Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

WRicko said:
Let me see if I have this right

Some documents where illegally stolen Which tell us that City did not like or accept FFP (We already knew this ) That they negotiated wiht UEFA (We already knew this )

The documents dont tell us that They had the right to negotiated which they did (in fact the insinuation is that City did not have this right) They dont tell us why City dont like FFP True mainly because it could have or did negatively affect them but also because they changed the rules mid process and because they are not fair fair given the history of Bankrolled clubs and lack of regulation pre FFP. Its anti free markets possibly to such an extent that it would constitute illegal cartel like practices Hence the strong words from city now looked down on in these documents and the media reporting of them

The documents are meant to be about City hiding costs through other entities but but the reports are an insinuation more than proof. Also we knew that city had these companies and I am not sure they actual show us anything that is wrong. A because we know that City where charged for the costs incurred by these other entities on Cities behalf. I think other clubs have multiple companies and do similar. Certainly big multinationals and conglomerates do. The debate then is about the amounts that where involved or should have been involved. If City actually did anything wrong then they would have to have got it past their auditors, accountants, the tax man and UEFA

Cities strong words are one of three things either a guilty man protesting an innocent man protesting or an innocent man protesting very strongly one because they are innocent but because they are unfounded and do huge damage not just to City but to there auditors and accountants etc

These documents are also supposed to suggest city got more revenue than they should from Abu Dhabi but this to happen the companies involved would have to be related parties. Non related parties dont intentionally over pay. Neither the over paying nor the related party nature was picked up by Cities auditors and accountants or the tax man or UEFA although supposedly according to the reports if not these documents it was picked up but ignored but for no apparent reason

Clubs dont break down how much money they get from each sponsor so how can we judge whats paid or should have been paid ?

The % allegedly over paid seems very high given cities success and size of commercial review and possible fees paid by non Abu Dhabi companies and above what would be need to meet FFP as city understood it at the time. If city did this why not do it in such away they they got off FFP completely

If you look at these companies they dont meet related party definition rightly or wrongly because they are state business supposedly run at arms length to the government and City are privately owned by a member of that government not connected to these companies

The rumoured figures these companies pay other than Etihad are small fry and the figure Etihad pay is now good value and will be cheap once the campus is done and they get sponsorship all over it especially if its half as big and amazing as romoured
Click to expand...

You should go read the rag cafe version....

We've "bribed / threatened UEFA and FIFA into submission and are approaching untouchable status within the game" in their thread.
 
cleavers said:
You should go read the rag cafe version....

We've "bribed / threatened UEFA and FIFA into submission and are approaching untouchable status within the game" in their thread.
Click to expand...


Fucking brilliant - it will drive the braindeads insane ...........or should that be moreso ?
 
Rolee said:
I don't know why they chose now to leak this but I would like to know, any ideas why now?
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, nobody put two and two together and came up with 5 when the leaked documents were supposed to be about United. As soon as they were about us though the inevitable connection to the derby came out from some. Who knows why now? Maybe they’re Southampton fans? If the go to belief is up coming games, maybe they’re Saints fans?

Or, as I would suspect, Football Leaks have zero shits to give about our games, and simply chose Friday the 2nd of November to publish their findings for no reason other than it suited them?

What do you think? Why do you think they chose yesterday?
 
Pigeonho said:
Like I said earlier, nobody put two and two together and came up with 5 when the leaked documents were supposed to be about United. As soon as they were about us though the inevitable connection to the derby came out from some. Who knows why now? Maybe they’re Southampton fans? If the go to belief is up coming games, maybe they’re Saints fans?

Or, as I would suspect, Football Leaks have zero shits to give about our games, and simply chose Friday the 2nd of November to publish their findings for no reason other than it suited them?

What do you think? Why do you think they chose yesterday?
Click to expand...

Haven't a clue mate.
 
What's this €2.7 billion figure I keep seeing in headlines and tweets?
 
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.