Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

[McfcJamie]

I'd love to see that if we have issued one, I have missed it if that's the case

I believe there was a statement through other channels, but not a flat-out one like Fifa themselves brought out. Twitter "journos" were quick to point out there wasn't a "we haven't done it" however.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Anybody got round the Der Speigal pay wall for today's story. It seems to be state-aid paying the Etihad sponsorship. Am I surprised? Does it make any difference as PSG were allowed a shedload more cash for free. No, not really, but it is embarrassing.

 

[CC1]

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.

Daily Fail saying UEFA & PL now monitoring situation!!

 

[Metalartin]

As far as I can see under Pep we are believed to be the most watched team in the PL worldwide. That was what was being reported last year based on figures from Pep's first season and that wasn't a patch on last years record breaking season for entertainment. So I'm sorry but if any of these "independent" valuation firms STILL think we are not market value for our current deal then they are the ones who need investigated for funds transferred into their offshore accounts because they have to be skewing it.

The point is we are more than worth what we are getting for a club in our position today, with that being said Sheikh Mansour is always going to favour Abu Dhabi sponsors, that's where his business links lie and most owners will give their business links first dibs on sponsorship deals. If it is still a problem let us really shut them up for a few years and bring in a major Chinese sponsor who would probably love of piece of what City can offer, I'm no expert but I'd still be pretty confident(because common sense) we could not only match what we get from Etihad but eclipse it.

 

[Marvin]

my concern would be around the allegations that the Sheik continues to subsidise our sponsorship ‘up to the recent past’ which takes the allegations outwith the timescales of the initial FFP investigation. If these allegations are untrue then the club does need to respond in an appropriate manner.

I think the allegations relate to current payments by Etihad because they are put at £67.5m and not the original £40m.

Assume the worst, what does that mean? Have City benefited? Are we better off, no we just received the money via the owner. If SM paid the sponsorship money, do you not think the UAE state would compensate the SM? These are smears in my opinion but materially they don't change anything.

Owner investment in football is not against the rules. What is against the rules is that the amount of investment is linked to the club's revenue. A trail of cash from owner to club is not significant in my opinion. If Der Spiegel report that city are receiving monies over and above that which we are contractually entitled to, then that would be a problem.

It is a PR problem now but I think these judges in the media should be careful that they don't lose all respect from their readers otherwise they instantly become irrelevant.

 

[BlueAnorak]

The author of the email would be a senior exec at City, including people like Simon Cliff & Simon Pearce. They would certainly know the difference.

This is a good point about it being associated with a particular part of our history Marvin and something pretty crucial occurred to me last night which, while we were all talking about this, we’ve forgotten.

The leaks are talking about inflated sponsorships, disguised owner investment etc. but we didn’t pass FFP; we failed it. So it wasn’t the difference between passing and failing. Even if people are saying we cheated, it did us no good anyway.

It might be far more serious if we had inflated subsequent figures, which helped us evade further sanctions.

Your last point is the only thing I fear in this escapade.

 

[Marvin]

Daily Fail saying UEFA & PL now monitoring situation!!

Well if they are not, what are they doing. Of course they are monitoring the situation. That is their job. Meaningless dramatic statements

 

[The perfect fumble]

The author of the email would be a senior exec at City, including people like Simon Cliff & Simon Pearce. They would certainly know the difference.

This is a good point about it being associated with a particular part of our history Marvin and something pretty crucial occurred to me last night which, while we were all talking about this, we’ve forgotten.

The leaks are talking about inflated sponsorships, disguised owner investment etc. but we didn’t pass FFP; we failed it. So it wasn’t the difference between passing and failing. Even if people are saying we cheated, it did us no good anyway.

It might be far more serious if we had inflated subsequent figures, which helped us evade further sanctions.

Genuine question.

I consider it unlikely that this will be re-visited by UEFA, in fact, unless I'm reading it wrong, in a post from Ric a few pages back, this period has been signed off and cannot be re-visited.

But, if new evidence comes to light, these inflated sponsorships, disguised owner investment etc, and they were not considered at the time, would this not be an opportunity for this to be opened up again?

I accept we failed FFP, as you say....

it wasn’t the difference between passing and failing. Even if people are saying we cheated, it did us no good anyway.

But does that really matter?

I might have done something wrong a few years back and been punished, if subsequently I'm found to have committed an additional offence not considered at the time, it's not ignored, I'm taken to account.

Or is none of this new? UEFA looked at our sponsorship deals at the time and saw nothing untoward, is there anything new here that gives them the green light to take another look?

 

[Dubai Blue]

The Sheikh DIDN'T give money to Etihad for this sponsorship. The Emir did! Please understand the difference between the terms "His Highness" and "His Highness Sheikh Mansour" or "H.H. Sheikh Mansour" as used in the leaked emails.

Might be a good idea to read my post again before you start pontificating. The words "let's say it did happen" were pretty important.

 

[Marvin]

As far as I can see under Pep we are believed to be the most watched team in the PL worldwide. That was what was being reported last year based on figures from Pep's first season and that wasn't a patch on last years record breaking season for entertainment. So I'm sorry but if any of these "independent" valuation firms STILL think we are not market value for our current deal then they are the ones who need investigated for funds transferred into their offshore accounts because they have to be skewing it.

The point is we are more than worth what we are getting for a club in our position today, with that being said Sheikh Mansour is always going to favour Abu Dhabi sponsors, that's where his business links lie and most owners will give their business links first dibs on sponsorship deals. If it is still a problem let us really shut them up for a few years and bring in a major Chinese sponsor who would probably love of piece of what City can offer, I'm no expert but I'd still be pretty confident(because common sense) we could not only match what we get from Etihad but eclipse it.

I agree. £67.5 for sponsorship of the City shirt and stadium is small fry. That's not really the issue here though. It's whether SM's hand on the money (allegedly) changes the nature of the relationship between Etihad and City. I don't think it does but other people in football will see this as City financing ourselves. Well yes. Sports Direct, KIng Power, New Balance. They all do it. The question is can those deals be justified and I think UEFA already passed the Etihad deal. Would they have still passed it if the money trail went through SM? I think so, I don't see how that aspect is relevant.