This does seem to be gathering some momentum. Taking our city hats off, do we really have anything to worry about here? It started with just social media, but it feels more and more of the mainstream media are jumping on this now.
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.
Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles
- Thread starter BlueDejong
- Start date
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
So is it illegal for a company that is having problems to have cash injected into it so it can still function and meet it's obligations? I'd have thought there would be fuck-all wrong in that, and it hardly comes under the umbrella of flouting FFP if the state of Abu Dhabi did this to help Etihad through a difficult period. The fact that one of those obligations is their ongoing sponsorship of City is irrelevant. I think there would only be an issue if the Sheikh himself paid it out of his own bank account so let's see these hackers show us the evidence of that, because if they can't then it's all hot air.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,020
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
Just to be clear, I don’t think anything will come of this whatsoever - there’s nothing that I’ve seen that worries me in terms of uefa (and they’ve already said they’re not investigating us). I’m only talking from my own perspective of it not sitting comfortably with me.
I get the argument that ffp was wrong in the first place (I actually didn’t mind the thought of it, but only when i thought it was around protecting clubs, which is not what it turned out to be at all. I always thought it should have existed but focussed on the balance sheet and stopped owners from loading debt on to clubs, not curbed investment). I also think that fans of other clubs need to be very careful, people in glass houses and all that.
I also agree that there is no moral high ground here whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that if everyone’s at it, then fair enough though, at least not to me. I’ve never believed the means justify the ends for others, I don’t for ourselves either.
The Riot Club
Well-Known Member
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?
I imagine our legal team is waiting for the idiots writing this shit in Der Spiegel, and drooling gibbons like Ducker to make enough rope to hang themselves out to dry. Once they get past the 'allegedlys' and find specific evidence pointing to lies demeaning either City, Sheikh Mansour or one of our sponsor companies I would assume that all this will go very quiet quite quickly.
aguerrrroooooooooooo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 11,040
Because we are giving credence to their story. If a story is not true and we know that we would deny it, 'refusing to comment on speculation" is blatantly bad for PR when it's from a reputable news source like Der SpiegelMy point is they wouldn’t do it in the first place. Why comment if it’s not true. Lawyers handle it.
This does seem to be gathering some momentum. Taking our city hats off, do we really have anything to worry about here? It started with just social media, but it feels more and more of the mainstream media are jumping on this now.
seems to be a bit worrying news,but lets see how the story evolves further.
Not totally sure, but the worrying part for me isn't the amount, its the fact that these sponsors weren't actually paying the yearly amounts and were being directly subsidised by our owners to make up the real value.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.
Thanks. Just looking for an alternative point of view. I am wary of my own biasJust to be clear, I don’t think anything will come of this whatsoever - there’s nothing that I’ve seen that worries me in terms of uefa (and they’ve already said they’re not investigating us). I’m only talking from my own perspective of it not sitting comfortably with me.
I get the argument that ffp was wrong in the first place (I actually didn’t mind the thought of it, but only when i thought it was around protecting clubs, which is not what it turned out to be at all. I always thought it should have existed but focussed on the balance sheet and stopped owners from loading debt on to clubs, not curbed investment). I also think that fans of other clubs need to be very careful, people in glass houses and all that.
I also agree that there is no moral high ground here whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that if everyone’s at it, then fair enough though, at least not to me. I’ve never believed the means justify the ends for others, I don’t for ourselves either.
City_Sean
Well-Known Member
This does seem to be gathering some momentum. Taking our city hats off, do we really have anything to worry about here? It started with just social media, but it feels more and more of the mainstream media are jumping on this now.
No I don't think we do. As others have said we've previously reached a settlement with UEFA and have paid a fee. We wanted to challenge FFP and UEFA wanted to save face.
I can't see at present how we'll be sanctioned.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Because we are giving credence to their story. If a story is not true and we know that we would deny it, 'refusing to comment on speculation" is blatantly bad for PR when it's from a reputable news source like Der Spiegel
Could've sworn we'd already issued a denial on Friday, unless I was imagining it