PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keeper! said:
I completely agree, he invested in a business.

But that's not the point, if guilty we have commited fraud, lied to stakeholders etc and his executives have publicly stated "irrefutable evidence".
Click to expand...
Because there's no way a governing body can ever be seen as corrupt.
If they dare accuse Sheikh Mansour of having committed fraud without solid evidence, this little "115 charges" issue will blow up into a major diplomatic row between the two countries. And then everyone will want to distance themselves from it.

We've stated we have irrefutable evidence, I notice the PL hasn't. They keep maintaining "alleged breaches". In the eyes of a law neutral, i'd want to know why City were so confident yet found guilty.
 
Keeper! said:
I think that's paranoia, this is serious sh1t they won't risk destroying everything for that, and if it was a kangaroo court don't you think a certain Lord Pannick would be rubbing his hands in glee?
Click to expand...
Not really. Most people are open to low level fraud IMHO. For example, if I had been the ref when Raddy Antic scored the late goal that relegated us against Luton, I would have found some way of disallowing it.

To think the process is very fair is a bit naive IMHO. For example, each time any money from a financial decision rolls over into the following year is treated as as an additional charge by the Prem. in addition, there is a reason why the appeal route is very limited and that's not to help us / City.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
So I suppose if you buy a cup of tea off your son on your deathbed for the house and your savings you'll have a tricky time convincing the tax man that it was fair value. So there are laws and regulations in place. But as far as I can tell City, Etihad, the PL, UEFA and everyone else in between has always agreed that it was fair value, albeit on the steeper end of the system and obviously a result of City's relationship to Etihad. And the time since its proven to be of good value. But I was surprised to hear Harris still talking about as it doesn't really have much to do with the charges as everyone understands it.
Click to expand...
Yeah they talk about fair value but they
only look at the beginning of the contract & look at in isolation, but it was for 10 years.

By the end, the contract was so under-valued though, bearing in mind that it was for both the shirt and stadium and that the rags had signed a shirt deal for £65m per year in 2015!
 
Tim of the Oak said:
Not really. Most people are open to low level fraud IMHO. For example, if I had been the ref when Raddy Antic scored the late goal that relegated us against Luton, I would have found some way of disallowing it.

To think the process is very fair is a bit naive IMHO. For example, each time any money from a financial decision rolls over into the following year is treated as as an additional charge by the Prem. in addition, there is a reason why the appeal route is very limited and that's not to help us / City.
Click to expand...
Sorry but we won't be facing any kangaroo court.

KC's facing KC's, you really think they would be happy to commit fraud?
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Since 2009 you would have had to have been living under a rock to now understand that Etihad is an airline operating out of the UAE. I don’t get why there is all the crying that if relatives of Mansour want to use the football club as a vehicle to promote the company, there’s even a few snide jibes happening to Girona now because of their new shirt sponsorship with Etihad.

Arsenal get £10 million less than City to for their Emirates deal, which considering they have never won the champions league or not won a league in 20 years now makes ours look under valued. Even if our Etihad deal was inflated how can United and Liverpool complain? They’ve actually benefitted from it by pointing to City’s Etihad deal and telling Chevrolet, Team Viewer and Standard Charter that they need to pay more than what Etihad do with City.
Click to expand...
That part irritated me, he seemed so smug and derisionary, while spouting his bollocks. Comparing Arsenal's stadium deal to City's was always a lazy, shallow comparison that fit the anti-city narrative. They didn't account for the possibility that Arsenal could have sold themselves short and shown themselves to be bad negotiators, not knowing the market, not showing foresight.

Nick was sat saying he knows what the deals are worth, which I suspect is more posturing/bs. When smaller clubs than City, in smaller leagues like Fenerbahçe in Turkey or Atletico in Madrid in Spain are/were getting twice or more the amount Arsenal are(is it still £3.5m?). You're barking up the wrong tree, using Arsenal as the measuring stick.

The athletic have done a full featured article suggesting many PL football clubs are selling themselves short, compared to stadium deals in other sports. That's an angle City don't even need to use but a valid one. There were articles before that, showing estimates on what PL clubs stadium deals would be worth, according to US-based consultancy firm Duff & Phelps. They had City's at close to £22m in 2019.

I find it funny how little coverage/interest there is in any deals which would put cold water on the narrative around City's Etihad deal being inflated/controversial. Not just the Fair Market Value range revealed at CAS. Like United's £64m per season Chevrolet deal for a straight shirt deal. Their 8 year AON deal worth £180m for training ground and training kit. That would put the training ground at £10-12m per season, depending on how you split it. The press releases described Carrington as state of the art too which I thought was rich, without even comparing it to what Etihad were getting. £64m + £10-12m(£74-76m)would be a comparison that the UK press could have made, if they were so interested how the deals really compared, all the way back as far as 2014 but nobody did.

Barca's Spotify deal, seems to be €280m in total but the press can't seem to make their mind up whether it's over 3 years or 4 years(the Guardian article said it was believed to be 3 years FWIW). 3 years would put it at €93m(£79m) per season. 4 years would put it at €70m(£60m) per season. According to reports on their latest accounts, they took in €97.6 million from sponsorships in 2022/23. So I'm leaning towards it being £79m per season for just shirt and stadium.

Real's Fly Emirates deal is worth €70(£60m), or up to €77m(€65.6m) with bonuses based on perfromances. That's just a straight shirt deal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.