It wasn't edited, the original article is still there in which they claim sources close to the investigation believe we will get a 1 year ban. I don't think the club have mentioned anything about it been edited but who are these people close to the investigation that is suppose to be confidential
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UEFA FFP investigation - CAS decision to be announced Monday, 13th July 9.30am BST
- Thread starter razman
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It wasn't edited, the original article is still there in which they claim sources close to the investigation believe we will get a 1 year ban. I don't think the club have mentioned anything about it been edited but who are these people close to the investigation that is suppose to be confidential
BlueMoonz1977
Well-Known Member
Do we know when that article first appeared ?
Nope, only came across it today
I think you're confused. The bit city quoted is in the article and always has been, despite rumours of it being edited out.
It's not, is it?
I'm confused now too.
Probably just wrote a story after reading this forum because it's easy journalism. Similar to Castles and others, although I know Martin likes City.I don't get how he made such a basic mistake
journolud
Well-Known Member
Oh God, please make it stop with people posting about the NYT owning Liverpool...
Aren't they the second biggest shareholders or something?
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
This^^^^^^.I've heard that the people we hired to work on our accounts were the same people UEFA used to create the rules.
If true, surely we'll be fine and all this is a bluff by UEFA after the leaked emails show we weren't 100% honest, but didn't actually break any rules?
A couple of months back there were a few resident 'experts' on the site commenting that strictly speaking we hadn't broken any accounting or UEFA rules regarding our sponsorship deals.
It's not, is it?
I'm confused now too.
It was never edited out.
Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,903
This puzzles me too.Having just read PBs piece and then comparing against the article in the NYT which says:
Many of the allegations of financial impropriety and rule-breaking lodged against Manchester City came to light after they were reported by news media outlets with access to the so-called Football Leaks files. The files are said to include emails and internal club documents showing efforts by City to circumvent UEFA’s financial fair-play regulations by masking cash infusions from a United Arab Emirates state-backed investment company through inflated sponsorship agreements with entities including the U.A.E.’s national airline, Etihad. Etihad is City’s principal sponsor, its name adorning the team’s stadium, its signage during matches and even the front of the players’ jerseys.
"Circumventing" as far as i'm aware isn't a breach of the rules more a "finding a way around them" which is surely common business practice.
From Colins' piece he makes clear that from the original judgement that the Etihad deal was accepted as "Fair Value" with a promise the Aabar and Etisalat deals remained at current levels (2014). So how can we now face allegations of inflating those deals? None of the NYT article makes any sense in this case or am I reading this wrong?
It’s not the amount of money involved, but its source that seems to be the question.
If the Etihad deal is deemed unrelated then it is of no concern to uefa where they get their money from.
If it was deemed ‘related’ then fair market value comes into play and this was accepted by uefa.
Whichever scenario applies, I don’t see why the club would need to mislead anyone about it, by email or whatever means.
blue moony
Well-Known Member
Believe Matt Scott just been hauled off Talkshit for ranting.
Legal team.
TOLM it’s nit his first offence either , was doing exactly the same last week !
Talksport know exactly what agenda he is going to spout so surely they are culprable!
It’s not the first time they have gone OTT on city without getting there facts straight !
David Silva and his baby etc etc ....
When is enough enough ?
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
The thing about all this that rankles the most is that the arguments are all historic from stuff 5 years ago and subsequently they reneged and changed the FFP requirements for new investors when some of the old G14 clubs couldn't make the break even requirement and went crying to UEFA.
The club have clearly demonstrated financial propriety and management, we are 5th on DeLoittes list and are one of the fastest growing football brands with a turnover that will exceed 600 Million this year, have never broken a transfer record, clearly made substantial profits for the last 3 seasons and therefore piss the break even requirement so beloved of these arseholes, yet we are vilified as cheats based on rules that no longer exist without the truth being heard on the basis of conjecture and rumour mongering among the press and their "sources". I sincerely hope we fully nail their fucking hat on when the time comes.
The club have clearly demonstrated financial propriety and management, we are 5th on DeLoittes list and are one of the fastest growing football brands with a turnover that will exceed 600 Million this year, have never broken a transfer record, clearly made substantial profits for the last 3 seasons and therefore piss the break even requirement so beloved of these arseholes, yet we are vilified as cheats based on rules that no longer exist without the truth being heard on the basis of conjecture and rumour mongering among the press and their "sources". I sincerely hope we fully nail their fucking hat on when the time comes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.