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

Kinkys Left Foot said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Manchester_lalala said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?

The usual complaint is that we prevaricated and therefore took it over the period in question but that's simply not true either.
 
Mancity1980 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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".
 
Manchester_lalala said:
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.
Click to expand...
The full report is here:-


It's page 51 and on you're looking for but it gave me a headache reading it. It looks like City wanted anything prior to 14/02/2015 time barred but CAS allowed UEFA to go back a bit further to 15/05/2014.

UEFA were looking at going back to 07/03/2014 conceding that anything prior was time barred (don't forget this was all based on the leaked emails which went back to 2012(?)). In effect it ended up that just 9 months or so of the 1 year and 1 week that we disputed was allowed.

Yet CAS still found no issue. Surprise, surprise.
 
Manchester_lalala said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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."
Click to expand...
Love that last sentence!
 
Mancity1980 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that is how the club reported it.
 
Mancity1980 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We did breach them but were under the impression, as per UEFA's own guidance snd following detailed and regular consultation with them, that we would not be punished for that breach. Then, as soon as it was too late to correct anything, they moved the goalposts.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We did breach them but were under the impression, as per UEFA's own guidance snd following detailed and regular consultation with them, that we would not be punished for that breach. Then, as soon as it was too late to correct anything, they moved the goalposts.
Click to expand...
And only once they knew by exactly how much they had to move the goalposts for us not to be able to successfully use the allowance for pre-salaries, iirc.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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."
Click to expand...
Cheers, that clears things up.
 
domalino said:
Sorry for being ignorant here, what’s the significance of The FIDO alliance?
Click to expand...

The FIDO Alliance is a global standards and regulatory commission created by PayPal, Lenovo, Google and others to work on passwordless authentication systems.

It is currently ran as a collaborative effort between Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Intel and some others. As per:

The FIDO Alliance Board of Directors includes leading global organizations: Alibaba Holdings (NYSE: BABA); ARM Holdings plc (LSE: ARM and NASDAQ: ARMH); Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC); CrucialTec (KRX: 114120); Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS); Google (NASDAQ: GOOG); IdentityX; Intel (NASDAQ: INTC); Lenovo (NASDAQ: LNVGY); MasterCard (NYSE: MA); Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”); Nok Nok Labs, Inc.; NTT DOCOMO, INC. (NYSE: DCM); NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NASDAQ:NXPI); Oberthur Technologies OT; PayPal (NASDAQ:EBAY); Qualcomm, Inc. (Nasdaq: QCOM); RSA®; Samsung Electronics, Ltd (KOSCOM: SECL); Synaptics (NASDAQ: SYNA); Visa Inc. (NYSE: V); Yubico.
Click to expand...

If you've ever used NFC to pay for anything then that was using the FIDO standards invented by the FIDO Alliance Working Groups. FIDO2 is used in all new editions of Microsoft Windows Server for passwordless authentication for example.

Working Groups are technology and policy groups ran by the Alliance. They consist of regional bodies that look at the technical, legal and culture challenges of the adoption of the tech in those regions. The Partners (the multinationals above) generally run them and then they are invite only for Associate members. Truxtun was jointly invited by a Board Member of the Thales Group, a French aerospace company with 18 billion in revenue and a Board Member of OneSpan, an American cybersecurity firm with $300m in revenue in order to represent the Alliance and consider the impact of PSD2, eIDAS, and GDPR regulatory changes on FIDO standards.

For a company he claims does not exist to any real degree, that's a fairly good achievement. You don't sit on global standards committees working groups if you're a one man start up running out of a postbox.

The fact is, Corbett either knew this and didn't mention it because it put a hole in his wrong assertions which makes him corrupt or he didn't know this and he has failed to research something incredibly simple which means he's incompetent.

He also claimed Wega didn't exist to any degree and that nobody in Qatar had heard of them. Wega cobranded and entire eSports tournament with Qatar two years ago and there's a ton of social media (and literal gameplay footage on Twitch) of it all over social media.

He is a man with an agenda who wrote exactly what he wanted to write and didn't bother checking to see if it made any sense or could be debunked by a thirty second Google search.
 
Last edited:
Mancity1980 said:
View attachment 35438
Click to expand...

The other one :)

afb480746712d056df9325cc74057245.png
 
Damocles said:
He is a man with an agenda who wrote exactly what he wanted to write and didn't bother checking to see if it made any sense or could be debunked by a thirty second Google search.
Click to expand...

Which is ironic, as that is probably all he used to come to his exclusive piece of investigative journalism in the first place.
 
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