Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

dario2739 said:
I posted previously - Bayern are part owned by Adidas and Allianz... PART OWNED... Bayern have a £900mil kit deal with Adidas and over £150mil sponsorship with Allianz... now, is it just me, but is that not sponsoring yourself? Is that not worse that what they are accusing us of?

Add to that Rummenigge, Beckenbauer and Hoeness have all been done (or accused of) finacial wrong-doings... Hoeness was put away for it ffs!
Click to expand...

Bayern's president Hoeness was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for tax evasion and their chairman Rummenigge was fined 250,000 Euros for smuggling watches.
 
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...
They are reporting everything in such a sensationalist way it is hard to take seriously.

Re: who has leaked them?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one.

Who has the motive, time and resources to leak this? Only one of our 'rivals'. A German newspaper doesn't. Everything is an information war, City are and have been ever since takeover, far too naive.
 
laserblue said:
Bayern's president Hoeness was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for tax evasion and their chairman Rummenigge was fined 250,000 Euros for smuggling watches.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you're not thinking of the script to Pulp Fiction there?
 
Chris in London said:
As I understand it, no. The sponsorship money came from Aabar, irrespective of whatever was the ultimate origin of £12m of it. The contractual obligation to pay was Aabar's. Aabar was the sponsor, not anyone else. Again, the FFPR could have adopted a 'look-through' or 'ultimate beneficial owner' test, to the question of related party transactions which would have caught the situation you mention: but they didn't. They adopted IAS24 without qualification. Der Spiegel are basically criticising City for being in breach of the rules they think UEFA should with the benefit of hindsight have imposed, even though City (if the emails are genuine) didn't actually breach the rules that UEFA did put in place.
Click to expand...
Sounds like classic Blackadder!
 
Chris in London said:
As I understand it, no. The sponsorship money came from Aabar, irrespective of whatever was the ultimate origin of £12m of it. The contractual obligation to pay was Aabar's. Aabar was the sponsor, not anyone else. Again, the FFPR could have adopted a 'look-through' or 'ultimate beneficial owner' test, to the question of related party transactions which would have caught the situation you mention: but they didn't. They adopted IAS24 without qualification. Der Spiegel are basically criticising City for being in breach of the rules they think UEFA should with the benefit of hindsight have imposed, even though City (if the emails are genuine) didn't actually breach the rules that UEFA did put in place.
Click to expand...
Thanks
So the question arises is this a 'loophole' in FFPR or was it intentional in FFPR that related party monies could be channelled to clubs through non related parties?
PS and then on a different issue there's the Bayern money referred to above by @laserblue !
 
Last edited:
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.