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
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
I noticed on Ragcaf that many are convinced that MS is being paid by City to write positive stories about us.At least Martin Samuel is not just regurgitating the falsehoods. Sums up the German press (& Germans) perfectly.
‘Forget Manchester City, the real villain here is Financial Fair Play'
https://dailym.ai/2PH5Mse
The irony in those statements.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
This is an interesting point. If we're still getting money from Abu Dhabi "under the table" and it's making the the difference between passing and failing then that could potentially be a more serious matter. But it'd have to be in the region of £75-80m a year, in addition to what might be considered fair value, in order for that to be true. I reckon that "fair value" for our current Abu Dhabi-based sponsorships is around £75m so we'd have to be getting around £150m a year from Abu Dhabi, out of over £230m we reported in commercial revenue.And that includes the £10m we got from Amazon, merchandise sales, concerts and other non-sponsorship income. That would mean that pretty well all our sponsorship was coming from Abu Dhabi and we know that's not the case.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....
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?
If you look at the rise in our commercial revenues over the years, in 2011 it was £64.7m then it jumped to £121.1m in 2012. And that was on the back of us (I believe) taking match-day hospitality out of commercial income and including it with match-day income. That was probably around £15m so on a like-for-like basis our true commercial income went up from probably less than £50m in 2011 to £121m in 2012. This is basically what this is about.
Since 2012, it's not quite doubled from that £121m to £232m in 2018. That's about 11% per annum compared to 140% in one year.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,966
ApologiesMight be a good idea to read my post again before you start pontificating. The words "let's say it did happen" were pretty important.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Interesting. And from an Arsenal fan too
I noticed on Ragcaf that many are convinced that MS is being paid by City to write positive stories about us.
The irony in those statements.
Typical rags. They can’t get their heads round the fact that they only hate us because we’re better than them. Bet they never had a thread on us on ragcafe prior to 2008
Rochdale Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 3,495
Maybe not, but an Irish podcast had a field day over the amount of countries Britain invaded in colonial times, and that was because they were outraged over the James McClean poppy furore.not sure referencing WW2 or the holocaust strengthens our case. Quite the reverse actually.
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?
No, but the leaks show that st the time we were happy to take UEFA to court.
These leaks simply confirm what we were accused of at the time.
We were happy to take it to court.
It’s all old news, very old news.
FFP is a matter between MCFC and EUFA.
I suspect the underlying agenda is proving "financial doping" through State Aid that could over ride and agreement. EUEFA know this would open a huge can of worms, which is why they struck a deal. The original aims of FFP have been distorted and continue to be manipulated. If City and EUFA can be discredited, it opens the way for an independant breakaway European League in the same way as the Premier League was formed.
I can see USA owners being in favour of a franchise elite with no relegation. Also the owners of the chosen few from Clubs in Leagues where interest is flagging because of one or two team dominance. Interesting how 5 English teams are in the mix? Essentially it looks like a money grab to trump the Premier Leagues success and for the G7 clubs to re-establish the old order with them as "European Royalty".
I suspect the underlying agenda is proving "financial doping" through State Aid that could over ride and agreement. EUEFA know this would open a huge can of worms, which is why they struck a deal. The original aims of FFP have been distorted and continue to be manipulated. If City and EUFA can be discredited, it opens the way for an independant breakaway European League in the same way as the Premier League was formed.
I can see USA owners being in favour of a franchise elite with no relegation. Also the owners of the chosen few from Clubs in Leagues where interest is flagging because of one or two team dominance. Interesting how 5 English teams are in the mix? Essentially it looks like a money grab to trump the Premier Leagues success and for the G7 clubs to re-establish the old order with them as "European Royalty".
Interesting. And from an Arsenal fan too
Excellent article. Wish it could go viral in the same way that the German paper has