The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 10,209
It's called cowardice, pure and simple.
Deleting tweets proves he's a coward, and an unstable one at that.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Deleting tweets proves he's a coward, and an unstable one at that.
Gaylord du Bois
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 29,303
- Location
- Great Umbrage.
- Team supported
- Glory Hunting Blue. Was Chelsea.
Stefan really should pick his fights more carefully.
This fucker's a 7th Dan Keyboard Warrior.
Last edited:
Blue_Lightsaber
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2022
- Messages
- 2,778
- Team supported
- Man City
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,383
As for the podcast itself. So he referenced Colin(prestwichblue) as a whistleblower and Delooney as some respected world expert on football finance?... If you didn't know any better, you might mistake him for someone who knows what he's talking about. Those that do, can see it's all smoke and mirrors(and wishful thinking). Too many mistakes: "City said this" when they didn't. "This has to mean x" when it doesn't. Failing to see the point being made to him(or refusing to). I suppose that can happen in any debate, if we are fair but he does it so often, that I suspect it's deliberate.
Other than his own obsession with it, along with the fact that he wants people to read his article and pat him on the back. Why is he making out that his opinion on what the Etihad deal is/was worth, matters? That's the first argument I would have made. FMV/inflated sponsorship deals not being anything to do with any of UEFA's allegations and likely the PL's either, is perfectly valid too though. The debate was supposed to be about the case and too much time was wasted on something that there isn't an argument for, or UEFA and the PL would have definitely made it, way before now.
Nick was referencing the CAS report like he's some sort of expert on it(I don't remember reading the Etihad deal was adjusted 3 times at all, only once to £67m in 2012/13). I suspect, had Stefan have known he would veer off track on this so much, he'd have refreshed his memory on extracts like this to bring up:
Note that says, that is the range of valuations that UEFA's own CFCB got back on those deals. Unless City were lying to CAS with this submission(which UEFA could have easily challenged in that case), then they didn't have to go off and find their own auditors contradicting UEFA's valuations, like PSG did. Etisalat was only slightly higher than the highest valuation, not enough to make a claim that 'they had to be related party'. Which City were adamant they were not.
I have tried to find UEFA's offiicial statements on the 2014 investigations for PSG and City and/or the charge sheets that resulted from them, to show the contrast but I can't find them anywhere. All I can find is the settlement agreements but you can tell by the press reactions to the CFCB's decisions that came before them, they were different.
PSG failed FFP because their QTA deal was deemed inflated, otherwise they would have met the break even limit. City failed FFP simply because they didn't meet the break even limit on the balance sheet. Which City argued, was down to the wage exemption clause, that was altered by UEFA, after they had already accounted for it on their balance sheet.
As for Nick's armchair valuations. I haven't read his article yet but I suspect he's pointing at different clubs, under different circumstances(date signed, length, current position, future projections), with less facets to their deals(shirts, stadium, training campus etc), in different leagues that don't have the same value. I did a comparison myself and came to a different conclusion to him ages ago, so I won't repeat myself. Here's a link to that post in the media thread instead.
I also suspect Arsenal's 2004 deal("£5m" he muttered) is being heavily relied on. Stefan was right to point out Arsenal signed themselves up to a lengthy stadium naming rights agreement(15 years is a long time) which quickly became undervalued(if it wasn't already). That likely happened(negotiated late 2003-early 2004? vs 2011) before the funding was secured(announced Feb 2004) via hefty bank loans, so that they could start building it. If Wenger agreeing to stay, has been cited as a stipulation from the banks, before approving those loans. How would securing a long term sponsor, not also be a concern for the banks too? They were clearly eager to get the funds secured, to begin building ASAP. So there's your reason they ended up selling themselves short. Do not blame other clubs' bad business sense on City or it's ownership. As our Chairman once said(ish).
Nick's just wasting his time trying to make anything of it. The auditors UEFA used, are probably same ones the PL would turn to, if they had any concerns about FMV and we already know what they thought. Is FMV even a thing anymore in PSR?
Other than his own obsession with it, along with the fact that he wants people to read his article and pat him on the back. Why is he making out that his opinion on what the Etihad deal is/was worth, matters? That's the first argument I would have made. FMV/inflated sponsorship deals not being anything to do with any of UEFA's allegations and likely the PL's either, is perfectly valid too though. The debate was supposed to be about the case and too much time was wasted on something that there isn't an argument for, or UEFA and the PL would have definitely made it, way before now.
Nick was referencing the CAS report like he's some sort of expert on it(I don't remember reading the Etihad deal was adjusted 3 times at all, only once to £67m in 2012/13). I suspect, had Stefan have known he would veer off track on this so much, he'd have refreshed his memory on extracts like this to bring up:
Note that says, that is the range of valuations that UEFA's own CFCB got back on those deals. Unless City were lying to CAS with this submission(which UEFA could have easily challenged in that case), then they didn't have to go off and find their own auditors contradicting UEFA's valuations, like PSG did. Etisalat was only slightly higher than the highest valuation, not enough to make a claim that 'they had to be related party'. Which City were adamant they were not.
I have tried to find UEFA's offiicial statements on the 2014 investigations for PSG and City and/or the charge sheets that resulted from them, to show the contrast but I can't find them anywhere. All I can find is the settlement agreements but you can tell by the press reactions to the CFCB's decisions that came before them, they were different.
PSG failed FFP because their QTA deal was deemed inflated, otherwise they would have met the break even limit. City failed FFP simply because they didn't meet the break even limit on the balance sheet. Which City argued, was down to the wage exemption clause, that was altered by UEFA, after they had already accounted for it on their balance sheet.
As for Nick's armchair valuations. I haven't read his article yet but I suspect he's pointing at different clubs, under different circumstances(date signed, length, current position, future projections), with less facets to their deals(shirts, stadium, training campus etc), in different leagues that don't have the same value. I did a comparison myself and came to a different conclusion to him ages ago, so I won't repeat myself. Here's a link to that post in the media thread instead.
I also suspect Arsenal's 2004 deal("£5m" he muttered) is being heavily relied on. Stefan was right to point out Arsenal signed themselves up to a lengthy stadium naming rights agreement(15 years is a long time) which quickly became undervalued(if it wasn't already). That likely happened(negotiated late 2003-early 2004? vs 2011) before the funding was secured(announced Feb 2004) via hefty bank loans, so that they could start building it. If Wenger agreeing to stay, has been cited as a stipulation from the banks, before approving those loans. How would securing a long term sponsor, not also be a concern for the banks too? They were clearly eager to get the funds secured, to begin building ASAP. So there's your reason they ended up selling themselves short. Do not blame other clubs' bad business sense on City or it's ownership. As our Chairman once said(ish).
Nick's just wasting his time trying to make anything of it. The auditors UEFA used, are probably same ones the PL would turn to, if they had any concerns about FMV and we already know what they thought. Is FMV even a thing anymore in PSR?
Last edited:
Nick the dick still waffling I see.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,957
It’s very easy to convince a fan of the Dippers, Rags & Arsenal that everything is dodgy with no financial / legal knowledge. However, it’s the job of the KCs to convince experts.
I’ve just had 2 days sparring with a prick who says we are state owned because UAE is an autocratic state but can’t grasp that the legal ownership says it’s entirely different.
I’ve just had 2 days sparring with a prick who says we are state owned because UAE is an autocratic state but can’t grasp that the legal ownership says it’s entirely different.
Rightly so. This crap has been hanging over us for years. On and on its rumbled. So called journalists allowed to print endless articles calling us everything under the sun. A relentless campaign to smear our name and to undermine all our hard won achievements. An endless raft of new financial rules and restrictions, all designed to stall and stop us and anybody new who gets an owner with enough money to challenge the old cartel.
We beat UEFA"s campaign to stop us, but no sooner have we licked our wounds and breathed a sigh of relief than the usual suspects stir up the premier league to charge us. In predictable fashion it has to be over the top. Not just one charge but ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN. Obviously the they knew the outrage and pile on this announcement would cause and so its proved.
It has been years of pressure and psychological torture. We have had to endure all this when we should just be enjoying the most successful period in our history. It's like after years of struggling, winning the lottery, booking the most luxurious holiday available but the resort is continually being hit by the smell of raw sewage. Everything is fantastic but that dread the awful smell will strike is always at the back of your mind.
People mention a certain journalists state of mind but what about ours? People can mock and say it's just a football club but we all know it's much deeper than that. For many a football club is family, the bond and love runs deep. So yes, this place will erupt when this shit is over and we are hopefully cleared. Rightly so.
He's nuts.
bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 25,115
- Team supported
- City
I havent got a fucking clue what is going on....
