UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST

What do you think will be the outcome of the CAS hearing?

  • Two-year ban upheld

    Votes: 197 13.1%
  • Ban reduced to one year

    Votes: 422 28.2%
  • Ban overturned and City exonerated

    Votes: 815 54.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 65 4.3%

  • Total voters
    1,499
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agree with all that. It applies to Arsenal post-Wenger as well with Arsenal apparently one of the drivers behind the Premier League 8 seeking to ensure our ban is not suspended.

The Emirates pump in so much money into European football with their other sponsorships as well - Real Madrid, AC Milan, Benfica etc. So many conflicting interests!

Meanwhile, whilst the relationship between Dubai and Abu Dhabi is not always a bed of roses, it's reported yet again Abu Dhabi supporting Dubai through the corona crisis. Mubadala involved as well.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-e...ugh-state-fund-mubadala-sources-idUKKBN22R1UR


As an aside, I wonder where Nissan are on all this? One of UEFA's main champions league sponsors and one of City's main sponsors as well.

I wonder if this will finally see the two airline carriers merge?

It was mooted last year and would seem to make even more sense during this time.

How delicious it would be to see us have a say in pulling the plug on Arsenal and others.

We could always let them use Etihad instead!
 
In other matters I am still baffled as to why the press in this country seem unwilling or unable to systematically analyse FFP and it's rules and regulations to a degree where they can adequately and fairly comment on the stich up we have had to endure from UEFA.
Fucking shills and click mongers the lot of them without an ounce of integrity.
You don’t sound baffled to me. I think you have worked it out just fine.

Not really baffling. It would mean that journalists would have to do what they are supposed to do. You know investigate and do some digging. Never going to do that. Just take the easy way and repeat what others say - far easier. God forbid that they should have to do some work for a living.
 
In other matters I am still baffled as to why the press in this country seem unwilling or unable to systematically analyse FFP and it's rules and regulations to a degree where they can adequately and fairly comment on the stich up we have had to endure from UEFA.
Baffles me too! its a story waiting to be exposed but I assume it isnt what Utd/Barca/Bayern fans and more importantly fans of football want to hear, and something this lockdown has shown me is how desparate the actual reporters are for the product to remain healthy (IE the campaign to bring football back). So I assume there is some implicit understanding that they 1 - dont attack the product that keeps them in a job. 2 - Dont attack the teams that bring in the clicks/revenue.

Some have broken ranks and tried to expose FFP for what it is but it doesnt get traction from the rest of the reporters.

Would LOVE to hear the opinions of our reporters who visit here, would like Sam Lee's pov on it.Maybe a podcast could discuss it
 
The US business model generally is built on debt driven acquisition. I see it in the industry I sell into as the large US owned groups have huge debt whereas the European ones generally have little or no debt.
Just reading The Athletic story on the Glazers and the point is made that you're only allowed to secure up to £300m ($350m) debt on an NFL franchise. And that's gone up from $250m fairly recently. That's 15% of the average value of an NFL franchise, which is just over $2.5bn, which is what United are currently worth.

So they're carrying $300m more debt on United ($650m) than they'd be able to carry on the TB Buccaneers.
 
I don't believe that for one moment. He was ready to see us stitched up, even though it now seems obvious he knew all along the harm ffp has caused in its present form. He's is not to be trusted in any way, shape or form and I find it impossible to believe companies in the high street could act in the same way in a bid to destroy a rival, no matter how their lawyers and barristers skew it.
Maybe but in the normal legal world.it was necessary to make cartels (we suffered a barrier to entry type of cartel) illegal which would not be necessary if high street companies were all as gentlemanly as you suggest.
 
Just reading The Athletic story on the Glazers and the point is made that you're only allowed to secure up to £300m ($350m) debt on an NFL franchise. And that's gone up from $250m fairly recently. That's 15% of the average value of an NFL franchise, which is just over $2.5bn, which is what United are currently worth.

So they're carrying $300m more debt on United ($650m) than they'd be able to carry on the TB Buccaneers.

And they are paying for Brady and Gronk!
 
Just reading The Athletic story on the Glazers and the point is made that you're only allowed to secure up to £300m ($350m) debt on an NFL franchise. And that's gone up from $250m fairly recently. That's 15% of the average value of an NFL franchise, which is just over $2.5bn, which is what United are currently worth.

So they're carrying $300m more debt on United ($650m) than they'd be able to carry on the TB Buccaneers.
I suppose a cap on debt is needed or indicated as financially safe but it does show how saying that if United can service their debt it is financially sound may have a limit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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.