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
"Everyone else does it" is a pretty poor defence. It doesn't make it right and we should be better than that. If your own Communications Director is so damning in her assessment of the impact to the club's reputation, it should never have been done.
I'm sure every other clubs communications director also would have discussed this with their club but it's the prem, it's money driven......unfortunately.
We didn't start it, cast your mind back to 1992.
prestonibbo_mcfc
Well-Known Member
Piss can only be simmering after today's "leaks".
Disappointing.
It's not the leaks,that are so fucking annoying. It's the lack of proof to back anything up.
For the media here, to just jump on the bandwagon and start slinging mud everywhere,
is a fucking disgrace.
Sir peace frog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,306
- Location
- stalking the canals and rivers
- Team supported
- Manchester City Football Club
I only speak to people in England.But it's not just England the mud is sticking, this is being reported around the globe.
Embrace it, blue, it's never going to change and nothing is going to happen to us so you may as well say "fuck 'em".It's not the leaks,that are so fucking annoying. It's the lack of proof to back anything up.
For the media here, to just jump on the bandwagon and start slinging mud everywhere,
is a fucking disgrace.
markbmcfc
Well-Known Member
I'm sure every other clubs communications director also would have discussed this with their club but it's the prem, it's money driven......unfortunately.
We didn't start it, cast your mind back to 1992.
Again, what everyone else has done, or has done before us, is not a defence or justification.
I only speak to people in England.
I'm simply saying the mud is sticking around the globe and if you haven't noticed the club are trying to expand our global support.
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ter-3-recruiting-pep-guardiola-a-1236621.html
Part 3 English ver now
Manchester City ExposedChapter 3: Recruiting Pep Guardiola
The powerful men behind Manchester City don't just show up in the stadium, they also make appearances on the global political stage. Control is their top priority. They managed to lure star trainer Pep Guardiola away from FC Bayern almost a year before he took over Man City. By DER SPIEGEL Staff
I'm a little worried about this...
I like this gem “they have managed to control the narrative in Britain”.
How wide of the mark is that? The media have had little good to say about City until very recently, and reluctantly.
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,315
Yawn ! Next
So when will see the real leak about who keeps picking ref for derby ?
So when will see the real leak about who keeps picking ref for derby ?
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,983
I largely kept my powder dry on this because I wanted to see all four parts of the story before forming a view, but given part 3 was so piss poor I think I have enough to articulate my thoughts.
The biggest criticism seems to be the complaint that City inflated sponsorship deals to circumvent FFP. Except they didn't inflate the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deal with Asabar, for instance was £15m. Not £3m, or any other figure, but £15m. That's the amount that Aabar were contractually obliged to pay.
There is absolutely nothing in the FFPR that requires that any third party sponsorship money must, for instance, come from distributable profits. Where a third party gets the money from to sponsor a team is neither here nor there: what matters for the purposes of the FFPR is the sponsorship income. And in the case of Aabar, the amount of sponsorship income was £15m.
The complaint, when properly understood, cannot be that City overstated the sponsorship deal, because they didn't. They reported sponsorship from Aabar of £15m, which is exactly what the contract said. The complaint must be that Aabar would not have entered into that contract in the first place if it had not been made clear to them that £12m would be provided from elsewhere. So in other words, the value of the sponsorship was artificially inflated (assuming the emails are genuine).
That however does not contravene the regulations. Nowhere does UEFA get to impose its own 'true and fair' valuation of the sponsorship deals other than in the case of related party transactions, which IIRC Aabar wasn't. So, assuming the emails are genuine, and the additional sponsorship money actually originated from HHSM, did we breach the spirit of the regulations? yep. Did we take advantage of what the regulations don't say? Absolutely. Did we actually breach the regulations then in force? Absolutely not.
So the complaint when you boil it down to its bare essentials is that we found a way round the regulations, and didn't tell UEFA what we had done.
Well cry me a fucking river. We all know these regulations were designed as a means of ossifying the status quo and making it more difficult for a team to progress in that competition. Der Spiegel actually say that in terms - they say that City could (and they imply should) have lowered their on-pitch expectations. So if people want to cry about it now because we found an arguably immoral way round regulations that themselves were immoral from the get-go, me my guest.
For my own part, and if you are reading this Matthew Syed, I'm talking to you, I have an absolutely clear conscience. The club I support has breached no regulations, and the worst that can be said of them is that they have fought fire with fire. If you have a problem with that, feel free to write more of your sanctimonious shite. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
The biggest criticism seems to be the complaint that City inflated sponsorship deals to circumvent FFP. Except they didn't inflate the sponsorship deals. The sponsorship deal with Asabar, for instance was £15m. Not £3m, or any other figure, but £15m. That's the amount that Aabar were contractually obliged to pay.
There is absolutely nothing in the FFPR that requires that any third party sponsorship money must, for instance, come from distributable profits. Where a third party gets the money from to sponsor a team is neither here nor there: what matters for the purposes of the FFPR is the sponsorship income. And in the case of Aabar, the amount of sponsorship income was £15m.
The complaint, when properly understood, cannot be that City overstated the sponsorship deal, because they didn't. They reported sponsorship from Aabar of £15m, which is exactly what the contract said. The complaint must be that Aabar would not have entered into that contract in the first place if it had not been made clear to them that £12m would be provided from elsewhere. So in other words, the value of the sponsorship was artificially inflated (assuming the emails are genuine).
That however does not contravene the regulations. Nowhere does UEFA get to impose its own 'true and fair' valuation of the sponsorship deals other than in the case of related party transactions, which IIRC Aabar wasn't. So, assuming the emails are genuine, and the additional sponsorship money actually originated from HHSM, did we breach the spirit of the regulations? yep. Did we take advantage of what the regulations don't say? Absolutely. Did we actually breach the regulations then in force? Absolutely not.
So the complaint when you boil it down to its bare essentials is that we found a way round the regulations, and didn't tell UEFA what we had done.
Well cry me a fucking river. We all know these regulations were designed as a means of ossifying the status quo and making it more difficult for a team to progress in that competition. Der Spiegel actually say that in terms - they say that City could (and they imply should) have lowered their on-pitch expectations. So if people want to cry about it now because we found an arguably immoral way round regulations that themselves were immoral from the get-go, me my guest.
For my own part, and if you are reading this Matthew Syed, I'm talking to you, I have an absolutely clear conscience. The club I support has breached no regulations, and the worst that can be said of them is that they have fought fire with fire. If you have a problem with that, feel free to write more of your sanctimonious shite. I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Last edited: