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.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk