Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

pepsi_dave said:
Just to add to this, I'm not sure whether Aabar are or are not considered as a related party. Due to the fact that we paid them, to pay us, it could be argued they are a related party.

Notwithstanding that, part one of these "Leaks" showed a table, which was taken from our financial report for that season, and clearly showed a subsidy to Abu Dhabi based sponsors, which included Aabar, and whoever else from AD was sponsoring us. We did this to the tune of £150m total.

I'm not here to offer my opinion on that, it is what it is, but the fact we declared it, and the fact that UEFA at the time IIRC adjusted at least one of our sponsorship deals to represent "Fair Market Value" shows that this was dealt with, by UEFA. This action was more than likely one contributory factor to why we failed FFP that season.

The point is, there is absolutely nothing new about that at all, apart from maybe the name of one of the sponsors implicated.
There is nothing wrong with party related sponsorship at all so long as it's declared and represents fair value. We declared it, UEFA adjusted the figures, and we moved on, with a "pinch".

Parts 1-3 so far have done nothing other than re-hash old news, but with a very clear, one sided narrative. Maybe apart from the odd snippet about Aabar being named specifically, and the alleged human rights issue with Arabtec.

Nothing at all to worry about, and by Friday this will all be yesterdays news, and probably nothing at all more!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply (and to everyone else who has replied or liked my post).

Even assuming HHSM paid Aabar to pay us, that doesn't IMHO make Aabar a related party.

What is a 'related party' is defined within the FFPR themselves. So in other words it was up to UEFA to decide who was, and who was not, a related party for the purposes of the FFPR. Except, in the section defining related parties, what they did was copy and paste the standard accountancy definition widely known as IAS24. So it would be very very surprising if 'related party' within the meaning of the FFPR means anything different than it means in ordinary accounting. And in fairness nobody has argued that it means anything different.

But a 'related party' is a well understood accountancy concept. It is defined within IAS24 and that definition does not cover the situation where you say to a third party 'if you sign up to this deal that sees us get £15m in sponsorship, we will make sure £12m of that money comes from somewhere else.' Now, UEFA could have drawn up their rules so that it did cover that situation, but they chose not to - or, more likely they didn't think of it. Either way, the autonomous meaning that 'related party' has for the purposes of the FFPR does NOT cover the situation that is said to have arisen in relation to Aabar.

Like I said in my last post, we may have broken the sprit of the FFPR if not the letter of the regulations. Since the spirit of the FFPR was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense I frankly don't give a fuck.
 
Ric said:
One thing that has struck me in all this is how everything that Der Spiegel has published is being taken as gospel. At no point has anyone in the media questioned the validity of the claims (which let's not forget were illegally obtained) or asked who has leaked them, or why. You know, actual journalism rather than just rehashing another publication's stories.

We've seemingly been tried and convicted in their eyes, before we've even had the chance to formulate our official response. So much for innocent until proven guilty, eh.
Click to expand...

The one thing about leaked emails is unless you have the full context of the email exchanges you don’t know the full picture. Not sure if der Spiegel have the mails or seen parts leaked by football leaks
 
Marvin said:
What happened to Football Leaks investigation of the Pogba transfer and the £40m payment they claimed was due to Pogba's agent to Pogba's agent. Where were the demands for action?

I repeat again £40m. The annual payment of the Etihad deal is £67.5m

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...d-zlatan-ibrahimovic-paul-pogba-a7726996.html

City are an easy target.
Click to expand...

We are an easy target because we never ever seem to defend ourselves when slurs come our way. Would United put up with this disgraceful slander? When the BBC questioned Ferguson's son Jason about privileged transfer activities he banned then for seven years-and numerous other journalists have also been banned from Old Trafford.

The club is far far far to soft with this disgraceful slander on our club and its been going on for TEN years.

Its having an effect on our club image all of this, its just one thing after another week in week out.

Show your balls as a club City.
 
Where was FFP when we needed it! Sure he was beyond our budget at the time

steve-daley.jpg
 
flb said:
We are an easy target because we never ever seem to defend ourselves when slurs come our way. Would United put up with this disgraceful slander? When the BBC questioned Ferguson's son Jason about privileged transfer activities he banned then for seven years-and numerous other journalists have also been banned from Old Trafford.

The club is far far far to soft with this disgraceful slander on our club and its been going on for TEN years.

Its having an effect on our club image all of this, its just one thing after another week in week out.

Show your balls as a club City.
Click to expand...

As a club we don’t need the fcukers id ban the fcuking lot of them and give all there places to die hard city fans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.