“There is no evidence that…..” 11 times CAS said that.No it hasn’t and some of the responses are worse. Might tag the club as there are some pretty libellous statement. Here is a comment from someone else at Accenture.
Data has definitely shed light on this question. Etisalat, ADTA (Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority), Aabar and Etihad Airways were City’s four main sponsors in the years of the club’s post-takeover transformation - all closely linked to the government. In the case of Etihad for example, the allegations are that out of the £67.5 million yearly sponsorship, £8 million were Etihad and the rest was Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the private investment vehicle Sheikh Mansour used to buy the club.
The Football Leaks story with the emails leaked by a Portuguese hacker, clearly revealed the ways City tried to artificially inflate the club’s sponsorship revenue by disguising millions of pounds in additional funding to the club via UAE-based companies. City was even officially charged and banned by UEFA for this matter, but the decision was quickly overturned.
Thus, the question of 'football romantics' should be, seeing that financial regulations are not contributing anything , which would be the way to control 'financial doping' in football?
Manchester City 2nd Deloitte Football Money League for 2022/23 (pg16)
- Thread starter Kinkladze's crazy skills
- Start date
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
Are Accenture related to Deloitte or something? If they are related in any way, it's not good to see a managing director talking absolute nonsense City while banging their Liverpool drum.
The phrase "artificially inflate" is arbitrary nonsense too. That wasn't what UEFA or anyone else who knew what the case was about were arguing because they had no case for that. Not like they did with PSG(the ones who are owned by a state, who do have links to UEFA, via lucrative beIN contracts and members of their executive boards).
As for the disguised owner funding allegations. Besides the fact that they had no evidence, only out of context emails and speculation. I don't know why more people didn't consider that Eithad are(unlike Manchester City or the CFG or ADUG) an organisation which is owned and backed by the state of Abu Dhabi. Who have access to some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. They cover the airlines losses, pay it's bills and contractual obligations, because they are the owner of that airline. That was the case long before City had any takeover.
They have to decide what its is that they believe: That City are owned by a state or Sheikh Mansour? They can't have both.
That is to say, either they want us to believe:
That a state backed airline, needed one royal to cover their sponsorship agreement, to a football club they don't own. "You cover it, it's your club". Which isn't likely IMO, they want that airline to succeed long term and sponsorships are part of their strategy. It's an expense they would cover like any other. It's not special just because certain people don't like City.
or
That a state secretly bought a football club in 2008 before FFP had even been agreed upon(2009?) or a draft of rules had even been created. At a time where the rules around fit and proper owners were basically none existent too. FFP wouldn't have prevented Abu Dhabi from owning a football club even if was around in 2008. They want us to believe Abu Dhabi did all that and foresaw so much, yet they somehow didn't plan for shortfalls and how to cover them from the get go(a built-in structure), without the need for any back and forth? Does that make sense?
When I see people spouting arbitrary arguments like "See, Etihad take losses, so it's artificially inflated right?" (no btw for any anti-city crusaders reading, that's not what the phrase means). It's almost like some have the belief that Abu Dhabi are only propping up the airline, just so they can secretly fund City... Which is absurd when you think about it. Is there a more expensive way to do it than that?
Some of them seem to have slightly changed their tunes(even Der Spiegel, unless I read it wrong). They've accepted that City are indeed majority owned by Sheikh Mansour and have instead shifted their focus to the more tenuous links between people who work at City and Abu Dhabi, hence the back and forth in those emails... But the problem for them, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and the positions those board members held/hold was never a secret(publicly available information, in fact). These people would have been chosen because they were people that either Sheikh Mansour or Kahldoon know and trust(value).
I thought it was 13 instances? but I suppose it doesn't make much difference either way.
The phrase "artificially inflate" is arbitrary nonsense too. That wasn't what UEFA or anyone else who knew what the case was about were arguing because they had no case for that. Not like they did with PSG(the ones who are owned by a state, who do have links to UEFA, via lucrative beIN contracts and members of their executive boards).
As for the disguised owner funding allegations. Besides the fact that they had no evidence, only out of context emails and speculation. I don't know why more people didn't consider that Eithad are(unlike Manchester City or the CFG or ADUG) an organisation which is owned and backed by the state of Abu Dhabi. Who have access to some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. They cover the airlines losses, pay it's bills and contractual obligations, because they are the owner of that airline. That was the case long before City had any takeover.
They have to decide what its is that they believe: That City are owned by a state or Sheikh Mansour? They can't have both.
That is to say, either they want us to believe:
That a state backed airline, needed one royal to cover their sponsorship agreement, to a football club they don't own. "You cover it, it's your club". Which isn't likely IMO, they want that airline to succeed long term and sponsorships are part of their strategy. It's an expense they would cover like any other. It's not special just because certain people don't like City.
or
That a state secretly bought a football club in 2008 before FFP had even been agreed upon(2009?) or a draft of rules had even been created. At a time where the rules around fit and proper owners were basically none existent too. FFP wouldn't have prevented Abu Dhabi from owning a football club even if was around in 2008. They want us to believe Abu Dhabi did all that and foresaw so much, yet they somehow didn't plan for shortfalls and how to cover them from the get go(a built-in structure), without the need for any back and forth? Does that make sense?
When I see people spouting arbitrary arguments like "See, Etihad take losses, so it's artificially inflated right?" (no btw for any anti-city crusaders reading, that's not what the phrase means). It's almost like some have the belief that Abu Dhabi are only propping up the airline, just so they can secretly fund City... Which is absurd when you think about it. Is there a more expensive way to do it than that?
Some of them seem to have slightly changed their tunes(even Der Spiegel, unless I read it wrong). They've accepted that City are indeed majority owned by Sheikh Mansour and have instead shifted their focus to the more tenuous links between people who work at City and Abu Dhabi, hence the back and forth in those emails... But the problem for them, is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and the positions those board members held/hold was never a secret(publicly available information, in fact). These people would have been chosen because they were people that either Sheikh Mansour or Kahldoon know and trust(value).
Last edited:
kinky's boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 610
American owners are ok with the media for some reason
Semper aggressus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 6,293
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Great, now hopefully the club will outbid whoever we need to for Bellingham and buy the best left back in world football.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It's out next Thursday for 2023. Make sure you're on the upper floors of your house, or higher ground, when the tsunami of boiling piss hits.
Cravenvirgin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 118
- Team supported
- Manchester City
FFS I live in a bungalow
MillisleBlue
Well-Known Member
The rise and rise of Manchester City...
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
TinFoilHat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2023
- Messages
- 24,871
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Fernandinho looks good.