Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row, MuEN block comments

[2sheikhs]

Just the name Financial Fair Play makes me feel sick.
Its nothing but an exercise to maintain the status quo.

precisely - aimed at blocking Eastern European & Middle East investors but City are a prime target:
Financial fair play is merely a way to stifle City
By MARTIN SAMUEL
Last updated at 12:03 AM on 11th July 2011

Perhaps UEFA could be persuaded to rule on a fair price for Manchester City defender Jerome Boateng. Those guys seem to know the value of everything these days.
They know how much a stadium naming rights deal is worth at a club that may - or may not - be on the brink of becoming one of the most significant in Europe.
They know what a kit deal should mean to a team that may - or may not - be about to win Europe's richest domestic league.

Welcome to the Etihad Stadium: Manchester City struck a huge £400m deal to rename Eastlands last week
And they can put a precise price on a fledgling project involving transport infrastructure, retail and sports education in the Greater Manchester area that may - or may not - create a new and vibrant entrepreneurial hub to the east of the city.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine why we continue listening to those bozos who made such a pig's ear of judging the financial fortunes of the Mediterranean countries, when all the finest economic forecasters in Europe can be found hanging around Michel Platini's office in Nyon.
UEFA have announced they will look into Manchester City's £400million, 10-year sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, to see if financial fair play rules have been contravened.

Squabble: City and Bayern Munich are in dispute over the transfer value of Jerome Boateng (left)
'Our experts will make assessments of fair value using benchmarks,' said a spokesman.
What benchmarks are these?
City are all about potential right now. They could be anything, or nothing. They could usurp Barcelona or end up in the Europa League next season. And there is no precedent for City as a major European force. What would be the going rate, were City to win the modern Champions League? Who knows? They have never even been in it before.
Yet there is already pressure over the Etihad deal from the old European elite, who feel threatened. They want the arrangement investigated because of very obvious links between Etihad and Manchester City. The airline is owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, whose ruler, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan is the half brother of City's owner Sheik Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan.


The claim is the figures have been artificially inflated to help City comply with UEFA's financial rules. And maybe they have; but so what? Business is about contacts. There are plenty of deals struck at a certain price because one side is playing a long game, hoping to do better down the line. A company might agree a significant discount to reel in a wealthy client; another might make a generous offer to establish a relationship and benefit in the future.
The microcosm is giving a busy tradesman a generous tip at first, in the hope of then being able to call on his services and time more regularly.
Clearly, these examples do not apply to Etihad and City, but they might apply to other major clubs in Europe and to a business that wanted a foot in the door at, say, Manchester United or Real Madrid.
What would UEFA do then? Ban their clubs from cutting a good deal? It will be interesting to see such restrictive measures tested in court. Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, is believed to be among those protesting against the Manchester City deal behind the scenes, but he has vested interests on several fronts.
Right now, there is a significant rift between the clubs over Germany defender Boateng: Munich have offered £12m, City want nearer £20m. 'City demand a price which is not realistic,' Rummenigge says.
So now you see how it works. The big clubs want City's sponsorship by Etihad suppressed, but also wish to steal their players on the cheap. So City get gypped two ways - it is almost as if the clubs are scared of their capacity to generate money.
As chairman of the European Club Association, Rummenigge rarely misses a chance to raise an issue happily to Bayern Munich's advantage, and this is no exception. Not satisfied with Munich's immense wealth and standing in the domestic and European game - which will only be further cemented by the financial fair play rule - Rummenigge wishes to take out all interlopers, too.
City represent the greatest threat to that established order and, therefore, must be stopped.
Munich want a return to the days when the big clubs could just bully their way to a cheap deal. In Rummenigge's mind, City are impudent upstarts, their business unworthy of a £400m sponsorship, their players unworthy of a £20m bid; and UEFA are complicit in this arrogance.

Powerful enemy: Bayern Munich chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge is no fan of City
From the start, financial fair play was only going to benefit the very wealthiest or the smallest clubs without ambition. Those looking to build, to grow, to succeed, were going to be stifled. So it is proving.
Munich do not want City to make money in the marketplace or in the transfer market, then they want their available funds to be fixed to income.
It is a shameful racket, but no doubt the economic gurus at UEFA will find a solution; they are so wise

Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2013243/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Financial-fair-play-merely-stifle-Manchester-City.html#ixzz1aJqpYr2Y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... z1aJqpYr2Y</a>

Martin Samuel must have been abducted by aliens or believe man didn't walk on the moon then.

 

[80s Shorts]

Anyone looking for some form of co-ordinated conspiracy is wide of the mark. There are no meetings in smoke-filled rooms about how to form a strategy to 'stop these arabs ruining football.'

Anyone who thinks that there isn't a widespread bias against City is equally wide of the mark, however.

This is a manifestation of our new found status. Human history has been hallmarked by the nouveau riche being looked down upon by the established order and the vested interests that attach themselves thereto.

I am sure that Victorian industrialists from humble backgrounds were talked about in unkind terms by their new neighbours. Once their private school educated kids had grown up it would be an entirely different story, with that family doubtless being viewed as pillars of the community.

And so it will come to pass with us. Once we win another couple of trophies and they finally come to realise which way the wind is blowing these critics will be up our fucking arse before you can say 'three defensive midfielders'.

What is important is that we don't allow ourselves to be fooled by their 'conversion', when it happens, as anything more than a calculated strategic move. In that sense united have it right. Always assume the worst from these people. Most tabloid journalists aren't remotely interested in a quest for truth. Just which PR firm is paying for 'lunch' that week - in order for them to decide which 'sources' to quote in their latest tendentious and dishonest pile of lies.

"Claps"

 

[mcfc1632]

was you calling me a twat there..?

No - in fact not at all...........

What I meant was that someone saying that there are loads of CITY fans that believe that the MEN is not balanced in its reporting is just as valid as someone saying that there are only a few - neither parties actually know at all.

Hence my comment that it is just a subjective point of view - both opinions are - and also why I suggested that it would be a good idea to get rid of the subjective tit for tat comments by getting some actual evidence - perhaps through a poll

Yes.. I knew what you meant.

But since when would a BM poll represent the majority of blues..?

well - it would be some measured indication - albeit I admit only of those CITY fans that use Bluemoon - but you did say '...there are a few on here...' - so I thought that you meant that there were only a few of that opinion on Bluemoon

I might be wrong but I would not be surprised if such a poll showed a majority on Bluemoon concerned with MEN reporting

 

[Three_Hat-tricks]

Stuart, I don't want to get into this argument as I think it's a bit silly. But how did you get into journalism initially? I ask because when I was a kid that was the profession I aspired to join.

 

[mcfc1632]

was you calling me a twat there..?

No - in fact not at all...........

What I meant was that someone saying that there are loads of CITY fans that believe that the MEN is not balanced in its reporting is just as valid as someone saying that there are only a few - neither parties actually know at all.

Hence my comment that it is just a subjective point of view - both opinions are - and also why I suggested that it would be a good idea to get rid of the subjective tit for tat comments by getting some actual evidence - perhaps through a poll

Ah like the same sort of evidence that SB has been asking some muppets for who claim this,that and `tother happened,when evidently it didn`t.
Will have to use the word ALLEGEDLY,just in case it comes back to bite me arse !!!

I think that is a point well made - some voting that they do think that MEN are unfair in their coverage might be believing so from what they have heard / feel etc rather than factual evidence.

But even so that would prove something that I would suggest SB ought to pay attention to...........

Because if people (a growing number perhaps) are of that 'opinion' then this should be a concern that SB/MEN should seek to address - it is an opinion (if that is the outcome) that is established and growing amongst their catchement area

 

[stuart brennan]

Stuart, I don't want to get into this argument as I think it's a bit silly. But how did you get into journalism initially? I ask because when I was a kid that was the profession I aspired to join.

That was a near-miss for you!
To be honest, I fell into it. My eldest brother was a news journalist befpre he retired this year.
I left uni with a degree in history and politics in 1984 and was on the dole for a year. I applied for tons of jobs, everything from dishwasher to croupier to management consultant, and was getting nowhere.
My brother suggested doing som work experience at his office - the Winsford Guardian, no less, which I did, and enjoyed it. I taught myself shorthand and typing rather than waste my time on the dole, and when a job came up with the same group, at the Wilmslow World, I got it.

 

[oakiecokie]

No - in fact not at all...........

What I meant was that someone saying that there are loads of CITY fans that believe that the MEN is not balanced in its reporting is just as valid as someone saying that there are only a few - neither parties actually know at all.

Hence my comment that it is just a subjective point of view - both opinions are - and also why I suggested that it would be a good idea to get rid of the subjective tit for tat comments by getting some actual evidence - perhaps through a poll

Ah like the same sort of evidence that SB has been asking some muppets for who claim this,that and `tother happened,when evidently it didn`t.
Will have to use the word ALLEGEDLY,just in case it comes back to bite me arse !!!

I think that is a point well made - some voting that they do think that MEN are unfair in their coverage might be believing so from what they have heard / feel etc rather than factual evidence.

But even so that would prove something that I would suggest SB ought to pay attention to...........

Because if people (a growing number perhaps) are of that 'opinion' then this should be a concern that SB/MEN should seek to address - it is an opinion (if that is the outcome) that is established and growing amongst their catchement area

I`ve supported SB on BM because in my honest opinion I think he does a very good job and having read the paper for 30+ years I ain`t stopping now.
However I must admit that I found myself not agreeing with his observations that some of the National Media do not have an agenda against us.
Don`t need to look far to show that he is wrong with that statement,but it wont stop me from enjoying his match assessments etc,nor stop me from reading it.
Some people need to realise that it aint soley a Sports Paper,but a local area tabloid that reports on various aspects of life and people,within the area.

 

[80s Shorts]

That's hardly compelling evidence as to why the whole of the rules of European football have been changed with the sole intention of neutering our threat, as you are suggesting.

"City look like they could be quite strong on the pitch in the next couple of years. I know, we'll completely change the financial rules across the whole of football to try and stop them in their tracks".

That's right, that's just how the world works.

Quick question. Are you one of those people who think the moon landings were fake?

No. I'm just one of those people who saw the scum, real madrid, barca and chelsea in particular spend stupid money on players while the governing bodies sat back and did fuck-all about it, then decide it has to stop when we spend money. Look at the criteria ffs. A club in shitloads of debt can spend as much as they want but one with a benefactor can't? Have a word with yourself. If it wasn't brought in to stop us then that's one amazing coincidence.

Well I just had a word with myself and I established that you are still talking bollocks.

You are displaying all the classic signs of paranoia. Thinking the world revolves around you and that everything bad that happens is part of some 'plan' to thwart you.

It may have been designed to ensure that it didn't threaten the established order, I can't dispute that, but to suggest, as you have, that it was created to prevent Manchester City Football Club becoming successful is absurd.

If you concede that it was introduced to protect the established order then surely those that introduced this measure saw some threat to this order. Whether or not we were on the radar when the new rules were conceived is debatable. To dismiss anothers opinion as absurd or the poster as paranoid is a lttle silly imho.

 

[waspish]

No. I'm just one of those people who saw the scum, real madrid, barca and chelsea in particular spend stupid money on players while the governing bodies sat back and did fuck-all about it, then decide it has to stop when we spend money. Look at the criteria ffs. A club in shitloads of debt can spend as much as they want but one with a benefactor can't? Have a word with yourself. If it wasn't brought in to stop us then that's one amazing coincidence.

Well I just had a word with myself and I established that you are still talking bollocks.

You are displaying all the classic signs of paranoia. Thinking the world revolves around you and that everything bad that happens is part of some 'plan' to thwart you.

It may have been designed to ensure that it didn't threaten the established order, I can't dispute that, but to suggest, as you have, that it was created to prevent Manchester City Football Club becoming successful is absurd.

If you concede that it was introduced to protect the established order then surely those that introduced this measure saw some threat to this order. Whether or not we were on the radar when the new rules were conceived is debatable. To dismiss anothers opinion as absurd or the poster as paranoid is a lttle silly imho.

My question always is why wasn't FFP brought in 5, 10 or even 15 years ago?

 

[bluemanc]

Someone has started a "is the media biased against City"thung on Twitter,interesting stuff.