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

jrb said:
I'll admit, I couldn't get my head around some of it. Even still, it's amazing what these wealthy billionaire club owners get away with, while we pay our taxes without question or tax avoidance.

A very interesting but complicated Manchester United read. 5th. Unless you're an accountant.

City are 1st. ;-) The reason being......

D06-B078-A-810-A-4409-95-B7-1182-D774-A7-F8.png


Click to expand...
Strange report that. City are top, and always will be, as far as I can tell, for two reasons.

Firstly, no distinction is made between a club who provide finance from their owners' country of origin, say City, and one whose owners actively look to base their activities in a tax haven like, say, United. So having UAE owners bad. Tax havens not so much.

Secondly, A log scale really? So let's not punish clubs for having huge overseas debt, like, say, United.

Surprised?
 
jrb said:
I'll admit, I couldn't get my head around some of it. Even still, it's amazing what these wealthy billionaire club owners get away with, while we pay our taxes without question or tax avoidance.

A very interesting but complicated Manchester United read. 5th. Unless you're an accountant.

City are 1st. ;-) The reason being......

D06-B078-A-810-A-4409-95-B7-1182-D774-A7-F8.png


Click to expand...
Based on season 2013 / 14 during our growth phase - not worth the paper its written on 7+ years old
 
In the Guardian as well.
They incorrectly refer to the Etihad deal as a “related party”.
Useless.

“It is believed that they did so on the basis of legal advice that the process was unlawful. City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, have had deals that are known as related party transactions. An example was the one that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi government-owned carrier, sponsor them.”

www.theguardian.com

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
In the Guardian as well.
They incorrectly refer to the Etihad deal as a “related party”.
Useless.

“It is believed that they did so on the basis of legal advice that the process was unlawful. City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, have had deals that are known as related party transactions. An example was the one that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi government-owned carrier, sponsor them.”

www.theguardian.com

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
I mean it's basically a fact now it's been repeated so many times, much like the 'state owned' claim. Other journos have a wealth of "sources" like this one to cite when making the same claims.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
In the Guardian as well.
They incorrectly refer to the Etihad deal as a “related party”.
Useless.

“It is believed that they did so on the basis of legal advice that the process was unlawful. City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, have had deals that are known as related party transactions. An example was the one that saw Etihad Airways, the Abu Dhabi government-owned carrier, sponsor them.”

www.theguardian.com

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
They understand jack shit about FFP but still they use it as a stick to beat us with.
 
Norbiton said:
Leicester voted in favour from the comfort of their King Power stadium? How hypocritical can you get?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that related sponsorship is currently acceptable but not be artificially high which is what we were accused of. I think Etihad have had a bargain considering all the trophies and exposure over the years. Specifically when compared with the Emirates who sponsored Arsenal who have won sod all for similar money at the start.
 
It riles me how we're constantly referred to as 'state owned'. Or that our 'owners' are from Abu Dhabi.

No, we have one owner from Abu Dhabi (who to be fair is linked to the royal family there, but not the head honcho. We have American owners and Chinese owners. We get lumped in with PSG and Newcastle who are literally state owned.
 
Manchester33 said:
It riles me how we're constantly referred to as 'state owned'. Or that our 'owners' are from Abu Dhabi.

No, we have one owner from Abu Dhabi (who to be fair is linked to the royal family there, but not the head honcho. We have American owners and Chinese owners. We get lumped in with PSG and Newcastle who are literally state owned.
Click to expand...

Apparently why they keep this state owned even though we owned by an individual is his wealth came from his royalty!
 
Once again it will be the usual yank owned clubs having their secret meetings with ploys to stay at the top ,then going to the little sheep prem clubs to back them & vote unanimously with them .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top