Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

domalino said:
Why do you think they haven't looked at it?

£64.5m is not an incredible amount for Bayern Munich, it's in line with what you'd expect, being a smaller that United/Barca/Real but bigger than ourselves/Chelsea/Liverpool.
Click to expand...
Do you think it makes commercial sense for Adidas to renegotiate the deal when the existing one still had five years remaining?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Totally agree. I think we are entering a critical phase. We should have taken legal action in 2013. It is now us or them (and by them I mean the old guard of Bayern, Real Madrid, Rags etc) Uefa would rather fight us than ignore the cartel because of the risk of losing the CL. If they try to sanction us we have no choice but to sue and blow FFP out of the water.
Click to expand...

And what happens if we go legal and sue them and lose - then what?
That scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility in a European court.
 
M18CTID said:
Unless someone can prove that we've been so utterly stupid as to have our owner pay that purported shortfall out of his own bank account then it's no-one's business where Etihad got that money from. Their statement last week kills it stone dead - they haven't paid us over and above what they're contracted to pay us for the sponsorship deal so there's nothing to see here. It stands to reason that if Etihad were in financial difficulty - something that pretty much everyone was aware of - then the state would bail their state-backed airline out. That's where the cash is likely to have come from and there's nothing wrong with that.

Surely, a much bigger issue for City going forward regarding the Etihad deal is that they continue to struggle financially with rumours of a merger with Emirates flying round, so we may have to start looking for another sponsor.
Click to expand...
I think it would help enormously going forward, if we could secure a main sponsorship deal here. I expect we'd be able to get similar numbers.
 
domalino said:
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ubious-transfer-deal-gone-sour-a-1238168.html
Click to expand...
Why is that even news at this stage?
I would have thought there is nothing revealed there that wasn't already known.
Notably the only involvement elaborated on is City's. Not West Ham who started it. Not United with the dodgy loan arrangement and not Juve who got him on the cheap after us.
It should be pretty evident to all what is going on and buckle up for the battle to come. There's a war on.
In a war the first caualty is the truth.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Desperation all round, they will probably start regressing back to 2007 and start bringing dirt up on Thaksin or even back to Swales. I wonder if those Tom Garner Motors and Greenalls sponsorships were above board?
Click to expand...
There is no other rational explanation for the Greenalls deal other than it was dodgy as fuck!
 
ManCitizens. said:
Do you think it makes commercial sense for Adidas to renegotiate the deal when the existing one still had five years remaining?
Click to expand...

They did the same with Real Madrid, agreeing a new deal with 3 years left on the old one.


Fact is, it's a fair market value, so their being related parties is meaningless.
 
M18CTID said:
Does it not then become related party if he part funds the Etihad deal himself though? Give that Etihad isn't a related party under IAS24, I can see that being an issue. My guess is that he hasn't though - even Der Spiegel weren't saying he definitely had and only suggested it as a possibility which isn't worth a wank really as anyone can suggest possibilities. I could just as easily suggest that Chevvy deal of United's where the executive was fired - after signing it off - is only part-funded by Chevvy and the Glazers are paying the rest by funnelling money into the company before having it paid back into United's bank account. I've no evidence of that of course but I'm just showing how easy it is to lob accusations around!
Click to expand...

Etihad and Mansour don't become related parties by doing business with one another, if indeed they have done any business.

The following are deemed not to be related: [IAS 24.11]

  • two entities simply because they have a director or key manager in common
  • two venturers who share joint control over a joint venture
  • providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or participate in its decision-making process)
  • a single customer, supplier, franchiser, distributor, or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business merely by virtue of the resulting economic dependence
 
OB1 said:
Etihad and Mansour don't become related parties by doing business with one another, if indeed they have done any business.

The following are deemed not to be related: [IAS 24.11]

  • two entities simply because they have a director or key manager in common
  • two venturers who share joint control over a joint venture
  • providers of finance, trade unions, public utilities, and departments and agencies of a government that does not control, jointly control or significantly influence the reporting entity, simply by virtue of their normal dealings with an entity (even though they may affect the freedom of action of an entity or participate in its decision-making process)
  • a single customer, supplier, franchiser, distributor, or general agent with whom an entity transacts a significant volume of business merely by virtue of the resulting economic dependence
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. And if UEFA have adopted a mirror image of IAS24 then there surely is no story here regarding the Etihad shortfall and who funded it?
 
BluessinceHydeRoad said:
A bit difficult after having agreed a "full and final settlement"? And isn't the gist of the criticism of City not that they broke the FFP rules but that they offended the "spirit" (interesting what that is exactly!) of the regs. To be (re-)punished you tend to have to break the law not someone else's idea of its "spirit".
Click to expand...
I suppose it is different if you construct the rules but surely changing them to suit their anticipated charge against City is hardly the spirit of said rule.
Maybe we were simply navigating around their rule change in similar spirit.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Why is that even news at this stage?
I would have thought there is nothing revealed there that wasn't already known.
Notably the only involvement elaborated on is City's. Not West Ham who started it. Not United with the dodgy loan arrangement and not Juve who got him on the cheap after us.
It should be pretty evident to all what is going on and buckle up for the battle to come. There's a war on.
In a war the first caualty is the truth.
Click to expand...

Whoever is waging this "war" is clutching at some pretty desperate straws so I can't see them winning it. More than likely that if they're now resorting to re-telling the story of Tevez's time at City then they've fuck-all left worth chucking at us and this will fizzle out soon.

I said last week that if the stuff covered in Der Spiegel is supposed to be a damning indictment of our club, then I could've written a more damning criticism of City. The only thing of any note that I've gleaned from all this is that Simon Cliff tells tasteless jokes and Simon Pearce comes across as a not very likeable person. Oh, and that the people writing it come across as bitter 12 year old Bayern Munich fans.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
I hope you're right. I just think the pressure will be piled on to UEFA to do something like never before here, and to be honest the sheer scale (£59m out of £67m) of the purported funnelling is such that I don't see how UEFA could possibly justify not looking at it, and particularly given the narrative adopted by our beloved friends at the media thus far (the ever excellent Messrs Holt and Samuels duly excepted). These are horrible, spiteful individuals we're dealing with, who've already shown their willingness to strategically manipulate their own rules previously to stiff us. I just think people are deceiving themselves if they believe this isn't going to be looked at with a view to screwing us irrevocably, and naive if they think it's nailed on to go in our favour if they do. Nothing is certain in law
Click to expand...

Some parties may well put pressure on UEFA but it could well be futile as their hands could already be tied or there may actually be nothing they can do; other than be a nuisance.

What UEFA, and our other enemies, do not need is City and PSG's owners actually putting aside differences and coming together to fight a battle on FFP etc. The wealth that AD & Qatar possess is so considerable. Also, both state's will have political influence in important places. Don't forget all the investment from AD into Manchester: I'm UK Government are well aware of that...

Didn't some UK scholar on the Middle East describe KAM as the de facto prime minister of AD? KAM moves in circles the likes of (say) David Gill can only dream about. I've said dozens of times now that it is no accident that KAM was chosen to chair MCFC. We are not ickle City.
 
City Raider said:
Funny that UEFA’s boast about the success of ffp is that it has reduced debt. Yet they do fuck all to clubs in debt. Says it all.
Click to expand...
Certainly the easiest way to reduce debt is to include it within ffp rules as per the uefas original plans.
Debt has always been problematic to banks so loans used to be very difficult to get.
The old joke was that you could only get a bank loan if you could prove you simply did not need it.
 
The Tevez deal really is desperate reporting, City were totally in the right as they were the first club to actually buy him outright as per the football laws in this country.

No mention of United signing him on a two-year loan agreement with this dodgy 'tax-haven' company in 2007 I see.

So blatantly a smear campaign this.
 
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