http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airwaysColinLee said:I'm confused. It was reported as being a £350 million deal, why has everybody suddenly elevated it to £400 million?Matty said:Prestwich_Blue said:He's claiming the Etihad deal is the problem when it's far more likely the sale of IP rights that is causing the issue.
I just don't see how legally the Etihad deal can have anything to do with this. Even if I accept (which I don't based upon the measures they have to apply) that the Etihad deal actually IS a related party one, the value of said deal is quite clearly comparable with other deals out there already. £400m over 10 years, for shirt, stadium and campus rights. Remind me how much United are getting from Chrysler for just the shirts again? Of from DHL this season for their fucking training kit for christs sake!
Any attempt by UEFA to deem the Etihad deal a related party one, and then to reduce the value of it, would be laughed out of any court in about 3 seconds.
It simply has to be the Intellectual Property items, and more likely the third party one as opposed to the MYCFC/MCWFC one.
-nibz- said:£50 mill? We could probably have the bent twat's wiped off the face of the earth for £5 grand. Let's get a kitty going.
On a serious note...
tolmie's hairdoo said:The story is a lift by the Press Association from today's edition of L'Equipe, nothing more.
The assumption being, L'Equipe's excellent contacts within PSG give the article a major degree of credibility.
P.A. have done nothing more than this and the subsequent UK news outlets are now piggy-backing their lead.
The figures being attached to City, are an educated 'guess' that they will be in line with PSG.
Ask yourselves this question, how would Paris know what our assessments and fine are?
City have not been informed what PSG are facing from the Uefa audits.
If it is £50m, which is not even the amount you can accumulate for actually winning the Champions League, you will see the English champions throw down the ultimate gauntlet.
As I have stated, previously, I suspect Uefa want this to be challenged in court, so they can have the thing amended properly.
Exciting times ahead.
It's either sheer arrogance or they're playing a very risky game, if they risk going to court and the G14 losing influence over this, they also risk being ruled a Cartel and shut down completely, the EU have been fairly bloodthirsty with structural reforms since the Lisbon Treaty and could see this as a chance to get rid of a large body in Europe and have their own people in instead, it's what I would do in their position.Matty said:blueinsa said:inbetween said:@OliverKayTimes · 2h
About to get very ugly between #MCFC and Uefa re FFP. City so far rejecting proposed €60m fine (over 3 yrs) & reduction of Champs Lge squad
Fucking too right it is.
Still thin UEFA know what they are doing here and that we will get it thrown out of court and they can then go to the rags etc and say we tried blah blah blah.
Im just not even remotely worried by this.
But if this gets thrown out in the courts then that's FFP dead, a complete non entity. I can't see UEFA being happy with that. I really don't understand what UEFA are doing here, they must have known that City weren't going to accept a punishment of this magnitude. That opens it up to the "panel" who no doubt will be UEFA lackys who will just rubber stamp the original punishment, and then CAS. UEFA have a terrible record at CAS and lose far more often than they win.
I can only assume this is shear arrogance from UEFA, they seem to be the only ones who actually believe their regulations would stand up to any form of professional critique.
tolmie's hairdoo said:inbetween said:@OliverKayTimes · 2h
About to get very ugly between #MCFC and Uefa re FFP. City so far rejecting proposed €60m fine (over 3 yrs) & reduction of Champs Lge squad
Yeah, course, another fucking blagger ^^^^^
Bit like me saying it's about to get ugly, 'Tolmie willing to fight against having his member cut off with a rusty hacksaw'.
Nobody of any note, gives ANYTHING away for free on Twitter.
City are keeping their own counsel.
jollylescott said:tolmie's hairdoo said:The story is a lift by the Press Association from today's edition of L'Equipe, nothing more.
The assumption being, L'Equipe's excellent contacts within PSG give the article a major degree of credibility.
P.A. have done nothing more than this and the subsequent UK news outlets are now piggy-backing their lead.
The figures being attached to City, are an educated 'guess' that they will be in line with PSG.
Ask yourselves this question, how would Paris know what our assessments and fine are?
City have not been informed what PSG are facing from the Uefa audits.
If it is £50m, which is not even the amount you can accumulate for actually winning the Champions League, you will see the English champions throw down the ultimate gauntlet.
As I have stated, previously, I suspect Uefa want this to be challenged in court, so they can have the thing amended properly.
Exciting times ahead.
From my experience in the legal world there will be compromise.
If there is a 'fine' (and I am mindful of what PB said much earlier in this thread that we had technically failed FFP) I think it might well be suspended pending future compliance. This would make sense because it would be an out for both parties. One year with 21 players registered for the Chumps League? I think we could manage that as well. I actually don't think we want to take the lead on a legal challenge. After all there is already a challenge in the European courts.
I was following Matt Cutler on twitter (he said that he was about to be interviewed on BBC sport on FFP), and he made the point that they want to be seen to be admonishing us, while not risking us and PSG picking up our bat and ball and walking away, with the fear that an alternative competition may be set up, as occurred in cricket in the 70's. He seemed on side in terms of the shonky legality of the situation.
I am absolutely certain that we are furious with the moving of the goalposts. We hired two of the architects of FFP, and it is self-evident that for quite some time we have been taking this very seriously. I also have no doubt that the phones have been working in overdrive to work out an agreement.
Platini is a dope, of that I am certain. But he and his cronies are not stupid enough to risk the very future of their corrupt organisation, when they know full well that they are on very shaky ground legally.
If I was on our legal team I would accept a suspended fine, and quite possibly the registration of say 21 players for the Chumps League for one season. I don't think either of these options would cause us too much long term pain. In addition we don't enjoy the support of the FA and other clubs, and given the horrendous media bias we would clearly not win any battle for the hearts and minds of the average punter.
At the moment there is clearly wriggle room. I don't think that our owner will be at all pleased with any of this. But nevertheless we need to think this through calmly. We may need to accept some short term pain in order to eventually win the war.
No, there's nothing to stop us negotiating an £86m p/a sponsorship with the Abu Dhabi tourism authority that doesn't require any stadium or jersey sponsorship, so even better.tolmie's hairdoo said:There is nothing to stop City and Etihad now renegotiating an £80m a year deal, if the Paris Qatar benchmark has been reviewed down to this.