I was under the impression that the Etihad deal had been raised since?
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
I was under the impression that the Etihad deal had been raised since?
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
That UEFA statement was full of ifs, buts and maybes. The media have then spun it as "UEFA say they will investigate".
Let's reiterate that UEFA knew about the value of all our sponsorships. Where Etihad or Aabar got their money from really isn't their concern and is outside their jurisdiction. They knew about the arrangement with Fordham. They may not have liked it (clearly they didn't) but it seems they couldn't do a great deal about it. And they now allow owner investment, which they didn't in 2014.
This about sums it up in a nutshell for me.
On a personal note I think City found a loophole in a corrupt system. The sponsors were not a related party and still aren't. I imagine UEFA didn't ask if we did business with them as it's not their remit. If we want to buy a paperclip from Etihad for 5 million what's it got to do with UEFA? UEFA can't tell Etihad to stop trading with City. If Etihad say we pay all the sponsorship money to City what can UEFA do? It might seem obvious what's going on but proving the money the Sheik paid to Etihad is the same money used to sponsor us would be impossible. In the real world of course there is nothing to stop this either because FFP stops owner investment so why would anyone want to do that in other industries?
So the reports might have highlighted a suspected loophole that is no longer a problem and wasn't seen at the time. So what?
BertTrautmann'sParachute
Well-Known Member
Reference must be made to the Sheikh's open letter of September 2008 in which he outlined his plans and vision for the future of Manchester City. In the excitement and panic surrounding the takeover articles were appearing regularly laying out the teams City were going to buy and the billions they were prepared to spend acquiring the players. In the letter Seikh Mansour made it clear that there was no intention at all to buy a super team but that he intended to build a club which would be able to compete with Europe's best teams out of the club's own resources. He outlined plans for the area and opportunities for young people. This statement is all about opportunity, investment in the future and is in no way anti-competitive. It is FFP which is unfair and anti-competitive. In the following years the Sheikh took action to make all of these plans a reality at a time of serious economic difficulty and hardship. City liaised with UEFA throughout the process. UEFA even excluded much of City's spending from "break even" calculations but then chose to ensure that City's spending on wages and transfers opened the club up to the severest penalties. If this isn't evidence of a determination to discriminate against one club then the way -within a year - UEFA changed the rules to allow virtually everything City had done surely is. Acting in bad faith, moving the goalposts, changing the rules to punish an owner who is a shining example to football doesn't reflect well on UEFA - and trying to re-open this discreditable period of the past with a case based on hacked and stolen emails is surely a step to far even for them.
Don't count on it. If one thing is for sure here it is that UEFA is a spineless, corrupt organization that will see its best interests served in taking on City rather than the cartel.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Unless someone can prove that we've been so utterly stupid as to have our owner pay that purported shortfall out of his own bank account then it's no-one's business where Etihad got that money from. Their statement last week kills it stone dead - they haven't paid us over and above what they're contracted to pay us for the sponsorship deal so there's nothing to see here. It stands to reason that if Etihad were in financial difficulty - something that pretty much everyone was aware of - then the state would bail their state-backed airline out. That's where the cash is likely to have come from and there's nothing wrong with that.
Surely, a much bigger issue for City going forward regarding the Etihad deal is that they continue to struggle financially with rumours of a merger with Emirates flying round, so we may have to start looking for another sponsor.
Doesn't matter if it comes out of our owners' bank account. It's not illegal, it's not related-party and and not against any rules, making up sponsorship shortfalls.
In the last seven days, City will have already established and communicated where we stand. They are not people waiting to be informed.
blueparrot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 33,349
I'm guessing UEFA have no right to see Etihads or any of our sponsors accounts, and even if there was money going into Etihad accounts from the Sheik, it has nothing to do with UEFA what those sponsors choose to do with it whether it's sponsor us or buy new seat covers for their aircraft.This about sums it up in a nutshell for me.
On a personal note I think City found a loophole in a corrupt system. The sponsors were not a related party and still aren't. I imagine UEFA didn't ask if we did business with them as it's not their remit. If we want to buy a paperclip from Etihad for 5 million what's it got to do with UEFA? UEFA can't tell Etihad to stop trading with City. If Etihad say we pay all the sponsorship money to City what can UEFA do? It might seem obvious what's going on but proving the money the Sheik paid to Etihad is the same money used to sponsor us would be impossible. In the real world of course there is nothing to stop this either because FFP stops owner investment so why would anyone want to do that in other industries?
So the reports might have highlighted a suspected loophole that is no longer a problem and wasn't seen at the time. So what?
Seedy Ron
Well-Known Member
i truly believe that uefa and the moaners of the FFP forgot one BIG THING we was never and never will be just a little club ?? we was a football club being run so badly it was laughable and like a carry on film (carry on city), from the mid 1970s to 2009 we was being run by people who knew fuck all about how to run a football club and just wanted just to stay in the back ground and let the rest of the football world kick us in the nuts and laugh
so when somebody with a vision and money was ready to stand up for manchester city and the loyal fan base and put his money where his mouth is the football world crapped themselves, they all knew if manchester city was being run in the right way and put money to right all the wrongs we could be bigger than any club in europe, so now 2018 debt free turn over of £500million a year champions of england for the 3rd time in 6 years and playing the sort of football you can only dream about
so FFP and uefa and the rest of the so called big clubs of europe hide the fact they are the clubs with BIG DEBTS and can not stop the so called roller coaster club (little old city) from doing loop de loops in a town near you
This all f*cking day long. The narrative of the media was always we had won the lottery when in fact both Shinawatra and then The Good Sheikh saw us for what we were, an underachieving giant in an ever expanding market. We had come 16th or 17th in the turnover league in the whole of Europe the year before Shinawatra bought us, 6th highest in the Prem.
The whole FFP thing is an absolute farce and I hope to god if challenged the Sheikh's lawyers take them to the cleaners to the point the whole thing is made as redundant as half the scousers at the bus wrecking gala they had this year.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Doesn't matter if it comes out of our owners' bank account. It's not illegal, it's not related-party and and not against any rules, making up sponsorship shortfalls.
In the last seven days, City will have already established and communicated where we stand. They are not people waiting to be informed.
Does it not then become related party if he part funds the Etihad deal himself though? Give that Etihad isn't a related party under IAS24, I can see that being an issue. My guess is that he hasn't though - even Der Spiegel weren't saying he definitely had and only suggested it as a possibility which isn't worth a wank really as anyone can suggest possibilities. I could just as easily suggest that Chevvy deal of United's where the executive was fired - after signing it off - is only part-funded by Chevvy and the Glazers are paying the rest by funnelling money into the company before having it paid back into United's bank account. I've no evidence of that of course but I'm just showing how easy it is to lob accusations around!
Last edited:
Surely, a much bigger issue for City going forward regarding the Etihad deal is that they continue to struggle financially with rumours of a merger with Emirates flying round, so we may have to start looking for another sponsor.
How many companies do Mansour/AD own? Aabar could become top sponsor, Khaldoon sits on the board of a dozen massive companies.
If AD are just giving the money to Etihad to give to us, as reported, we can do the same with any company within reason.
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
Desperation all round, they will probably start regressing back to 2007 and start bringing dirt up on Thaksin or even back to Swales. I wonder if those Tom Garner Motors and Greenalls sponsorships were above board?
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. I think we are entering a critical phase. We should have taken legal action in 2013. It is now us or them (and by them I mean the old guard of Bayern, Real Madrid, Rags etc) Uefa would rather fight us than ignore the cartel because of the risk of losing the CL. If they try to sanction us we have no choice but to sue and blow FFP out of the water.I'm sure we'll be investigated and I'm sure it'll go to Court, but the catalyst won't be City wishing to defend themselves. It'll be the pressure being cranked up on UEFA and the EPL by the old guard. They want the total destruction of our club and they want it permanent, and faced with either losing the Champions League or taking on City, UEFA will take the latter option IMO, however much danger that entails for them
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Desperation all round, they will probably start regressing back to 2007 and start bringing dirt up on Thaksin or even back to Swales. I wonder if those Tom Garner Motors and Greenalls sponsorships were above board?
Nah, those 2 were definitely above board. It's the Trumanns For Steel deal that they need to be looking at!
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
Nah, those 2 were definitely above board. It's the Trumanns For Steel deal that they need to be looking at!
And those Junior Blues sponsored trots they used to have, I bet there was a paper trail leading to it funding the Rick Holden transfer. Murky and worrying times.
Rochdale Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 3,553
Don't know if it's been posted on here but I liked this post I saw online.
FFP stands for Forty Four Passes.
FFP stands for Forty Four Passes.
It depends if they were deemed related parties according to their own rules.Many have said that if UEFA had not moved the goal posts City would have passed FFP first time round but would we have still passed FFP if UEFA knew that Sheikh Mansour was the one paying many of our sponsorships (assuming this to in fact be true)?
ManCitizens.
Well-Known Member
I hope Uefa look into the £64.5m per year sponsorship deal Bayern Munich receive from Adidas, they do own 9.1% of the club after all. If that isn't a related party sponsorship deal I don't know what is.
BlueDejong
Well-Known Member
always talking about City
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that the Etihad deal had been raised since?
That report from Simon Mullock was never confirmed or announced by anyone at City.
I hope Uefa look into the £64.5m per year sponsorship deal Bayern Munich receive from Adidas, they do own 9.1% of the club after all. If that isn't a related party sponsorship deal I don't know what is.
Why do you think they haven't looked at it?
£64.5m is not an incredible amount for Bayern Munich, it's in line with what you'd expect, being a smaller that United/Barca/Real but bigger than ourselves/Chelsea/Liverpool.