Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

meltonblue said:
Legally, I completely agree with you.

I am interested (and I don’t think we will find this out) if that is continuing to happen though. Given we’ve made a big point on being self sustainable now, I would personally like that to be true rather than still reliant in Sheikh Mansour topping it up, as it’s not just about ffp then.

That’s why I’d rather that if we had a sponsor that couldn’t pay what they’d signed up to, then we change the sponsor. The problem is I can’t see us not wanting to use Abu Dhabi sponsorship.
Click to expand...
I think this is a historic problem associated with a particular period of City's history when City were in dispute with UEFA. The question is whether the new claims impact that investigation. I don't see that they can. The issue should be whether City are receiving monies that we are not entitled to. Etihad Airlines sponsor City. Does it matter how those monies reach City? So do Aabar investments. UEFA have already viewed the Etihad deal and ratified it. I don't see that the evidence of cash flow changes anything
 
Rolee said:
Oh! Is that the tone of these pieces? Bitter football fans spewing bile. And there I was thinking this was serious investigative journalism.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point, it's aimed at your average knuckle scraping rag/dipper type fan.

If it was a purposeful piece it'd be written in a much better format without all the cheap jibes which although make the said knuckle draggers laugh devalue what they're trying to say.
 
What get me is PSG had related sponsor that was 200m a year and had to reduce it to 100m while we at the time had a related sponsor of around 40m we dropped a clanger there we should of done a PSG and had it for 300m and got reduced.
 
Is it just me but after all this is the only person here that’s broken the law is the geek who hacked the email?
 
meltonblue said:
Have to be honest, this doesn’t sit particularly comfortably with me. I completely agree with the sentiments around ffp, and I get why neither ourselves or UEFA wanted it to go to court. I’d still rather us have either failed with honesty and accepted it or gone to court over it rather than attempting to pass by cooking the books.
I find the vast majority of the criticism of us, though, hypocritical in the extreme (for example, the English clubs bypassing rules to set up plcs in the eighties - there’s no difference to me at all). At the same time though, I have always criticised those clubs for doing that. It would be hypocritical of me if I didn’t do the same for us.
To be completely honest, I wish we weren’t so wedded to Abu Dhabi sponsorship as I’m certain we could get a similar or better deal from someone completely unrelated that isn’t Etihad or Aabar nowadays. It isn’t going to happen though.
Click to expand...

Decent point you make, but you should remember that FFP was introduced because the so called established clubs were scared of competition. There is nothing moral about that. It was dressed up as being "fair" but the truth is, it was fair to them, not to others that had the ambition to break up their cosy cartel. Also remember that the ringleader for FFP at the time was that snidey little frenchman Platini. Remember him? - he's the one that was banned from football for 6 years for taking a 2m swiss france "disloyalty payment" (i.e. bribe) in connection with Blatter's re-election as FIFA president. These were the type of people UEFA were infested with and the ones we had to deal with. Do we cave in to these unsavoury types with the backing of the big boys from Munich, Manchester and Milan, or do we stand up to them and fight fire with fire? I really don't buy the moral high ground argument. Morality and UEFA? - do me a favour.
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
What other factors do you think are relevant?I don't think Der Spiegel would risk their reputation posting this story without making sure their story is solid.
City haven't denied it but have rather just refused to talk about it, what does that tell you?
Click to expand...
We don’t comment on speculation? There will be legal implications here. Look at all the nonsense we don’t comment on. The last thing I can remember us getting apologies for was Mancini being in the stands when Hughes was sacked and The Sun claiming The Sheik gave all the players watches.
Do you think the City board would be as unprofessional as this? Risk their reputation as professionals? Really?
 
taleofbluehalves said:
We don’t comment on speculation? There will be legal implications here. Look at all the nonsense we don’t comment on. The last thing I can remember us getting apologies for was Mancini being in the stands when Hughes was sacked and The Sun claiming The Sheik gave all the players watches.
Do you think the City board would be as unprofessional as this? Risk their reputation as professionals? Really?
Click to expand...
Your comment doesn't make sense.
The reputation of Manchester City and Sheikh Mansour are being damaged by these stories and if they were blatant falsehoods we would deny it.
If you were accused of robbing a bank and you knew it was false, would you "refuse to comment on speculation" or wholeheartedly deny it?
 
aguerrrroooooooooooo said:
Your comment doesn't make sense.
The reputation of Manchester City and Sheikh Mansour are being damaged by these stories and if they were blatant falsehoods we would deny it.
If you were accused of robbing a bank and you knew it was false, would you "refuse to comment on speculation" or wholeheartedly deny it?
Click to expand...
My point is they wouldn’t do it in the first place. Why comment if it’s not true. Lawyers handle it.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.