PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
northendenton
Well-Known Member
Panja is an acronym surely ,pathetic and no journalistic ability
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,179
You can be an “expert” if you know 1% more than the average idiot.
horlock_was_super
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 3,611
- Location
- In complete despair at 93:19
- Team supported
- Manchester City F.C.
Either Harris, hardly any racist reporting is stopped.
Tried one for Delaney but could only come up with ****.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
www.independent.co.uk
Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football
Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
www.independent.co.uk
Red clubs stirring shit through media. All their owners want is to milk the fans out of as much money as possible with the lowest risk. That is also why they forced UEFA into focusing on historic records in europe rather than actual Champions in the competition.Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football
Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
It is nonsense. IgnoreDelooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football
Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
Yes I like how the Sheikh set up Etihad and Etisalat, a global airline and a large telecoms company, as mere shells to disguise some 10s of millions to MCFC to avoid complying with FFP. Doesn't half mess about our HH, does he.
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,372
Trying to understand what he was even try to say there was dizzying. That's how you know it's mental gymnastics(triple backflip).
It has me wondering if I understand it correctly. Which is, UEFA's accusation was disguised equity funding but that's based solely on the idea that Sheikh Mansour allegedly paid most of it and that wasn't disclosed in the accounts. The PL have their own term that I summarise as bad faith accounting.
What he is describing(aside from putting people's faces on shirts... arbitrary bs) is related party sponsorship(like PSG's arrangement with their sponsors, which is allowed as long as it's within FMV, why shouldn't it be?). A club hiding that would also breach some rules I imagine but since it was within UEFA's CFCB valuation range for those deals(since at least 2012/13), that would surely be an unnecessary risk to take from City's/Sheikh Mansour's perspective.
Also, if they did do it, you'd think they'd have left no trace of it, even to people working at City, rather than relying on people at the club having to work out how they are cheating the system and those people keeping their mouths shut too(which is what the press/der spiegel, UEFA and the PL have essentially been saying without realising it).
The accusation, if proven, might be used to suggest those deals are related party perhaps. Isn't the whole accusation a little too perfect for the cartel, when you think about it though... Considering having City's deals classed as related party wouldn't have affected City's break even requirement much at all for most, if not all of those years in question and likely will become even more useless to their accusers going forward?
I still believe the state paid that money, which would mean no rules were broken. Does anyone agree though(or can confirm if it's actually in the rules somewhere), if in another scenario, at a different club with a different sponsor:
If a sponsor could only pay a portion of the contracted amount, what would UEFA do once notified?
Would they, as I suspect, allow the owner to pay the remainder and double check he's not paid more than the contracted amount(or perhaps deciding on the FMV valuation of that deal for that period)? Deducting that in the break even calculations if necessary.
Or would they say: "Tough luck, take it up with your sponsor, you've failed break even requirements for this period"?
I find the latter a very unreasonable and unlikely answer personally.
Last edited:
If anyone is still not in the know on this, his name is Brett and he’s a Forest fan