the interpretation of the details which we disputed but agreed to accept for a quiet life? Or do you mean the refusal to give details so we could have our day with CAS and smash their witch-hunt to pieces?Scouse social media wanker wannabe writes shit critical "media pieces" about pet hate club MCFC for consumption by the usual haters club. What's not to be apathetic about?
His investigative journalism isn't going to have any serious writer quaking in their boots is it? His supposition based on his investigation (see Google search including use of Google maps) jumps to all the wrong conclusions.
I'm afraid nobodys going to be looking into your shit show of an accusation Mr Dickhead or can I call you scouse ****?
I'm not even a shill or a bot, I just love my club and won't have knobheads like you spouting bollocks on social media without riposte. Why any alleged City fan would back this tosspot city hater with his previous, without serious genuine information to back his story is beyond me. City don't need to fabricate companies to create sponsors, they have an ever growing list of real ones who wish to be associated with the club and it's success. Only our detractors would think along such lines. I'm not sure backing our enemies without justification wins you any brownie points.
Some people seem to want to fall over themselves to criticise the club at any opportunity. I'm not a happy clapper and clearly the club have made some mistakes in some areas. I won't however apologise for the club not accepting a cartels rules on spending. A necessary breach for which we were duly punished. The cartels answer is to conduct a witch hunt against us, through football's investigative and diciplinary bodies, the mainstream media and by default the partisan hackery of social media. Whilst the former lasts the latter will continue. The sooner this PL alleged FFP investigation is fucked off, as I'm sure it will be, with seemingly no evidence AGAIN the better!
As for Mr Corbett, the scouse ****, worry about your own club getting relegated having spent half a billon and consider doing some investigation of where your owner gets his money from. We have enough detractors and fifth columnists amongst our own ranks without the need for scouse intervention thanks.
From memory, no. They just had no right to ask for information on deals that preceded the window, although I think some of them overlapped and they passed anyway?Can anyone clarify with me that the time barred parts of the CAS would have mattered even if it was within the 5 year limit. My memory is a bit foggy, but I’m always seeing people suggest we got off on a technicality which people on here said was nonsense.
I'm presuming that's a rhetorical question as we've only breached FFP financial rules once as it was finance I was discussing. The arguments about the inclusion of contractual salaries made before specific dates aside we failed the target by a long way.Good post pal but I am a little confused by what you refer to as our breach of FFP? Do you mean the 2014 punishment when UEFA amended the interpretation of the details which we disputed but agreed to accept for a quiet life? Or do you mean the refusal to give details so we could have our day with CAS and smash their witch-hunt to pieces?
The full report is here:-Can anyone clarify with me that the time barred parts of the CAS would have mattered even if it was within the 5 year limit. My memory is a bit foggy, but I’m always seeing people suggest we got off on a technicality which people on here said was nonsense.
It's highly unlikely that it would have made any difference. For one thing, part of the time barred period covered the Etihad deal, which was specifically nodded through by CAS, and even UEFA accepted that it was broadly fair value back in 2014.Can anyone clarify with me that the time barred parts of the CAS would have mattered even if it was within the 5 year limit. My memory is a bit foggy, but I’m always seeing people suggest we got off on a technicality which people on here said was nonsense.
Partially, however it must be said that we we sought to keep within the rules and whilst accepting the punishment a clear club statement was put out refuting the findings. It is too simplistic to say we breached them.I'm presuming that's a rhetorical question as we've only breached FFP financial rules once as it was finance I was discussing. The arguments about the inclusion of contractual salaries made before specific dates aside we failed the target by a long way.
Never the less necessary at the time and we've taken our "pinch".
Love that last sentence!It's highly unlikely that it would have made any difference. For one thing, part of the time barred period covered the Etihad deal, which was specifically nodded through by CAS, and even UEFA accepted that it was broadly fair value back in 2014.
The other deals in the time-barred period were with Etisalat and another AD-based company (possibly Aabar) and these might not have passed the fair value test. However they weren't deemed related parties by us and that was never tested, so the concept of fair value never applied.
There was, if I remember correctly, an issue about how payment for the Etisalat deal had been made. It seems that ADUG 'lent' them the money and paid it to us but Etisalat later repaid it.
But every deal prior to the cut-off date that CAS interpreted as the correct one, also fell within the limitation period.
Now there's a small possibility that something happened prior to the cut-off date that CAS might have found fault with. But it's somewhat of a stretch to think that City thought "Hey. We'd better do all these dodgy deals now, in 2013, so they fall outside the 5-year statute of limitations in a few years time when we appeal to CAS in 2020 about the 2019 Der Spiegel articles."
Partially, however it must be said that we we sought to keep within the rules and whilst accepting the punishment a clear club statement was put out refuting the findings. It is too simplistic to say we breached them.
Love that last sentence!