Sky harping on about FFP

[Taylor]

When speaking about the Aguero deal they keep going to the expert in London who says UEFA still need to rectify our deal with Etihad and that if it wasn't for this deal we wouldn't be able to sign players like Aguero.

They get on my nerves when will the realise 2 main things:

1.Uefa are powerless as the deal is unprecedented in terms of sponsorship.

2.We have a plan to break even and in the long run we will be a monster as the project falls into place.

The thing that annoys me most about the media and their reaction to the events is the fact that only 2 weeks ago they were saying that if United were to use Nike to fund the Sneijder deal then this would be a great piece of business as it would get them around the FFP regulations.

It just shows how idiotic and hypocritical the British media are towards us in relation to our spending and Uefa.

 

[Project]

I find the irony from Sky amazing

 

[Anonymous]

City have taken a chance and bought Aguero early for two reasons ...

firstly .. because come January Aguero might well have been somewhere else

and secondly , because the club know that they'll get their money back on Aguero via the impending Tevez deal , and they're prepared to wait until January for that to happen , although obviously they would wish it happened sooner rather than later ..... as i'm sure Mr Tevez would too!

And i should imagine there isn't a world of difference in the salaries of Tevez and Aguero either , so they will argueably just cancel each other out.

So once that happens the clubs business of paying out two modest fees on our other summer imports , Clichy and Savic , will seem pretty trivial stuff ... even though both will probably turn out to be very good signings.

 

[Wingsofasparrow]

I find the irony from Sky amazing

I agree, on a morning when they announce that they have paid more money than the BBC to Bernie & the F1 crew, how can they talk about financial fair play? I think F1 is as boring as shit, but theres a lot of F1 fans that cant afford Sky & they will miss half of the races.

As for the 'experts' they wheel out, none of them know any specifics of the Etihad deal, so any comment is a best guess.

Same goes for the wages that have been quoted...

Sky Sports Understands..........










Fuck All!

 

[pml79]

i found it funny today some guy from a football magazine was commenting on our aguero deal. then went into fair play shit he said other clubs are curbing their spendin n were not haha

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

When speaking about the Aguero deal they keep going to the expert in London who says UEFA still need to rectify our deal with Etihad and that if it wasn't for this deal we wouldn't be able to sign players like Aguero.

These so-called "experts make me laugh for a number of reasons:
1) They haven't a clue about FFPR generally as they haven't read them.
2) UEFA will not need to make any assessment on FFPR for another 2 years so they don't need to do anything now.
3) The first accounts they will look at will be for this financial year (to 31/5/2012) and we've only just started the year.
4) They will also look at next years' accounts in conjunction with this years.
5) There are a number of clauses in FFPR that mean even if we post a big loss this coming year, we could quite easily meet the requirements.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[Salford_Blue]

When speaking about the Aguero deal they keep going to the expert in London who says UEFA still need to rectify our deal with Etihad and that if it wasn't for this deal we wouldn't be able to sign players like Aguero.

They get on my nerves when will the realise 2 main things:

1.Uefa are powerless as the deal is unprecedented in terms of sponsorship.

2.We have a plan to break even and in the long run we will be a monster as the project falls into place.

The thing that annoys me most about the media and their reaction to the events is the fact that only 2 weeks ago they were saying that if United were to use Nike to fund the Sneijder deal then this would be a great piece of business as it would get them around the FFP regulations.

It just shows how idiotic and hypocritical the British media are towards us in relation to our spending and Uefa.

Being a pedantic soul, shouldn't it be ratify, rather than rectify?

 

[leepwbriggs]

Fu*k them... 10 days - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQEdrdVQoxA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQEdrdVQoxA</a>

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Being a pedantic soul, shouldn't it be ratify, rather than rectify?

I think that's what he meant to say and that's another thing.

First they have to decide whether it's a related-party transaction and that will be a hard one to pin on us. Only then (if it is) can they apply a fair-value test, ehich again won't be easy. Even if it fails both of those, they can only disallow the amount they feel is excessive and, taking recent shirt and stadium naming deals into account, that couldn't be much more than £5m tops, even assuming this deal is really worth £40m a year.

Some plonkers think they can veto the whole deal.

 

[Daventryblue]

If anyone was really concerned about FFP, rather than having a go at City then they should surely wonder how a club thats £700million in debt can spend £100m+ in transfer fees this summer ? Surely thats where something is wrong?

Plus it seems King Kenny has sold a crown to fund Liverpools spending.

City centre of attention.

 

[Taylor]

Being a pedantic soul, shouldn't it be ratify, rather than rectify?

I think that's what he meant to say and that's another thing.

First they have to decide whether it's a related-party transaction and that will be a hard one to pin on us. Only then (if it is) can they apply a fair-value test, ehich again won't be easy. Even if it fails both of those, they can only disallow the amount they feel is excessive and, taking recent shirt and stadium naming deals into account, that couldn't be much more than £5m tops, even assuming this deal is really worth £40m a year.

Some plonkers think they can veto the whole deal.

Yes I meant to say ratify.. my bad.

Now I hear Villas-Boas has described our transfer policy as unfair! Does this idiot realise he's managing a club that has done exactly the same thing as us to get to where they are?

 

[MonsallBlue]

Being a pedantic soul, shouldn't it be ratify, rather than rectify?

I think that's what he meant to say and that's another thing.

First they have to decide whether it's a related-party transaction and that will be a hard one to pin on us. Only then (if it is) can they apply a fair-value test, ehich again won't be easy. Even if it fails both of those, they can only disallow the amount they feel is excessive and, taking recent shirt and stadium naming deals into account, that couldn't be much more than £5m tops, even assuming this deal is really worth £40m a year.

Some plonkers think they can veto the whole deal.

Yes I meant to say ratify.. my bad.

Now I hear Villas-Boas has described our transfer policy as unfair! Does this idiot realise he's managing a club that has done exactly the same thing as us to get to where they are?

Blind fucker he is. Mind you Torres has been all but invisible for the £50m

 

[Metal Biker]

Sky's reaction to City signing Aguero...

 

[Citizen Green]

It's funny because the day that we announced the deal they got a financial expert on hoping he would slate our deal, he went on to say it was great business and a fantastic move by City, they didn't show the interview again all day.

This guy says there could be something wrong with it and they show it time after time.

Clear agenda.

 

[waspish]

It's funny because the day that we announced the deal they got a financial expert on hoping he would slate our deal, he went on to say it was great business and a fantastic move by City, they didn't show the interview again all day.

This guy says there could be something wrong with it and they show it time after time.

Clear agenda.

Yep... It annoys me that they never put Chelsea under the microscope with the FFP rules they'll struggle to comply in my book!

But they'll just get a sponsorship deal worth a billion and no one will bat an eyelid!!......

 

[bluemooner2011]

I for one am sick to death of all these hypocrites around football at the minute.

So we have money (lots of it) and so we pay massive wages, but the way I see it, is that all we are doing is what every other top 4 team has done since 92/93 when the premiership first started.

It all comes down to one thing - JEALOUSY!!

I noticed earlier its not taken long for Villa Boas at Chelsea coming out and saying that its unfair that City have so much money to buy new players! take a look at your boss mate, he isnt short of a few bob is he!!

Rant over anyway!!!!

On a happier note, Aguero is going to be an amazing player and good luck to him for the new season........

CITY TILL I DIE

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It's funny because the day that we announced the deal they got a financial expert on hoping he would slate our deal, he went on to say it was great business and a fantastic move by City, they didn't show the interview again all day.

This guy says there could be something wrong with it and they show it time after time.

Clear agenda.

Yep... It annoys me that they never put Chelsea under the microscope with the FFP rules they'll struggle to comply in my book!

And the difference between us and Chelsea is that they've been at the top for a good few years yet still make a loss because of their wage bill. Last published results show turnover of just over £200m with a loss of just under £70m. Their wage bill is around the £170m mark I think, much higher than ours.

They can't earn much more without a move to a new stadium whereas we can increase our revenue significantly.

 

[waspish]

It's funny because the day that we announced the deal they got a financial expert on hoping he would slate our deal, he went on to say it was great business and a fantastic move by City, they didn't show the interview again all day.

This guy says there could be something wrong with it and they show it time after time.

Clear agenda.

Yep... It annoys me that they never put Chelsea under the microscope with the FFP rules they'll struggle to comply in my book!

And the difference between us and Chelsea is that they've been at the top for a good few years yet still make a loss because of their wage bill. Last publsihed results show turnover of just over £200m with a loss of just under £70m. Their wage bill is around the £170m mark I think, much higher than ours.

So why don't the media EVER SAY anything about it?

We should email shitesports and talkshite and just point it out!

 

[Sigh]

It's funny because the day that we announced the deal they got a financial expert on hoping he would slate our deal, he went on to say it was great business and a fantastic move by City, they didn't show the interview again all day.

This guy says there could be something wrong with it and they show it time after time.
Clear agenda.

 

[Kingsizeblueslims]

All this 'fair value' shite is nonsense. The value of something is a judgement made by a buyer and it involves more than just the price paid. Some idiot has just paid about £70,000 on a bottle of wine, does that represent fair value? Is Torres worth £10 million more than Carlos? I would say not but Chelsea thought otherwise. Is the price of a pint in London better value than one bought in Manchester? We all know the answer to that one.

It's about time that UEFA woke up and smelled the coffee. Football these days is big money and people and organisations from across the globe are looking to grab themselves a piece of the action, even chicken magnate's!!!

As my mate said to me only last week..."I'd give anything to play for City"....nuff said".