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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Oldham Exile
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2021
- Messages
- 795
- Team supported
- Man City
The reaction on RAWK is typically predictable - the clueless and desperate twats
Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 14,793
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
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.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,294
I mean, we did get done for it once, let's not forget -
You really should check the background to that case before you take it as indication of financial mismanagement.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
He really should !!You really should check the background to that case before you take it as indication of financial mismanagement.
UEFA moved the fucking goalposts that much they were nearer to Stockport than The Etihad.
bluemonkey71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 6,967
Never argue with an idiot. We know the result.
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.)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.
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
- 9,294
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.
;)
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
The desperados. I find it hilarious. What Der Spiegel have managed to do is anger a whole fanbase and some or demanding that our titles should be stripped. The great thing is that will never happen.The reaction on RAWK is typically predictable - the clueless and desperate twats
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: