Only 6 years to take it up to United’s £40m+£35m ‘special’ single year allowances…
There’s ‘sportswashing’ then there’s united corruption at 500+% that level.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
There’s ‘sportswashing’ then there’s united corruption at 500+% that level.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
The media have to be extremely careful with how they report upon this because this goes beyond football.
They need to remember soon that they're not taking on Manchester City, they're taking on a country, a country with unlimited resources and fingers in pies beyond football. Our owners are not businessmen who need to submit to newspapers, they're more like rich kings who could quite honestly buy them out and close them down.
The Middle Eastern countries don't mess about with this sort of thing and the UK government will be watching this closely. Public embarassment of the UAE is not an option because the inevitable consequence is the loss of billions of future overseas investment in the UK and especially Manchester specifically.
These kinds of posts are utter bollocks.
None of the above will mean a thing if there is ample evidence of rules being breached.
There’s either ample evidence or there isn’t.
If there is we’ll be punished, regardless of the UAE or kings on camelback or any other such imaginary nonsense.
Not really. You suggest that between the evidence was a gap for remainder to have been forwarded from ADEC (I’ve no idea who ADEC are) to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. Hogan said “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds” and lots of people said no SM or ADUG entity directly or indirectly paid for the sponsorship. So maybe ADEC funded Etihad in some way but it would be irrelevant and the evidence is it was unconnected to the sponsorship.I know. None of that says the allegedly "indirect" payment to Etihad could have come from ADEC, which was my point.
I think you’ll find that not only does it NOT go beyond football - it doesn’t even go beyond the PL. If we’re cleared of all charges it’s because we’re innocent - NOT because we have an owner who is related to royalty. And I say that on purpose because we are NOT state owned.The media have to be extremely careful with how they report upon this because this goes beyond football.
They need to remember soon that they're not taking on Manchester City, they're taking on a country, a country with unlimited resources and fingers in pies beyond football. Our owners are not businessmen who need to submit to newspapers, they're more like rich kings who could quite honestly buy them out and close them down.
The Middle Eastern countries don't mess about with this sort of thing and the UK government will be watching this closely. Public embarassment of the UAE is not an option because the inevitable consequence is the loss of billions of future overseas investment in the UK and especially Manchester specifically.
I seem to remember that Etihad were given a cash boost to help them pay sponsorshipsNot really. You suggest that between the evidence was a gap for remainder to have been forwarded from ADEC (I’ve no idea who ADEC are) to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. Hogan said “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds” and lots of people said no SM or ADUG entity directly or indirectly paid for the sponsorship. So maybe ADEC funded Etihad in some way but it would be irrelevant and the evidence is it was unconnected to the sponsorship.
Etihad sponsor more than City there is the formula 1 and a Etihad stadium in Australia
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,939
It’s hard to remember exactly what our position was the allegations cover such a long period. Media narrative is probably making even me think that we had massive losses until like last year. I know allowable losses are very significant. Are you able to do a bit more of a deep dive and take out say the 13 ish million mentioned in other comments and see what our profits losses would be in the period in question and weather it would be a pass or fail on FFP.
Would there be an argument that even if no supporting advantage or FFP fail 13 million amounts to enough difference in accounts to be fraudulent / false accounting etc
The most serious allegation as far as I know is that the company didn't file accounts that give a true and fair view. A combination of that and other allegations imply fraudulent behaviour but that isn't referred to in any of the rules breached specifically.
In terms of the accounts and true and fair, if they don't land Etihad (and I don't see how they can) then the rest (PB's 13 million plus maybe 1 more for Touré) isn't at all significant enough to change the view given by the accounts. All imho.
In terms of FFP, the first three year period included 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16. The profits (losses) before tax for those three years were (23 million), 11 million and 20 million, so 8 million profit for the three years.
Later years were 2016/17 nil, 2017/18 10 million. So for the three year rolling periods 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 the total would be 31 million, and for 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18 the total would be 30 million. These are three rolling periods referred to in the referral to the IP. Remembering to add back disallowable costs and then I can't see how anything will give the club FFP problems except for the IP finding for the PL on Etihad, which I would imagine is hugely unlikely based on what we think we know.
Hope that helps and, again, all imho.
Grassland Blue
Well-Known Member
And yet the PL allow the rags a £75m overspend - no questions asked.Thanks. Bloody hell relegated for breaching about £13m each year. Not much of a sporting advantage there. Masters and his pals have lost their minds. Imagine the legal costs to pursue all this.
Oh, and what about the £50m hole in Stanley Park for the dippers new stadium?
Where is the inquisition over these issues?
Read the witness evidence. I’ve no idea what Etihad were given and in generality it is not relevant. The specific allegations have to show disguised owner investment which denied in the witness evidence unequivocallyI seem to remember that Etihad were given a cash boost to help them pay sponsorships
Etihad sponsor more than City there is the formula 1 and a Etihad stadium in Australia
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,939
Not really. You suggest that between the evidence was a gap for remainder to have been forwarded from ADEC (I’ve no idea who ADEC are) to Etihad specifically to fund the sponsorship. Hogan said “The sponsorship obligations were paid out of Etihad’s own funds” and lots of people said no SM or ADUG entity directly or indirectly paid for the sponsorship. So maybe ADEC funded Etihad in some way but it would be irrelevant and the evidence is it was unconnected to the sponsorship.
Really? The Executive Council of Abu Dhabi?
I am trying to square the circle of the Open Skies document which suggests that ADEC paid City's sponsorship and the statements from the witnesses at CAS that Etihad paid for its sponsorship out of its own funds, by reasoning that that may be true but funds could have come originally from ADEC to Etihad specifically to pay City. So everybody was right.
I am not sure I see the problem with that.
Grassland Blue
Well-Known Member
Unlike Real.....I think you’ll find that not only does it NOT go beyond football - it doesn’t even go beyond the PL. If we’re cleared of all charges it’s because we’re innocent - NOT because we have an owner who is related to royalty. And I say that on purpose because we are NOT state owned.