We are accused of inflating sponsorships though...
It always struck me as strange that the Etihad sponsorship was questioned as fair value or not. Some 12 months or so before Etihad and City announced the sponsorship deal Arsenal had announced a deal for a similar level of sponsorship to cover the Emirates package. Compare the situation, Emirates got a stadium named after them and their name on a shirt of a team who had little in the way of success for several years and no obvious signs for improvement. Etihad got the same plus a state of the art training facility, a good opportunity for further development and the chance to be associated with one of Europe's rising brands and a very successful football club with great management behind it.I think the fair value rules only apply if it's a related party but I might be wrong
A couple of massive bids are going in next week for players, that should please us.
I presumed paying part of a Etihads sponsorship deal on their behalf was not inflating anything as the amount was set during the initial contractual arrangement at the commencement of the deal in 2011. Are you suggesting the emails from 2015 that make out the "financial irregularity" allude to inflating this original amount?
Thats how I see it. I'm not an expert although i've thoroughly read the details, am I wrong?
I think the fair value rules only apply if it's a related party but I might be wrong
And he should occasionally look over his should to get a nod of approval from one of them.Tolmie, you always make me feel tingly inside.
Khaldoon’s interview should be conducted with a team of lawyers behind him, with him sat in a Bond villain-esque chair. Maybe some menacing intro music.
Hi,
Please don't ban me as this is my first post and I'm just interested to get some answers. I came on here this morning as obviously we've all seen the news and I wanted to gauge what the average City fans reaction is.
Now (here comes the part where I fear I'll be banned) it seems that looking at the club from the outside there's obvious "financial doping" going on. I can't see how City could have achieved this much success in such a short space of time without it.
So, I am just wondering where the thoughts that UEFA have an agenda against City are coming from? I understand the opinion that FFP caters to the established big teams and ensures that they remain that way, but aside from that, I can't see what other reason there is to be angry? Surely UEFA are investigating/bringing charges for a reason other than they just don't like City.
They wouldn't just be looking into the club for no reason either, right? There's no smoke without fire & all that?
Apologies for signing up just to ask a simple questions but I know no City fans personally and there's no chance of getting sense out of anyone on Twitter etc
Even breaking it down to the most simple terms, as I (the average, not massively invested football fan) see it, City agreed to play by certain rules and have essentially broken or attempted to break those rules. Is this correct?
Again, please don't ban me for this. I'm just a confused neutral with no idea what's going on!
Thanks
I'd like to, there's not many places to get an articulate discussion these days and the Newport County forums are terrible. The abuse that's already been thrown at me for coming in with a genuine question after admitting I don't have a thorough knowledge of the issue is a bit OTT though.
Perhaps I'd be better suited to sticking to threads that aren't about City and just football in general.
They still wouldn’t get the massage.Thai is the problem with many supporters they dont want to do the research themelves.
Like it ;-)They still wouldn’t get the massage.
If Etihad could only afford 6m and we were getting 60m from them than inflated is a fair word to use, whether we've got a case to answer about the origin of the other 54m or not.
Transfer thread is that way, Trev ;)
If it were down to me, however, I'd be slapping my schlong on the table and next to me would be sat 15 wheelbarrows full of £200m worth of one euro coins, dumped on the fucking office of the Barca boardroom and I'm walking out with Messi.
I'd obviously be furnished with a GoPro, streaming it live over the Internet, before firing a glance which says, 'C'mon you fucking crooks, see you in court.'
Transfer thread is that way, Trev ;)
If it were down to me, however, I'd be slapping my schlong on the table and next to me would be sat 15 wheelbarrows full of £200m worth of one euro coins, dumped on the fucking office of the Barca boardroom and I'm walking out with Messi.
I'd obviously be furnished with a GoPro, streaming it live over the Internet, before firing a glance which says, 'C'mon you fucking crooks, see you in court.'
I hope the club and our owner, don’t stop until they’ve, “bricked the windows, smashed their back doors in, and burnt to the ground”.The club statement makes it clear that City intend this matter to be resolved by "an independent judicial body" and the assumption, held almost universally, is that this is CAS. I cannot agree. The only cases CAS has dealt with concerning FFP were those of PSG, in which they overturned the verdict because CFCB had not followed its correct procedure, and AC Milan, where exclusion from European competition was not deemed a suitable punishment. City's difference with UEFA seems far wider. There is certainly fury at UEFA's failure to follow correct procedure, hence its reference to the leaks and its naming of Yves Leterme. But our complaint is not simply about "due process" but apparently concerns the entire competence of UEFA to deal with such matters. City have no intention of pleading fair cop gov but let us off because.... (as Milan and PSG appear to have done). City are going to argue that the whole matter of leaving this to UEFA is unacceptable. It appears we are not necessarily accused of breaching FFP rules but of "financial irregularities. This phraseology may be important because if it involves the integrity of City's accounts it may well bring into question certain very big players indeed as well and the commercial courts will be very interested to know UEFA's qualifications for pronouncing on such questions. CAS may deal with the question of the "hostile process" involved but a chamber which "ignores a body of irrefutable evidence provided by Manchester City FC to the chamber" on a matter of major financial/commercial interest? One of the issues certainly appears to be emerging as the right of UEFA to poke it nose into such matters at all - not just because it makes such a mess of it. And we are only the smallest of steps to the whole question of whether UEFA has any right to limit investment in any form by a club owner in his club. I think the endgame is coming and City seem ominously confident
It always struck me as strange that the Etihad sponsorship was questioned as fair value or not. Some 12 months or so before Etihad and City announced the sponsorship deal Arsenal had announced a deal for a similar level of sponsorship to cover the Emirates package. Compare the situation, Emirates got a stadium named after them and their name on a shirt of a team who had little in the way of success for several years and no obvious signs for improvement. Etihad got the same plus a state of the art training facility, a good opportunity for further development and the chance to be associated with one of Europe's rising brands and a very successful football club with great management behind it.
I was unaware that it was considered so insulting in honesty. It's a term I've seen used all over the place & just adopted it.Be careful what you write @DAV771
Statements like that can get you into a lot of trouble.
Not only is it uneducated of you, it is borderline slander.
A bit of research and common sense, should have been applied to your first post.
You will not last very long on this forum as a WUM!
Inflatee means we got more than we should.If Etihad could only afford 6m and we were getting 60m from them than inflated is a fair word to use, whether we've got a case to answer about the origin of the other 54m or not.
Inflatee means we got more than we should.
If the contract says 60m and our accounts say 60m and we got 60m, then it's not inflated.