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

[halfcenturyup]

Major article in the Athletic on our sponsorships. This will gain lots of traction with the usual suspects:

None of this fucking matters as long as everything is at fair value, other than giving the PL something to do and wasting money reviewing values when they should be developing the game.

The very first dispute on fair value will put all this PL nonsense to bed.

 

[laserblue]

Major article in the Athletic on our sponsorships. This will gain lots of traction with the usual suspects:

The key words are the last three in this desperate and bitter diatribe. "Deals legally OK".

So Crafton is making a big nothing burger over deals that are legal and OK. What a complete knobhead.

 

[Citizen Green]

Already been dissected by Stefan on Twitter.

- Crafton says the usual line about some key elements/allegations being out of UEFA's 6 year limitation, so couldn't be charged, with some being unproven. We know the reverse to be true, CAS stated multiple times in their release that the key allegations against the Club that no evidence had been provided by UEFA to prove them. Most of the allegations that did fall foul of UEFA's own time bar rules were allegations at a time when FFP didn't exist in any event.

- He says a PL arbitration if City have found to have broke PL rules following their investigation have no time bar limitations. Again, incorrect. The rules are governed ultimately by UK law, this is stated clearly in the Premier League's own rule book. UK law has a stature of limitations.

- Points out that through City having sponsorships with companies with links to Mubadala/Abu Dhabi, new sponsorships & entities such as Silverlake have gone on to create business ties with Mubadala through getting involved @ City, & deepen their own ties to other entities who deal with them. This to me is basic capitalism, unsure of it's relevance.

Now, my own thoughts are that the article is a fair piece overall, in line with the recent adoption of new PL sponsorship rules, which people do have a clear interest in. In contrast to the usual crap from the likes of Delaney & Evans it is at least readable so that is night & day. My issue is what I've stated above, there are clear glaring inaccuracies around City's sponsorship dealings & history with CAS etc, information that is readily available online. This makes me query his motives for not admitting them. At least he states, the key thing I might add: There is nothing legally wrong with any of these relationships. They have all been properly entered into.

 

[KS55]

Already been dissected by Stefan on Twitter.

- Crafton says the usual line about some key elements/allegations being out of UEFA's 6 year limitation, so couldn't be charged, with some being unproven. We know the reverse to be true, CAS stated multiple times in their release that the key allegations against the Club that no evidence had been provided by UEFA to prove them. Most of the allegations that did fall foul of UEFA's own time bar rules were allegations at a time when FFP didn't exist in any event.

- He says a PL arbitration if City have found to have broke PL rules following their investigation have no time bar limitations. Again, incorrect. The rules are governed ultimately by UK law, this is stated clearly in the Premier League's own rule book. UK law has a stature of limitations.

- Points out that through City having sponsorships with companies with links to Mubadala/Abu Dhabi, new sponsorships & entities such as Silverlake have gone on to create business ties with Mubadala through getting involved @ City, & deepen their own ties to other entities who deal with them. This to me is basic capitalism, unsure of it's relevance.

Now, my own thoughts are that the article is a fair piece overall, in line with the recent adoption of new PL sponsorship rules, which people do have a clear interest in. In contrast to the usual crap from the likes of Delaney & Evans it is at least readable so that is night & day. My issue is what I've stated above, there are clear glaring inaccuracies around City's sponsorship dealings & history with CAS etc, information that is readily available online. This makes me query his motives for not admitting them. At least he states, the key thing I might add: There is nothing legally wrong with any of these relationships. They have all been properly entered into.

I don't tweet, so thanks for that. Stefan, as usual, on point. I agree that the piece is fair overall despite some inaccuracies and some of the reaction to it here is a bit overstated. I think the inaccuracies owe more to laziness than bad faith.

 

[KS55]

None of this fucking matters as long as everything is at fair value, other than giving the PL something to do and wasting money reviewing values when they should be developing the game.

The very first dispute on fair value will put all this PL nonsense to bed.

Yes, but what is fair value? Ultimately our commercial rivals will decide and that is why PL will lose in a dispute.

 

[waspish]

Don’t know why the media give up on all this propaganda pieces now the mass majority of opposing fans especially the history club ones have already been assimilated into weapons of mass sheep who all come out on social media to spout the city bingo!

The scousers the rags yanks have done there Job.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I hope we sign a thousand sponsorship deals each year with UAE companies that are all for £999,999.99.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I know and understand relatively little of the world of finance but I have an interest in football finance and in the attitude of the football authorities to it. So when I read such a rambling and inconclusive sermon as this I am heartened that many others know and understand no more than me. I was interested to learn that City's deal with Nexen had judged market value just about right because United made a deal worth 2/3 more, which they're obviously entitled to. I would like a bit of explanation though. But what I found astonishing above all else was that very successful businessmen often buy concerns and then they use people they have employed in their other enterprises to run them and that this is scandalous at least, if not dishonest. Any contacts between these concerns must be viewed with the deepest concern and suspicion. I am reminded of my brother-in-law who, at the time of his retirement, was on the board of no fewer than 25 national and international companies. I thought it must be because he was good at business and management and that he was careful not to throw away one penny of the revenue of each and every one of those companies. Thanks to the Athletic I am now having second thoughts. I never realised that Abu Dhabi businessmen must be different and used their companies for the benefit of a football club. I thought that was Agnelli so they could shell out 100 million euros on ... what's his name? Still if all this can be sorted out it'll clearly be sorted by the PL, as fine a set of fair minded gents as you could meet, though they may need a bit of help from UEFA. As long as FSG can remain safe in their virtuous circle.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

It wont because the bigger footballing story now is the open bias by sections of the footballing industry towards Man Utd and Liverpool. It's really obvious. Another investigation of Manchester City? Yawn. Try looking once in a while elsewhere.

I mean the "usual suspects" of Harris and Harris, Delaney, Panja, Smith, assorted Guardian writers etc etc will use the article to back-up their pre-existing viewpoints and lots of the content will be regurgiated by them in their own articles and on pods.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Already been dissected by Stefan on Twitter.

- Crafton says the usual line about some key elements/allegations being out of UEFA's 6 year limitation, so couldn't be charged, with some being unproven. We know the reverse to be true, CAS stated multiple times in their release that the key allegations against the Club that no evidence had been provided by UEFA to prove them. Most of the allegations that did fall foul of UEFA's own time bar rules were allegations at a time when FFP didn't exist in any event.

- He says a PL arbitration if City have found to have broke PL rules following their investigation have no time bar limitations. Again, incorrect. The rules are governed ultimately by UK law, this is stated clearly in the Premier League's own rule book. UK law has a stature of limitations.

- Points out that through City having sponsorships with companies with links to Mubadala/Abu Dhabi, new sponsorships & entities such as Silverlake have gone on to create business ties with Mubadala through getting involved @ City, & deepen their own ties to other entities who deal with them. This to me is basic capitalism, unsure of it's relevance.

Now, my own thoughts are that the article is a fair piece overall, in line with the recent adoption of new PL sponsorship rules, which people do have a clear interest in. In contrast to the usual crap from the likes of Delaney & Evans it is at least readable so that is night & day. My issue is what I've stated above, there are clear glaring inaccuracies around City's sponsorship dealings & history with CAS etc, information that is readily available online. This makes me query his motives for not admitting them. At least he states, the key thing I might add: There is nothing legally wrong with any of these relationships. They have all been properly entered into.

Well said and I concur with that.