SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,593
1) it’s not remotely controversial. As I say, whilst it possibly was overvalue when signed, it’s most certainly not now and Etihad will very much feel they have had their money’s worth.I stand corrected, just read Swiss Ramble and other articles talking about the controversial Etihad deal.
Does it mean that, with Football Leaks allegation, they could also try to tie those contracts as related parties on top of the untruthfull reporting ?
Not that i think they will succeed but do you think they could try that angle to try and shackle City ?
2) no they can’t tie anything together. City have a contract to receive money from Etihad. They received that money. Etihad can’t be forced to open their books to UEFA or anyone else. It’s not City’s responsibility to check where and which part of Etihad it came from. So long as it came from Etihad’s account and not our owner’s then it’s not an issue.
3) even IF (and it’s a huge an unlikely IF) they decided Etihad was related (which it isn’t and they can’t), it would be impossible to negotiate the annual sponsorship down for ‘fair value’ as it’s less than United receive per year for shirt alone and City’s matches have a similar global audience.