City Raider
Well-Known Member
It seems my paranoia wasn’t too wide of the mark
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
It seems my paranoia wasn’t too wide of the mark
Mate let's be honest about one thing. Our owners are as greedy as anybody else. They aren't pushing for the CWC for the spirit of football. These people don't amass billions by giving money away for free.Morning all....we discussed some great things last night at its seems that the actual motiv for all this is starting to be identified.
Imagine, a FIFA ran CWC where multiple world clubs from around the FIFA World were entered and the funds were shared. This would make other clubs start to become more competitive- the g14 are seething but also scared of that possibility. Clubs like bayern, Juve, AC Milan would still be in a league which are on their backside and producing no revenue streams that allow them to keep up. The likes of united and arsenal included even though they get premier league money.
Anyone thinking the G14 are going to let that happen are putting their head in the sand. Hence that marca article, hence this push for the bayern led euro-super league which would allow the G14 clubs (excluding us, psg and chelsea) to dictate the spread of payments propping themselves up over every other team for a minimum of 20 years
The so called ‘oil-rich’ clubs and the ones backing FIFA are seen as stopping G14 from forming their closed doors league
The greedy scumbags
Beyond that, if a CWC impacts City positively and our rivals negatively, I'm all for it. It's a ruthless world, but as Pep says, 'it is what it is.'
I’m not sure that our owner giving one of our sponsors money actually makes them a related party does it? Are we not allowed to do business with our sponsors? If city travel on an etihad plane is that not allowed?
Bottom line...this is all about the article Marca published. That is the real story. If anyone has an account with BM and Red Cafe they should post it.
If anyone has Martin Samuels contact details, send him the link.
Get that article out there as much as possible.
On our owner supposedly giving money – that would mean the sponsorship money has come from our owner... So - why is that an issue!?!
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha owned King Power (his family still do) and they sponsor both Leicester's shirt and stadium. As mentioned numerous times, Adidas, Allianz and T-Mobile are all part owners of Bayern Munich and all sponsor the club... there are many, many more examples of club owners sponsoring their own teams – so why is it a problem if we do it?
I’m not sure that our owner giving one of our sponsors money actually makes them a related party does it? Are we not allowed to do business with our sponsors? If city travel on an etihad plane is that not allowed?
Bottom line...this is all about the article Marca published. That is the real story. If anyone has an account with BM and Red Cafe they should post it.
If anyone has Martin Samuels contact details, send him the link.
Get that article out there as much as possible.
Which article is this sorry? Don't think I've seen it
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Which article is this sorry? Don't think I've seen it
Bluemoonz1977 found it last night...
https://www.marca.com/en/football/international-football/2018/11/06/5be0b5f846163f8ca58b45d6.html
On the Mail website today is an article headlined "HMRC warn Manchester City it will be 'relentless in pursuing' club if they have tried to evade paying tax". There's a shot of the inside of the Etiahd with the caption "Manchester City will be 'pursued relentlessly' if they failed to pay their share of tax". Yet no quotes by HMRC mention City at all and refer only to any club transgressing.
I'll leave it to fellow Bluemooners to decide whether there's any agenda or not.
the Mail are fucking bonkers, it's how they report all stories, they say something crazed in the headline and leader then go on to say a few ifs and buts and maybes (by which time most Mail readers dont care, they're sold). it's really weird, very aggressive and very worrying.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
http://www.thedaisycutter.co.uk/2018/11/defence-manchester-city-ii-der-spiegel/
I don’t even think the bit he is concerned about is a problem as Dario 2739 points out.
I don’t think we have done anything wrong at all now. Nothing.
It’s a big smokescreen for Bayern. The Marca article has the truth. The fact that our owner is seemingly also an investor in one of the companies trying to form a CWC with FIFA is the main reason Bayern have gone for us.
I don’t even think the bit he is concerned about is a problem as Dario 2739 points out.
I don’t think we have done anything wrong at all now. Nothing.
It’s a big smokescreen for Bayern. The Marca article has the truth. The fact that our owner is seemingly also an investor in one of the companies trying to form a CWC with FIFA is the main reason Bayern have gone for us.
It's annoying to see our club subjected to a smear campaign especially when you look at City now. Is the owner pumping money into the club so that we can fuel the purchase of players? No, and Der Spiegel said that in other words. This activity records a past battle with UEFA and of course it was clandestine.
At its worst we were forced to organise self-sponsorship schemes but self-sponsorship is not against FFP providing it's at fair value. Der Spiegel's own investigations confirm we are now profitable and that the Etihad finance is limited to £67.5m of £500m revenue. What has happened is that the details of a past which UEFA must have known about already, and for which we have already been sanctioned, are now in the open.
The bigger question is the result. I think in the short term we will be type-cast as the villains of football but beyond that, I can't see UEFA wanting to go back and sanction us for activity they have already dealt with. UEFA are bring squeezed but the Euro Super League plan is surely just a threat to extract more money. It would be deeply unpopular with Man Utd or Liverpool fans, and obviously City fans don't want it. I think there are a lot of tensions in football particularly as some elements of the cartel lose ground but football I don't think is going to implode.
I suspect that wider football is going to realise in time what has been going on/ Der Spiegel's revelations were a free-hit for the most of the media to print stories that will be lapped up by most of their readers but there will be people in football who will see a bigger picture of a cartel fighting for a slice of the pie and this is what this is all about.
I can not see football destroying itself whatever some people think. These ESL proposals are unworkable and will be deeply unpopular with football fans everywhere.
At its worst we were forced to organise self-sponsorship schemes but self-sponsorship is not against FFP providing it's at fair value. Der Spiegel's own investigations confirm we are now profitable and that the Etihad finance is limited to £67.5m of £500m revenue. What has happened is that the details of a past which UEFA must have known about already, and for which we have already been sanctioned, are now in the open.
The bigger question is the result. I think in the short term we will be type-cast as the villains of football but beyond that, I can't see UEFA wanting to go back and sanction us for activity they have already dealt with. UEFA are bring squeezed but the Euro Super League plan is surely just a threat to extract more money. It would be deeply unpopular with Man Utd or Liverpool fans, and obviously City fans don't want it. I think there are a lot of tensions in football particularly as some elements of the cartel lose ground but football I don't think is going to implode.
I suspect that wider football is going to realise in time what has been going on/ Der Spiegel's revelations were a free-hit for the most of the media to print stories that will be lapped up by most of their readers but there will be people in football who will see a bigger picture of a cartel fighting for a slice of the pie and this is what this is all about.
I can not see football destroying itself whatever some people think. These ESL proposals are unworkable and will be deeply unpopular with football fans everywhere.
You don't know that. Der SPiegel could have got their information elsewhere. That it suits Bayern etc is obvious, but coincidence does not equal cause. People always make this mistake.http://www.thedaisycutter.co.uk/2018/11/defence-manchester-city-ii-der-spiegel/
I don’t even think the bit he is concerned about is a problem as Dario 2739 points out.
I don’t think we have done anything wrong at all now. Nothing.
It’s a big smokescreen for Bayern. The Marca article has the truth. The fact that our owner is seemingly also an investor in one of the companies trying to form a CWC with FIFA is the main reason Bayern have gone for us.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
On our owner supposedly giving money – that would mean the sponsorship money has come from our owner... So - why is that an issue!?!
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha owned King Power (his family still do) and they sponsor both Leicester's shirt and stadium. As mentioned numerous times, Adidas, Allianz and T-Mobile are all part owners of Bayern Munich and all sponsor the club... there are many, many more examples of club owners sponsoring their own teams – so why is it a problem if we do it?
It isn't.
However, if the party doing the sponsoring is a related party (as defined under normal accounting rules) then the sponsorship revenue you can include in the FFP calculations has to be at "fair value".
The idea being if you are going to have a rule (FFP) which seeks to align your maximum expenditure with your earnings, they don't want you cheating by counting artificially inflated earnings.