Ha, if so then only on an official basis, there's undeniable proof that the G14 and UEFA don't need board positions to collude.Doesn't Gill stop being involved in UEFA this month?
Yes. And to think I'd done quite well to hide them in my 15 years on this forum. Shame I've outed myself now
Doesn't Gill stop being involved in UEFA this month?
I've heard they're giving us a City representative - Peter Schmeichel.Who replaces him, Bobby Charlton ?
Agree mate, but the fannies and fence sitters think otherwise. One group is set for disappointment.Manchester City welcomes the opening of a formal UEFA investigation as an opportunity to bring to an end the speculation resulting from the illegal hacking and out of context publication of City emails. The accusation of financial irregularities are entirely false. The Club’s published accounts are full and complete and a matter of legal and regulatory record.
I really don't think there is anything to be concerned about. The club are fully confident that they have done nothing wrong.
1) All depends on whether these companies are deemed to be related parties. If not then they're free to pay what they like. If they are, then the transactions have to be fair market value. Etihad clearly is fair value (& UEFA agreed it was) so it's utterly irrelevant where the money comes from and UEFA's own website clearly states this. Thr Aabar & Etisalat were deemed to be over-valued but, again, are they related parties? If not (and City say they aren't) then again it's irrelevant. If so, then UEFA would be entitled to mak these down to what was considered fair value. Even if it did, we still might not fail FFP. But UEFA knew about these deals and we agreed not to increase them as part of the settlement so they can't claim ignorance of them.The allegationsFrom the Times.
- Manipulated sponsorship income
Leaked documents suggested income that was supposed to come from Abu Dhabi-based sponsors was in effect paid directly by the owners, in contravention of FFP rules.
- Third-party ownership rules may have been breached
City are alleged not to have disclosed an involvement with a fund that owned economic rights of players, including one they signed.
- Manipulated image-rights payments
A scheme called “Project Longbow” sold players’ image rights to another company, which was then reimbursed by the Abu Dhabi United Group. It meant the image rights were taken off the salary bill.
- City paid the agent of Jadon Sancho £200,000 over his move from Watford when Sancho was 14.
I think -
1) Won't be something they can do anything about. It's clearly against the idea of FFP but UEFA has no jurisdiction on deciding where Etihadis allowed to get its money.
2) This seems pretty black and white because there's going to be a limit on how much they have to disclose and they've either followed that or not.
3) I think this is the most contentious one, the most grey, and it's hard to predict how bad it is without knowing more.
4) Is something that happens all the time but the stakes are pretty low. We could well get a youth signing ban just like we have before, and Liverpool, Chelsea have had before.
Think the whole point of the club welcoming it is it will end it once and for all.Whatever the outcome, it's clear by the reactions on this thread by our fans and the reaction on Twitter by other clubs fans, that it's going to be really fucking tedious and essentially never ending.