Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Think it was a woman who’d taken the job Masters is now in but fucked it off after a few days, citing the above?
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Think it was a woman who’d taken the job Masters is now in but fucked it off after a few days, citing the above?
MMA
Well-Known Member
Can I like this twice??
MMA
Well-Known Member
Andy Gray and hairy hands would shop their own mum and gran even if though they were innocent in some bizarre crime that had nothing to do with them..
Scum of the earth and 2 of the most untrustworthy people walking the earth..
Scumbags.
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 9,997
I’m not stirring or indeed making much of a point, but just an interesting conversation last night with someone who works high up for one of our local rivals (not high, high but fairly high) who is interested in this.
He does not support the team he works for and is an intelligent, articulate guy.
We’ve spoken previously but this time was the first time we have had a real chat on it.
Firstly, I was struck by how much they believe we are guilty, he felt that it is widely considered City enhanced our revenues to comply with FFP. He listened to my argument around the damage reputation and the theory the process is the punishment and acknowledged there are 2 sides.
We pretty much agreed that we hear different things from both sides and in reality City being in a growth stage and needing to maximise revenue, whilst planning to be self sufficient long term where happy to invest in the short term.
He acknowledged Man City are considered very professional and probably took the best advise possible on how to spend the most, whilst keeping compliant. A conversation that now dominates most Board rooms in the PL as all clubs have this problem.
He knew about information and the detail, which I find to be rare. Spoke about the £8 million Etihad deal and agreed that it would be a lot below market value and would be a strange deal to do, not one he would expect our owners to do. He felt that it would be a friendly agreement where we back date sponsorship value to help us pass. Which he felt was not in the spirit of how sponsorship worked (likened it to a successful business man, sponsoring his Son’s grassroots team and getting a bill at the end of the season for whatever they have incurred). Felt it was not commercial reality. I kind of got him onboard with the fact FFP, football has always been short term, but these guys are long term and by supporting the team to grow the value comes in later years etc. He acknowledged that the Etihad deal has proved worthwhile and we agreed to disagree who paid, although acknowledged if Etihad paid then there should be no issue.
The Esislat deal I know less about, despite my time on here and the image rights is also a bit confusing, so I was not comfortable enough talking about that. We did touch on Mancini (he considered it a work around but not as clear). However, seemed to agree those contracts happen in the Middle East.
It was interesting I felt how there is such certainty around guilt, whereas a sensible conversation tended to find the middle ground that probably points to City not being charged.
It was also felt that clubs where getting very frustrated with Chelsea, so expect some pressure on them especially if they start to perform.
He does not support the team he works for and is an intelligent, articulate guy.
We’ve spoken previously but this time was the first time we have had a real chat on it.
Firstly, I was struck by how much they believe we are guilty, he felt that it is widely considered City enhanced our revenues to comply with FFP. He listened to my argument around the damage reputation and the theory the process is the punishment and acknowledged there are 2 sides.
We pretty much agreed that we hear different things from both sides and in reality City being in a growth stage and needing to maximise revenue, whilst planning to be self sufficient long term where happy to invest in the short term.
He acknowledged Man City are considered very professional and probably took the best advise possible on how to spend the most, whilst keeping compliant. A conversation that now dominates most Board rooms in the PL as all clubs have this problem.
He knew about information and the detail, which I find to be rare. Spoke about the £8 million Etihad deal and agreed that it would be a lot below market value and would be a strange deal to do, not one he would expect our owners to do. He felt that it would be a friendly agreement where we back date sponsorship value to help us pass. Which he felt was not in the spirit of how sponsorship worked (likened it to a successful business man, sponsoring his Son’s grassroots team and getting a bill at the end of the season for whatever they have incurred). Felt it was not commercial reality. I kind of got him onboard with the fact FFP, football has always been short term, but these guys are long term and by supporting the team to grow the value comes in later years etc. He acknowledged that the Etihad deal has proved worthwhile and we agreed to disagree who paid, although acknowledged if Etihad paid then there should be no issue.
The Esislat deal I know less about, despite my time on here and the image rights is also a bit confusing, so I was not comfortable enough talking about that. We did touch on Mancini (he considered it a work around but not as clear). However, seemed to agree those contracts happen in the Middle East.
It was interesting I felt how there is such certainty around guilt, whereas a sensible conversation tended to find the middle ground that probably points to City not being charged.
It was also felt that clubs where getting very frustrated with Chelsea, so expect some pressure on them especially if they start to perform.
Awful that, never struck as a nice man
Bein’s deep dive!!
Firstly Sylvester made the most sense through not talking.
Secondly, it shows how much info people are really interested in.
It amounted to 115 charges, so must be guilty of something.
Then speculation on punishment and if so would it effect our success (mainly aimed at the time now, as opposed to the time under enquiry).
Good work guys.
Firstly Sylvester made the most sense through not talking.
Secondly, it shows how much info people are really interested in.
It amounted to 115 charges, so must be guilty of something.
Then speculation on punishment and if so would it effect our success (mainly aimed at the time now, as opposed to the time under enquiry).
Good work guys.
Gone for a Burton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 4,517
- Team supported
- City
....and other clubs about the out of town imposters 'special case' conditions over covid allowances.
The whole rag/scouse influence/relationship with the PL/FA/PIGMOL is deeply disturbing.
tregyblue61
Well-Known Member
Watching Kelly's Heroes; Tiger Tank with the number 115