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

hammocity

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Dec 2009
Messages
7,332
I’ve posted before but we’ve been the subject of one of the biggest investigations into football finance and found not guilty. However, Chelsea received 1.5b in Soft Loans from Abramovich over 20 years, they obviously paid zero interest and that money has disappeared. It was used to prop up the Club’s finances, wether it be player spending, wages or Operational costs it’s been spent without financial penalty. 75m per year as effectively a donation, not even investigated. They should have had to pay at least the interest on the loan at a going market commercial rate as do the Rags, but not one penny, strange.
 

Gorton_Tubster

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 Apr 2012
Messages
9,880
Location
not really here
It's eight o'clock in the morning mate, I'm making some toast

All I'll say is that the emails don't look great - it's easy to see how.....

I'm simply not that arsed. If I'm wrong, cool. Not that bothered either way as I don't think much will become of it.

I just want trophies and a striker. And some toast. Oh, fuck, I've burned it now...

You seem very arsed to me. And all off the back of something you admit you might not even know.

We have experts on here who have been embedded in this for years, you should listen to them instead.
 

KS55

Well-Known Member
Joined
14 Oct 2016
Messages
14,203
Anyway, back on topic, like I said: whatever creative accounting has been done (and I maintain you'd be naïve to think there hasn't been any during this ownership), I don't think there's remotely enough in this wave of emails to prove it. I also think most if not all high-level clubs do similar tricks when they need to, that FFP was a bad idea from the start that I have no problem with City dancing around, and that I would like see this Financial Samba (Revenue Riverdance?) continue as long as possible so we can get an actual striker and put seasons like this to bed without any Scouse excitement about making it tough.

I also think that the main reason these things get posted around the time of big City fixtures is because that's when there'll be the most interest in that type of piece. Feel free to call me a cockwomble or a spunktrumpet or whatever.
You have a basic flaw in your argument. Emails are evidence of a conversation. They are not evidence of any substantive act referred to. Thus, if I send you an email that says I am bedding silly Sally, that is not evidence that I am actually doing so. (Der Spiegel has not got hold of the pics yet.)
Your statement "enough in this wave of emails to prove it" shows you don't understand the first thing about the case.
Incidently, CAS warned UEFA that emails or newspaper facsimiles thereof would not be of probitive value. UEFA then made up a story that they had other documentary evidence, but they failed to produce any.
Learn or bog off.
EDIT. Slightly edited after 2 likes, but no change to argument in the EDIT.
 
Last edited:

halfcenturyup

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
2,914
You have a basic flaw in your argument. Emails are evidence of a conversation. They are not evidence of any substantive act referred to. Thus, if I send you an email that says I am bedding silly Sally, that is not evidence that I am actually doing so. (Der Spiegel has not got hold of the pics yet.)
Your statement "enough in this wave of emails to prove it" shows you don't understand the first thing about the case. So, either learn or bog off.

Started slowly, and the less said about the middle the better, but what a happy ending.

;)
 

petrusha

Well-Known Member
Joined
6 Aug 2011
Messages
3,942
Team supported
MCFC since 1975
You have a basic flaw in your argument. Emails are evidence of a conversation. They are not evidence of any substantive act referred to. Thus, if I send you an email that says I am bedding silly Sally, that is not evidence that I am actually doing so. (Der Spiegel has not got hold of the pics yet.)
Your statement "enough in this wave of emails to prove it" shows you don't understand the first thing about the case.
Incidently, CAS warned UEFA that emails or newspaper facsimiles there of would not be of probitive value. UEFA then made up a story that they had other documentary evidence, but they failed to produce any.
Learn or bog off.
EDIT. Slightly edited after 2 likes, but no change to argument in the EDIT.

Moreover, we know that some of the latest emails are edited to omit some replies in the thread. It's not proof that they're misleading as a result, but they easily could be:

 

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.