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
Barney Blue
Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 5
Who pays matters, really? I know it’s the stick to hit us with but if it was a fair price!!! Maybe the new rules of fair valuation should be back dated, especially if we win our case against the premier league.I assume they have much more in disclosed docs but I agree, I do not see how the PL win on the sponsor agreements without showing these people were lying. Simply too senior to be naively mistaken or unaware.
Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
Yes, you like his then you like your replyCan I like this twice??
Hairy hands was shagging his daughters friend as his wife was receiving treatment for Cancer & eventually left her,the blokes an absolute twat.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.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Why don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.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.
nmc
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting that the Dippers take responsibility and accountability for their own actions….? Good luck with that!Why don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Good points.Why don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.
The problem is that they have always feared Sheikh M and tried desperately to scupper his massive investment program early doors.
Their current accusations refer to the way we funded yesteryear. Today we are head and shoulders above them all financially and tactically.
Their weak argument is that we funded this superiority against their loaded and targeted rules but concede we are superior when our business plan matures.
The rags have literally just blamed their woeful running of the club on a worldwide pandemic that apparently affected them 40 times worse than anyone else so good luck getting them to take responsibilityWhy don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.
I’m not sure from that where he’s identified any rules being brokenI’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.
The IC and the board are different bodies. This statement is thus nonsense.Its quite hilarious that you state that i am naive in my supposition that the ic has to come up with ironclad evidence to support their evidence and then state that the pl board is independent.
Lets start with masters who was third choice that was only appointed after being interviewed by the rags and dippers and who was told by a government enquiry that he was out of his depth.
Dharmash mistry who is an arsenal st holder.
There is nothing independent about the pl and never has been and if you think there is ask yourself why the rags covid exceptions were approved without exception and then no more mentioned, also why 4 years into var are 2 clubs STILL allowed to operate without screens in the ground.