Football Leaks/Der Spiegel articles

OB1 said:
Doubt that anything illegal has been done and certainly not by City. City have invoiced Etihad for the sponsorship received. Etihad may have invoiced ADUG but again, that is not illegal.

The fact remains that UEFA cannot check Etihad's books to see if rules have been contravened.
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer, but I'm certain that there is no illegality. However, I would like to see City have this out with UEFA in the courts to establish once and for all whether the owner of a football business (City) can invest their funds in that business. FFP 'rules' do not accord with the capitalist west - they're like something out of the old USSR. UEFA is just a commercial business - not some governmental body.
 
Personally, I don't think UEFA would want to see us in the courts - they would be trying to defend the indefensible. My guess is that SM would hire a lawyer to tear apart the 'legality' of FFP.
 
The agitators, i.e the cartel ( mainly BM and the Germans) are getting desperate with all this stuff because nothing has come of it and nothing will and the leaks crew and all those driving the agenda are just hashing stuff from 5-6 years ago.
Then you have some media lap it up and make it a "concrete" case..laughable. Idiots like Rob Draper talking through his arse because he can't stand us, making false claims that we "will be punished" and a "ban is a step closer"... whilst ignoring the fact that FFP is illegal in the first place with deceptive motives at it's core.
Like the club states "We will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and City personnel and associated people. The attempt to damage the club's reputation is clear."
UEFA cannot touch us, the consequences would be dire because the evidence is questionable, out of context not to mention obtained illegally..
UEFA know we won't be taking "a pinch anymore' and if they tried anything we would take this to court and make a meal out of the whole bent system.
 
HarrytheBlue said:
I'm no lawyer, but I'm certain that there is no illegality. However, I would like to see City have this out with UEFA in the courts to establish once and for all whether the owner of a football business (City) can invest their funds in that business. FFP 'rules' do not accord with the capitalist west - they're like something out of the old USSR. UEFA is just a commercial business - not some governmental body.
Click to expand...

It's not clear whether or not FFP would hold up in court but my own view is that it is anti-competitive and some form of restraint of trade. I find it hard to believe that if UEFA try to use this material to ban City from European competition that City's owners would not get litigious and they have deeper pockets than UEFA.

The whole thing is very tiresome because City have demonstrated how to make investment work.
 
I thought u was allowed related sponsorship if they were deemed fair value??
If that is the case what does it matter if sheikh Mansour was funnelling the money back to the sponsors?

Didn't PSG try getting away with a £200m sponsor from Qatar tourism board??.....UEFA deemed £100m was fair value??

Why didn't City ever have a £100m deal with Abu Dhabi tourism board?
 
I voted Remain, but UEFA is a bit like the European Commission - funded by its component parts. Occasionally, both bodies make sensible decisions, but occasionally both make irrational decisions. Does a commercial business (UEFA) really have the legal right to dictate how a member (us) of one of its associations (the FA) runs its commercial business ? Being devil's advocate, how can UEFA find fault with a debt free business (us) but give its blessing to clubs like MU that are hundreds of millions in debt ? In reality, I believe that MU should be allowed to pursue their 'heavy debt' business model and we should be allowed to pursue our 'debt free' model. Businesses come and go and go out of business. Fact of life.
 
Last edited:
OB1 said:
It's not clear whether or not FFP would hold up in court but my own view is that it is anti-competitive and some form of restraint of trade. I find it hard to believe that if UEFA try to use this material to ban City from European competition that City's owners would not get litigious and they have deeper pockets than UEFA.

The whole thing is very tiresome because City have demonstrated how to make investment work.
Click to expand...
pretty sure uefa wouldnt want to take the risk, if they did and lost thats end of fpp, cant see them risking all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OB1
dickie davies said:
Illegal in these terms is by breaking UEFA's rules
A bit like a tackle in a football match which is deemed illegal
Click to expand...
The word 'illegal' is defined in my dictionary as being 'forbidden in law'. Surely, this comes down to whether the commercial entity/business known as UEFA can bring in rules that have legal force. Just my opinion - I don't think they can.

Come on City, lets have this out with UEFA in the courts once and for all.
 
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.