Media Thread - 2021/22

[Bluesince88]

Have I missed something. I’ve had sky sports news on today and it’s been non stop Aguero?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Levy is no doubt bitter because he screwed himself over on the valuation of Kane, and now he's left himself with a sulky out of form player on a downward spiral.

I am only speculating with an educated guess. It was obviously a smear story because it implies that City's sponsorships were not "market value." But UEFA has had its own market value test (carried out by independent auditors on all clubs) in operation for ten years. City have never fallen foul of this. In fact the Etihad sponsorship was reported to be "under market value." This was not an issue for UEFA. UEFA's FFP action against City was based on their (false) belief that some of City's sponsorship may have been direct state funding. This allegation was rejected comprehensively by CAS. The PL's proposed new "fair value test" can't be seen in isolation from UEFA's own version.
So the whole story is actually based on a false premise (which could be disproved by one phone call) and Hughes must have been given a steer to end up with this distorted angle. He has close contacts with Spurs so Levy is a realistic suspect. Stories like this with no quoted sources do not happen by accident.

 

[LongsightM13]

Have I missed something. I’ve had sky sports news on today and it’s been non stop Aguero?

Their coverage has been great today tbf to them. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

That story is not supported by a single quote or piece of evidence. I don't believe that City would ever consider suing the PL over a proposal to ensure sponsorhips are "fair market value." All our sponsorships have already been independently checked repeatedly as part of UEFA's FFP regulations. UEFA didn't even accuse us of this (their allegation was not about the scale of sponsorships but where the money may have come from.) The CAS decison re-inforced the fact that our sponsorships were fair value.
This is just another bogus Daily Mail smear story from an unnamed source which is designed to damage City (and Newcastle). It could only have come from someone who is the loop ie a senior Chairman from one of the other PL clubs. If I was a betting man and, given that the story was created by Matt Hughes, my money would be on another toxic briefing to the Daily Mail from Daniel Levy.

Here is Ziegler's version and not behind the usual paywall. It sounds pretty accurate to me ie we voted against the proposals (we did last time) but no reference to us taking legal action (just Newcastle) as per the bollocks in the Hughes article.

Ziegler does get in about the Mancini contract again which is very annoying because all perfectly legal, 100% will have been looked at by HMRC and pre-FFP anyway.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Here is Ziegler's version and not behind the usual paywall. It sounds pretty accurate to me ie we voted against the proposals (we did last time) but no reference to us taking legal action (just Newcastle) as per the bollocks in the Hughes article.

Ziegler does get in about the Mancini contract again which is very annoying because all perfectly legal, 100% will have been looked at by HMRC and pre-FFP anyway.

I read the Hughes article subtitle and took the "may" as a clear indication that it was a deliberately misleading headline and piece which was mostly speculation.

Yes, they MAY, but it can't possibly be known without the actual details of any future PL rule.
There's a lot of things they MAY do, but won't.

 

[bluealf]

Found it. At 9.55 here.

Is the guy not in the studio Jan Inge Fjortoft?

Burley is just an angry twat, even joking with the other guys they must be thinking what an irritating **** you are.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is the guy not in the studio Jan Inge Fjortoft?

Burley is just an angry twat, even joking with the other guys they must be thinking what an irritating **** you are.

Yep, that's Fjortoft. And yes, looks like Burley had a few beers before that recording ..... :)

 

[wagonman]

Sticks and stones...

JJ

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Hope you don’t mind, but have tweeted this. Just to show what an insincere, hypocritical tit Delaney is.

Glad you did tweet it and now seen you have 1700 likes, nearly 300 retweets and, best of all, a direct response from the great delooney with his standard excuse :) Well worth it...

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Here is Ziegler's version and not behind the usual paywall. It sounds pretty accurate to me ie we voted against the proposals (we did last time) but no reference to us taking legal action (just Newcastle) as per the bollocks in the Hughes article.

Ziegler does get in about the Mancini contract again which is very annoying because all perfectly legal, 100% will have been looked at by HMRC and pre-FFP anyway.

Thanks for posting that. I think Ziegler's story looks pretty fair, balanced, and accurate. I suspect that City and Newcastle's actual concerns are about how much decision-making power the other 18 clubs have in terms of commercial deals ie could the US clubs and their pals collude to undermine legitimate deals from City or Newcastle. They will need assurances that the independent firm used is truly "independent."
As I understand it the UEFA FFP "market value" tests are done by independent auditors from leading financial firms which sounds fair enough. Surely it would be illegal for MUFC, LFC, or even someone like Burnley to have any influence over who sponsors any other clubs. All PL clubs are commercial rivals who are competing for the same sponsorship business a lot of the time.