PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LeonardoDaVnci said:
For me, the original Etihad sponsorship (2014-2024, £60m/year) was always the biggest concern. Despite CAS202O, it seemed 115/130 would be based on another all-out attack on Etihad.
The likes of Delooney and Twat have always attempted to illegitimise the entire deal, this was picked up by the MSM and then spread like wild fire via social media. For example, I thought I was once having a reasonable chat with a rag about Etihad, until he uttered something like "but Etihad isn't a real airline, is it, its an elaborate ploy to pump money into City". Obviously, that was the end of that exchange.

However, because of the APT case, we know, for certain, we informed the PL of a 10 year renewal with Etihad

This is THE important point. The PL did NOT say either of the following..

1 The APT/FMV assessment of the renewal is never going to happen because of the 115/130 charges.

2 The APT/FMV assessment of the renewal is postponed until the outcome of the 115/130 charges.

No, the PL completed a full assessment (now set aside, due to an unlawful process) but blocked the deal because of some index linking that would see the value grow over the ten year period.

This can only be interpreted as an implicit acceptance of the ten year renewal, believed to be around £80m/annum. That's only approx 1% of Etihad's annual revenue.

Could it be THE core issue (Ethihad Airways) we all assumed 115/130 would include was, in fact, NEVER relevant to the charges. That would only leave the minor issues, Etisalat, Mancini, Fordham with potential sporting sanctions and Non-Coop. Would it take 10 weeks to resolve that lot ?. This would add weight to the rumours that the hearing has finished.
Click to expand...
There's two issues there.

1. Are the parties related?
2. Is the sponsorship above FMV?

This is what I don't get. What's the difference between sponsorship FMV, & a players' transfer value? Surely it's only what someone's willing/able to pay?

This leads back to the core issue of FFP, PSR & APT. The cartel clubs still view City as the oi poloi, & not current PL, world & former CL Champions. They see our sponsorship potential, at or below the level of Everton, Villa or West Ham.

Their fans even refer to the aforementioned as "proper clubs with histories", as if St Marks in the 1800s is a collective figment of City fans' imaginations. I don't know the details of the 10 year Etihad deal that was rejected/valued down, but if as you say it was £80m per season, adjustable to City achieving certain targets, then it calls into question ManUre's 2014 7 year Chevrolet deal for $600m.

It's as if the PL are saying City could win the PL for the next 10 years, but because other clubs have more "istree", City's sponsorship values will forever be below that of the Red Top Mafia & Spuds, which is plain bollocks where the capitalist free market is concerned.

Sky have made a loss for the second year running, forcing them to make many staff redundant. They need to increase revenues, & broadcasters will want value for their £Billions! This whole FFP, PSR & APT saga is making a mockery of the biggest & richest league in the world, & at some point the money men will have to step in & dictate to the PL & cartel clubs, what they want for their money.

As I realised earlier in the year, once we step back from the woods, we can see the trees. In no other sphere of business is an owner barred from investing as they see fit to grow their business & compete.

This protectionist tactic may hold sway within the PL & UEFA, but as we've seen twice now, as soon as outside arbiters become involved, their over-riding thoughts are "What the actual fuck!".

Added to the fact that serviceable debt is considered OK, but a wealthy owner investing his own dough isn't, it's why I'm comfortable with City's stance on the horse shit the football authorities keep throwing at us, in the forlorn hope something sticks.

FFP, PSR & APT can only exist in their past & current guises, if you're the creator, judge, jury & executioner of a private members club, which is what the PL have shown themselves to be.

If kept simple, anyone with an ounce of honesty & commonsense can see FFP, PSR & APT for the self-serving, protectionist pile of shite they all are.
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
There's two issues there.

1. Are the parties related?
2. Is the sponsorship above FMV?

This is what I don't get. What's the difference between sponsorship FMV, & a players' transfer value? Surely it's only what someone's willing/able to pay?

This leads back to the core issue of FFP, PSR & APT. The cartel clubs still view City as the oi poloi, & not current PL, world & former CL Champions. They see our sponsorship potential, at or below the level of Everton, Villa or West Ham.

Their fans even refer to the aforementioned as "proper clubs with histories", as if St Marks in the 1800s is a collective figment of City fans' imaginations. I don't know the details of the 10 year Etihad deal that was rejected/valued down, but if as you say it was £80m per season, adjustable to City achieving certain targets, then it calls into question ManUre's 2014 7 year Chevrolet deal for $600m.

It's as if the PL are saying City could win the PL for the next 10 years, but because other clubs have more "istree", City's sponsorship values will forever be below that of the Red Top Mafia & Spuds, which is plain bollocks where the capitalist free market is concerned.

Sky have made a loss for the second year running, forcing them to make many staff redundant. They need to increase revenues, & broadcasters will want value for their £Billions! This whole FFP, PSR & APT saga is making a mockery of the biggest & richest league in the world, & at some point the money men will have to step in & dictate to the PL & cartel clubs, what they want for their money.

As I realised earlier in the year, once we step back from the woods, we can see the trees. In no other sphere of business is an owner barred from investing as they see fit to grow their business & compete.

This protectionist tactic may hold sway within the PL & UEFA, but as we've seen twice now, as soon as outside arbiters become involved, their over-riding thoughts are "What the actual fuck!".

Added to the fact that serviceable debt is considered OK, but a wealthy owner investing his own dough isn't, it's why I'm comfortable with City's stance on the horse shit the football authorities keep throwing at us, & hoping something sticks.

FFP, PSR & APT can only exist in their past & current guises, if you're the creator, judge, jury & executioner of a private members club which is what the PL have shown themselves to be.
Click to expand...
“What the actual fuck!”
Is that a sesquipedalian legal phrase?
 
Dribble said:
There's two issues there.

1. Are the parties related?
2. Is the sponsorship above FMV?

This is what I don't get. What's the difference between sponsorship FMV, & a players' transfer value? Surely it's only what someone's willing/able to pay?
Click to expand...
They should apply the same oversight to transfers, as they do to sponsorships, so clubs are paying market value for dross. Mind you, they would have saved united a fortune so maybe not.
 
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.