Manchester City risk of getting CL banned

mwake

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
119
Supports
Liverpool
Why doesn't the PL back up ufea with FFP rules? Surely the principles of FFP are also beneficial to the domestic game. If you break the FFP rules not only should you face the threat of a ban in CL but a 3, 6, or 9 PL point deduction based on the severity. This would mean that City and other big clubs wouldn't be able to intimidate ufea or try to undermine FFP and it would increase the importance and consequences of towing the line.
 

andyox

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
478
Supports
Manchester City
Why doesn't the PL back up ufea with FFP rules? Surely the principles of FFP are also beneficial to the domestic game. If you break the FFP rules not only should you face the threat of a ban in CL but a 3, 6, or 9 PL point deduction based on the severity. This would mean that City and other big clubs wouldn't be able to intimidate ufea or try to undermine FFP and it would increase the importance and consequences of towing the line.
The PL brought in its own FFP rules in 2013. They’re slightly different to UEFA, with a bigger focus on wages, but the overall concept is the same in linking spending to revenue.
 

Yakuza_devils

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
2,841
I really doubt UEFA and FA can/willing to do anything about it. Most likely, the palms are already greased and large browns envelopes were given out.

The Sheikh also has a team of top lawyers in the world threatening to sue people left, right and center if anyone dare to mess with them in their financial doping.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,578
Location
Florida
They are attempting to intimidate the football authorities with their endless wealth and legal muscle. They are a front for a hideous regime, dirty money in blue shirts. If they were not money doped they would be competing with United for a mid table place
It’s the Big Tobacco defense, they can potentially tie it up in court until the nation-state & all its money goes home.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
10,087
Location
Ireland
Why doesn't the PL back up ufea with FFP rules? Surely the principles of FFP are also beneficial to the domestic game. If you break the FFP rules not only should you face the threat of a ban in CL but a 3, 6, or 9 PL point deduction based on the severity. This would mean that City and other big clubs wouldn't be able to intimidate ufea or try to undermine FFP and it would increase the importance and consequences of towing the line.
Fair point.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
First off compare the Etihad (not Emirates) deal with PSG even after they (UEFA) reduced it or other deals e.g Emirates its not inflated

Second according to the law and UEFA the deal your mentioning and the main one is not a related party deal therefore not direct or indirect ownership it cannot be inflated why would a non connected company over pay e.g Why would Chevrolet over pay you guys ? Legally and according to UEFA even the tax man and independent auditors there is as much common ownership between City and Etihad as there is between you and Chevrolet. This whole debate is really bordering on slander and is has perhaps wider consequences given that people outside of city have signed off on the deals e.g UEFA cities auditors the tax man.

These emails don't change the ownership of the these companies nor prove any change in ownership they simple show part of story gotten illegally out of context that So how can UEFA change there ruling near 5 years later ?

Sorry confusing Emirates / Etihad, etc - had a bloody good lunch with friends yesterday and should have hung on a couple of hours before posting. Anyway....

I was simply pointing out the rumoured reasons for the current situation - may be right, may be wrong, but coming from good sources.

Whatever the rights and wrongs about some of the financial deals which have happened at your club, I think you're just being ( rightly, in my opinion ) included in a wider attempt by EUFA to stop financial doping PSG-style. Too late I think - you can't undo what's already happened at City and PSG - but maybe EUFA have finally become embarrassed by their own lack of actions and, let's face it, strange decisions in the past about financial doping and general corruption in European football.

I don't think there's been any Italain style corruption at City, so financial doping it must be for you to be under the microscope although the microscope isn't really necessary.
 

WRicko

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
79
Supports
Manchester City
Sorry confusing Emirates / Etihad, etc - had a bloody good lunch with friends yesterday and should have hung on a couple of hours before posting. Anyway....

I was simply pointing out the rumoured reasons for the current situation - may be right, may be wrong, but coming from good sources.

Whatever the rights and wrongs about some of the financial deals which have happened at your club, I think you're just being ( rightly, in my opinion ) included in a wider attempt by EUFA to stop financial doping PSG-style. Too late I think - you can't undo what's already happened at City and PSG - but maybe EUFA have finally become embarrassed by their own lack of actions and, let's face it, strange decisions in the past about financial doping and general corruption in European football.

I don't think there's been any Italain style corruption at City, so financial doping it must be for you to be under the microscope although the microscope isn't really necessary.
I am not questioning the source we know they want to ban us

What I am saying is they are breaking their own rules. Etihad not related party or inflated (the two are connected and inseparable) Now they see the emails they want it to be. Whats more UEFA rules on related parties are copied from international standards and common to multiple countries

Also the rules about limiting investment are probably in breach of EU and UK competition law.

Financial doping is just meaningless phrase

Not sure what corruption has got to do with it other than perhaps corruption at UEFA and both actual and (not connected to city) and corruption in terms of the big clubs trying to keep the small clubs small via FFP or perhaps the rewriting of the FFP rules in order to punish city by forcing them to miss certain targets in order to miss certain wage exemptions
 

Slysi17

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
821
It's laughable Man City fans are trying to justify their club cheating their way to the top. There is even fecking evidence that Manchester City are financial doping. I personally hate the way they have bought premier league titles etc. I hope UEFA ban them but won't happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveJ

Dumbstar

We got another woman hater here.
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
21,136
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
It's laughable Man City fans are trying to justify their club cheating their way to the top. There is even fecking evidence that Manchester City are financial doping. I personally hate the way they have bought premier league titles etc. I hope UEFA ban them but won't happen.
Their arguments are reminiscent of our Suarez defence all those years ago (for which all of us are ashamed btw :(). Its a natural defence reaction from City fans.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
439
It's laughable Man City fans are trying to justify their club cheating their way to the top. There is even fecking evidence that Manchester City are financial doping. I personally hate the way they have bought premier league titles etc. I hope UEFA ban them but won't happen.
UEFA don't have to ban them, they can though still make sure they don't win the CL. They've been trying to get PSG for financial breaches for years without success. They had some big decisions go against them in CL matches in recent years. If they don't get them 1 way they'll get them the other.

I don't subscribe to the notion that they'll buy UEFA off. If they could have they would have done it by now. These constant allegations are incredibly damaging to Mansour & his cronies. He is trying to break away from his countries image of corruption. This business is only dragging him further into the mire.

I think the football governing bodies want both the owners of PSG & City out of the game as they are essentially bad for business. We have had the press release from the PSG owner declaring he has lost interest due to the constant bad publicity. The governing bodies are now turning their attention towards City.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
I am not questioning the source we know they want to ban us

What I am saying is they are breaking their own rules. Etihad not related party or inflated (the two are connected and inseparable) Now they see the emails they want it to be. Whats more UEFA rules on related parties are copied from international standards and common to multiple countries

Also the rules about limiting investment are probably in breach of EU and UK competition law.

Financial doping is just meaningless phrase

Not sure what corruption has got to do with it other than perhaps corruption at UEFA and both actual and (not connected to city) and corruption in terms of the big clubs trying to keep the small clubs small via FFP or perhaps the rewriting of the FFP rules in order to punish city by forcing them to miss certain targets in order to miss certain wage exemptions

Agreed - Financial Doping is a phrase put around by other clubs / teams / leagues / etc who, let's face it, were once jealous but are now more angry than jealous that this situation has been allowed to develop but would still love to have the almost limitless resources that PSG and City have....But that doesn't hide the fact that everything PSG and yourselves have achieved the past few years is based on having almost limitless cash and is distorting genuine competition in the EPL and Ligue 1 but also has a knock on effect throughout other leagues and countries and somewhere there is probably one of those thousands of cash receipts that transgresses, somehow and somewhere, EUFA's FFP rules in some way or another.

It might only be a tiny infraction, but if you have, then this time EUFA will probably jump all over you and give out some sort of 'punishment' which is way too severe for the actual infraction, but is making up for previous infractions which were either ignored or not properly dealt with by EUFA in the past.

As I hope I made clear last time, I think PSG are the real target, but their's and your own ownership structure and finances are just too similar for you not to get caught up in this which is perhaps a pain in the arse for yourselves, but has to be good for the rest of football.

The only real alternative - but which is never going to happen, of course - is NFL / NBA / MLB style paycaps on player squads which then allows clubs with smaller incomes to compete with the richer clubs when it comes to signing and paying 'star' players.

I argued earlier on - the ' best ' punishment for City and PSG is a sort of transfer ban for maybe three or four years with a very low overall spending limit which would then nullify the huge financial advantages which, each year, lets them spend £ 100 million+ in transfer fees plus unmatchable wages just for bench warmers and squad players....

In fact, come to think of it that might then be an example to ourselves and stop us offering stupid contracts to our own overpaid duffers like Sanchez and Pogba and Jones, etc.
 

WRicko

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
79
Supports
Manchester City
Agreed - Financial Doping is a phrase put around by other clubs / teams / leagues / etc who, let's face it, were once jealous but are now more angry than jealous that this situation has been allowed to develop but would still love to have the almost limitless resources that PSG and City have....But that doesn't hide the fact that everything PSG and yourselves have achieved the past few years is based on having almost limitless cash and is distorting genuine competition in the EPL and Ligue 1 but also has a knock on effect throughout other leagues and countries and somewhere there is probably one of those thousands of cash receipts that transgresses, somehow and somewhere, EUFA's FFP rules in some way or another.

It might only be a tiny infraction, but if you have, then this time EUFA will probably jump all over you and give out some sort of 'punishment' which is way too severe for the actual infraction, but is making up for previous infractions which were either ignored or not properly dealt with by EUFA in the past.

As I hope I made clear last time, I think PSG are the real target, but their's and your own ownership structure and finances are just too similar for you not to get caught up in this which is perhaps a pain in the arse for yourselves, but has to be good for the rest of football.

The only real alternative - but which is never going to happen, of course - is NFL / NBA / MLB style paycaps on player squads which then allows clubs with smaller incomes to compete with the richer clubs when it comes to signing and paying 'star' players.

I argued earlier on - the ' best ' punishment for City and PSG is a sort of transfer ban for maybe three or four years with a very low overall spending limit which would then nullify the huge financial advantages which, each year, lets them spend £ 100 million+ in transfer fees plus unmatchable wages just for bench warmers and squad players....

In fact, come to think of it that might then be an example to ourselves and stop us offering stupid contracts to our own overpaid duffers like Sanchez and Pogba and Jones, etc.
I dont know if your ignoring my comments on purpose despite trying to debate with me or if you dont understand FFP or if I am not being clear

Let me restate it again we did not cannot have broken their rules its not a tiny infraction as you call it their is no infraction what so ever

Etihad is not a related party its therefore not connected to cities ownership and therefore not inflated it cannot be because of the first party non related party deals cannot be inflated. Chevreolet could pay you a billion £ a year it still wouldnt be inflated.

Etihad is not a related not just according to city but according to independent auditors UEFA the tax man the law etc etc Dont believe me check the accounts check who signed them off check UEFA original ruling 5 years a go

We could argue that that is wrong or right but it is what it is

These emails wont show the sheiks bank details or those of Etihad or its owners or even cities they dont show any change in ownership on any of the parties involved. Who owns what is a matter of public record anyway
 

Thunderhead

Full Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
3,154
Supports
City
Should be a salary cap, FPP doesn't work but really clamping down on salaries would IMO

And the salary cap should be something like the current average of the PL, not something stupid like £250m, which I'd image is around £160m which would be fair to teams who want to invest and challenge, with FPP and the money in the CL the teams there are already £50m+ better off in revenue before a ball is kicked
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
Not ignoring, no....And not deliberately trying to provoke you....

Just pointing out the realities and the significance of what your club might now have to face but which too many City fans choose to dismiss as unfair and false accusations.

The real kicker, though, is the allegation that Mansour personally gave cash to Etihad to be laundered by Etihad giving it to City as sponsorship, rather than Mansour giving the cash to City himself, to get round the FFP rules.

If....and if....that one turns out to be true, or can be proven to be true, the bubble would explode, not just burst.

Fortunately for Mansour and City, there's absolutely no way anyone in Abu Dhabi will allow EUFA or its agents to check one single financial transaction passing through an Abu Dhabi bank account so that allegation and suspicion is always going to be there and believed by everyone else in football.

Good Luck - at some stage City and PSG are most probably going to need it.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,033
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Should be a salary cap, FPP doesn't work but really clamping down on salaries would IMO

And the salary cap should be something like the current average of the PL, not something stupid like £250m, which I'd image is around £160m which would be fair to teams who want to invest and challenge, with FPP and the money in the CL the teams there are already £50m+ better off in revenue before a ball is kicked
I don't think there should be a hard salary cap. PL players do deserve to get a majority of the revenue they generate.

There should be a soft salary/transfer cap. More of a tax after you exceed a certain threshold. If you spend 150M quid on a player, you have to pay an additional 50M in "luxury tax", which is spread out in the league. Just an example.
 

AaronRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
9,534
Football rules are like that mother who counts to 3 but never follows up on her threat.
 

Tincanalley

Turns player names into a crappy conversation
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
10,087
Location
Ireland
Financial doping is just (a) meaningless phrase

Not sure what corruption has got to do with it other than perhaps corruption at UEFA and both actual and (not connected to city) and corruption in terms of the big clubs trying to keep the small clubs small via FFP or perhaps the rewriting of the FFP rules in order to punish city by forcing them to miss certain targets in order to miss certain wage exemptions
Not a bit of it (bolded text). Financial doping could mean, for example, that most of your income is not derived from football or football related activities. It by extension - means that the function of a premiership club as a cover to polish up the dirty human rights image of a nation state namely Abu Dhabi, by the strategy of spending vast amounts of that nation state's wealth on an English football club, is questionable. Its not good for the game, ergo, the joke that the FA cup final was turned into. Ergo, the awqward questions raised to Pep yesterday. It means that covering up the true source of income (and appear to follow the rulebook) might be necessary to pay out covert monies (if the reports in Der Spiegel are true). It means they allegedly set up a “closed payment loop” in which ADUG paid a third party to pay City for the image rights to their players. Just for starters?
 

WRicko

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
79
Supports
Manchester City
Not ignoring, no....And not deliberately trying to provoke you....

Just pointing out the realities and the significance of what your club might now have to face but which too many City fans choose to dismiss as unfair and false accusations.

The real kicker, though, is the allegation that Mansour personally gave cash to Etihad to be laundered by Etihad giving it to City as sponsorship, rather than Mansour giving the cash to City himself, to get round the FFP rules.

If....and if....that one turns out to be true, or can be proven to be true, the bubble would explode, not just burst.

Fortunately for Mansour and City, there's absolutely no way anyone in Abu Dhabi will allow EUFA or its agents to check one single financial transaction passing through an Abu Dhabi bank account so that allegation and suspicion is always going to be there and believed by everyone else in football.

Good Luck - at some stage City and PSG are most probably going to need it.
Not ignoring, no....And not deliberately trying to provoke you....

Just pointing out the realities and the significance of what your club might now have to face but which too many City fans choose to dismiss as unfair and false accusations.

The real kicker, though, is the allegation that Mansour personally gave cash to Etihad to be laundered by Etihad giving it to City as sponsorship, rather than Mansour giving the cash to City himself, to get round the FFP rules.

If....and if....that one turns out to be true, or can be proven to be true, the bubble would explode, not just burst.

Fortunately for Mansour and City, there's absolutely no way anyone in Abu Dhabi will allow EUFA or its agents to check one single financial transaction passing through an Abu Dhabi bank account so that allegation and suspicion is always going to be there and believed by everyone else in football.

Good Luck - at some stage City and PSG are most probably going to need it.
You are ignoring because I am pointing out that by UEFAs own definition they cannot punish us because by their own definition and rules Etihad is not related party or inflated.

Let me ask you this Do you think these emails show a change in ownership ? Do you think its a matter of public record who own city or Etihad ? Do you think they show Etihad or the sheiks bank details / transaction history ?

If there has been no change ownership of city or Etihad and ownership of both is matter of public record and only related parties can inflated sponsorship (Legally this is true) (Would chevrolet over pay you on purpose ? ) How and why would a non related party over pay for a dealand if UEFA deemed city and Etihad neither related parties nor inflated then how and why can UEFA change there mind Have UEFA changed there rules ? Is that even legal ? especially given related party is international standard definition. Given that it is such why no investigation in the UK into city or its independent auditor by the government / tax man ?
 

nore1975

New Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
415
Supports
Liverpool
I can't see it happening. When Rangers fell foul of financial fair play in Scotland it was brought to light by HMRC. City is more or less owned by the UAE. The fact that their 'achievements' are tainted by allegations of financial doping must be humiliating.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
You are ignoring because I am pointing out that by UEFAs own definition they cannot punish us because by their own definition and rules Etihad is not related party or inflated.

Let me ask you this Do you think these emails show a change in ownership ? Do you think its a matter of public record who own city or Etihad ? Do you think they show Etihad or the sheiks bank details / transaction history ?

If there has been no change ownership of city or Etihad and ownership of both is matter of public record and only related parties can inflated sponsorship (Legally this is true) (Would chevrolet over pay you on purpose ? ) How and why would a non related party over pay for a dealand if UEFA deemed city and Etihad neither related parties nor inflated then how and why can UEFA change there mind Have UEFA changed there rules ? Is that even legal ? especially given related party is international standard definition. Given that it is such why no investigation in the UK into city or its independent auditor by the government / tax man ?

Keep on believing and protesting your innocence. It'll make you feel better.

And just for info....External Auditors confirm compliance with accounting standards of the country where the legal entity being audited is registered or incorporated and HMRC determine only your tax liability and only in the UK. Neither auditors nor HMRC are in the slightest bit interested in compliance with EUFA FFP.
 

andyox

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
478
Supports
Manchester City
Keep on believing and protesting your innocence. It'll make you feel better.

And just for info....External Auditors confirm compliance with accounting standards of the country where the legal entity being audited is registered or incorporated and HMRC determine only your tax liability and only in the UK. Neither auditors nor HMRC are in the slightest bit interested in compliance with EUFA FFP.
Read the definition of "related party" in Annex X Section F of UEFA's FFP Regulations. Then read the definition of "related party" in IAS 24 of the IFRS. You'll notice they're word for word the same because UEFA sensibly just copied the internationally accepted accounting definition of related party.

City's audited accounts, using IAS 24, state that the Etihad sponsorship is not a related party transaction. UEFA, using a definition of related party that is word for word the same, came to the same conclusion. It's why City's Etihad sponsorship was never subject to a fair market value revision like PSG's QTA sponsorship was.

But clearly that's not the focus of this current UEFA re-adjudication of our 2014 punishment. The question is not whether Etihad is a related party (it's not), it's whether City have cheated the system and misled UEFA by having a different AD entity pay Etihad's sponsorship obligations on Etihad's behalf. City say this is not true, but the leaked emails published by Der Spiegel may suggest otherwise (although we don't know the full context of the relevant email exchange).
 

SquishyMcSquish

New Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
8,198
Supports
Tottenham
It's laughable Man City fans are trying to justify their club cheating their way to the top. There is even fecking evidence that Manchester City are financial doping. I personally hate the way they have bought premier league titles etc. I hope UEFA ban them but won't happen.
It's absolutely pathetic. Their fans are an utter joke and a pack of sellouts, nothing more or less.

They're blatantly cheating and not even really trying to hide it, and all the money is dirty from the start regardless. Absolute cesspool of a club and people are expected to respect their achievements on the pitch?

Nobody should respect a team backed by tyrants who use the football club to shield their disgusting regime. They're a propaganda tool, an absolute farce and they shame the Premier League.

Their fans will defend them till the end because they've sold their souls, you can't really chat shit about the devil when you're in bed with him.

I suggest anyone who hasn't already goes and watches the 'Men Behind City' documentary, pretty much shows you the extent of the scumbaggery they've associated themselves with. It's pure evil, no more or less. Of course they're corrupt, like what the feck does anyone expect? These people have no respect for fair play or rules, if they can't buy somebody they'll brutalise them. This UEFA investigation is likely simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that club.

I'm not a huge fan of UEFA but if they were to ban City I think they'd deserve applause from throughout the footballing world for taking a stand against the biggest disease currently eating its way in to the footballing world: the sugar daddy clubs, mostly owned by properly evil, horrible people and purely used as a tool to deflect from how awful they are. The end game should be to remove such owners from the game entirely, but it won't happen because our government and associations are all too happy to accept their dirty money.

Nothing they win is relevant or real, it never will be.
 

Full bodied red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
2,370
Location
The Var, France
Yes - I know and understand ( and at the time also GAPP & GASS, SSAP, etc, etc, but that was quite a few years ago now ) IAS 24 as part of IFRS - my own company has a multitude of potentially related parties and related party transactions which i have to answer for and sign off on each year.

The issue now, as I see it and understand it, is that having successfully fought off EUFA on the Etihad Sponsorship once, evidence is now emerging that it wasn't exclusively Etihad's money that was used for the sponsorship, and neither the External Auditors nor HMRC would have had the authority and requirement to have been able to trace that cash as it circulated around different banks in the Middle East and offshore, if Etihad didn't have the status of Related Party per IAS 24.

That's what I'm trying to get at - that maybe Mansour deliberately set out to ' cheat ' FFP rules. The Qataris were simply too dumb ( or honest ! ) in the way they structured their Sposorship deal with PSG.

As the Managing Partner of our own Auditors once told us - Al Capone was never convicted of violent crime, just Tax Fraud and non-compliance.
 

rotherham_red

Full Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
7,407
Ken Early knocking it out of the park once again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613

The key line is this though:

You shudder to imagine what might happen if Saudi Arabia ever does buy Manchester United, and that enormous worldwide fanbase becomes weaponised along similar lines.
Indeed. For me personally, I think it would be the breaking point and I'd have to regretfully walk away from it. It's one thing being owned by ravenous venture capitalists, but being the plaything of a despotic regime is quite another.
 

Mike Smalling

Full Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
10,464
Ken Early knocking it out of the park once again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613

The key line is this though:

You shudder to imagine what might happen if Saudi Arabia ever does buy Manchester United, and that enormous worldwide fanbase becomes weaponised along similar lines.
Good read. It also summarizes quite well, why many United fans (including myself) feel almost indifferent to City winning every game and hauling in trophies. It's all been bought and paid for. Contrast that with Liverpool this season, whose achievements come from clever business in the transfer market and good coaching. Had they won the league, that feat would have been entirely different.

On the issue of Saudi Arabian ownership, I would be very much against it. In a way, it would tarnish the club forever to be associated with such a brutal and medieval regime.
 

Dumbstar

We got another woman hater here.
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
21,136
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,387
Location
left wing
Ken Early knocking it out of the park once again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613

The key line is this though:

You shudder to imagine what might happen if Saudi Arabia ever does buy Manchester United, and that enormous worldwide fanbase becomes weaponised along similar lines.
Good piece. Explains succinctly why, when it comes to City, nobody really cares.

I expect that City's titles will one day come to be viewed in much the same way as Lance Armstrong's Tour wins.
 

FujiVice

Full Member
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
7,224
Its crazy/hilarious how Man City are perceived. 198 points and a domestic treble, and nobody seems to mind. United fans especially dont seem to fussed. They arent really Manchester City. They're a default club, used to win trophies using hundreds of millions of pounds. Its like being angry at the guy Leatherface originally killed because he's wearing his skin while he murders people. They're sexy to luck at, but you wouldnt invite them to meet your parent, would you?

Liverpool and Spurs have made it to a Champions League final and Leicester won the league recently. Their achievements arent really that notable in the grand scheme of things. Especially with all this legal stuff hanging above their head. Come back when you have won the title with a team consisting of Phil Jones in the holding midfield role and a Danny Wellbeck scoring one league goal all year.
 

andyox

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
478
Supports
Manchester City
Yes - I know and understand ( and at the time also GAPP & GASS, SSAP, etc, etc, but that was quite a few years ago now ) IAS 24 as part of IFRS - my own company has a multitude of potentially related parties and related party transactions which i have to answer for and sign off on each year.

The issue now, as I see it and understand it, is that having successfully fought off EUFA on the Etihad Sponsorship once, evidence is now emerging that it wasn't exclusively Etihad's money that was used for the sponsorship, and neither the External Auditors nor HMRC would have had the authority and requirement to have been able to trace that cash as it circulated around different banks in the Middle East and offshore, if Etihad didn't have the status of Related Party per IAS 24.

That's what I'm trying to get at - that maybe Mansour deliberately set out to ' cheat ' FFP rules. The Qataris were simply too dumb ( or honest ! ) in the way they structured their Sposorship deal with PSG.

As the Managing Partner of our own Auditors once told us - Al Capone was never convicted of violent crime, just Tax Fraud and non-compliance.
Yes true, although why would HMRC etc. get involved in this? Manchester City presumably received the money in full from Etihad, so why would they need to go beyond that? Where Etihad sourced the money is a different question (potentially a different AD entity), but I can't see how it's relevant to HMRC, and I can't see how UEFA would possibly go about "auditing" the money trail? Etihad's accounts aren't public and they're hardly going to open them for UEFA.

I said in an earlier post, but Etihad's sponsorship was undoubtedly higher than market value when we signed it, given our status at the time. That was 10 years ago, and things have now changed considerably. I'd imagine we could get a non-UAE sponsor(s) to cover the shirt for a similar amount. It might be in everyone's interests, reputationally, for us to part ways. Not sure about changing the stadium sponsorship at this point, because the name is quite engrained now, so it might be hard to attract a different sponsor for that,
 

Horace Pinker

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 20, 2019
Messages
17
Supports
Manchester City
I don't think we will face any sanctions from uefa tbh. It defeats the whole purpose of FFP. Some people think it was set up to protect clubs (Bolton says hi) most of my fellow City fans think it was set up to do us and psg over. It's main purpose was and always will be to make sure no more clubs can ever join the party. The biggest fear of the old guard is not 2 clubs competing with them... it's 10. no ffp =

Eveton.
Real Betis
Leeds
Fortuna Dusseldorf
Aston Villa
Newcastle
Bilboa
sampdoria
1860
Hertha
Fenebache
Lazio
Genoa
Sunderland

and probably 20 others and none of the old guard or City or psg fo that matter want them getting super rich owners and competing for leagues and CL's.

City know this so will threaten uefa (like they did in the statement). Uefa and the old elite won't risk bring down ffp and City and psg know we closed the drawbridge behind us. The only hope for the cartel clubs would have been a euro league but premier league clubs don't need it and it's worthless without us. So some compromise or more likely CAS throwing it out (think those leaks were accidental?) seems the most likely imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
439
The only hope for the cartel clubs would have been a euro league but premier league clubs don't need it and it's worthless without us. So some compromise or more likely CAS throwing it out (think those leaks were accidental?) seems the most likely imo.
I'm not ashamed to say that FFP was a stitch up by the Cartel. I don't think it was to stop investment in clubs though. It was more to stop the corrupt states like Abu Dhabi & Qatar becoming embroiled in the game.

The Euro league plans are a problem for City & PSG as the big clubs will use this as leverage to have action taken against you. If sanctions are not imposed on City & PSG then the big clubs will threaten to break away. A Euro League is more valuable without both City & PSG. Whichever way it goes it doesn't end well for you.

If you are not sanctioned then you will be able to carry on as you are. All this will leave you though is a bigger share in a declining market as all the major players will have deserted. If you are sanctioned then the days of big spending are over as you will only be able to spend independently generated revenue. This would likely leave you to fall outside the top 6 at least.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
I'm not ashamed to say that FFP was a stitch up by the Cartel. I don't think it was to stop investment in clubs though. It was more to stop the corrupt states like Abu Dhabi & Qatar becoming embroiled in the game.

The Euro league plans are a problem for City & PSG as the big clubs will use this as leverage to have action taken against you. If sanctions are not imposed on City & PSG then the big clubs will threaten to break away. A Euro League is more valuable without both City & PSG. Whichever way it goes it doesn't end well for you.

If you are not sanctioned then you will be able to carry on as you are. All this will leave you though is a bigger share in a declining market as all the major players will have deserted. If you are sanctioned then the days of big spending are over as you will only be able to spend independently generated revenue. This would likely leave you to fall outside the top 6 at least.
That's completely untrue. Any "Euro League" would undoubtedly involve both City and PSG, as all leaked plans of such a proposal have documented.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,033
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Ken Early knocking it out of the park once again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/so...bought-and-they-re-paying-the-price-1.3897613

The key line is this though:

You shudder to imagine what might happen if Saudi Arabia ever does buy Manchester United, and that enormous worldwide fanbase becomes weaponised along similar lines.
He trips over himself trying to set City and Chelsea apart.

Does he really think fans of non-top 6 clubs see Manchester United and Manchester City as different case studies in terms of how they've managed to maintain their dominance over the years? Does he or anyone else think money wasn't a major factor? It's something that's baffled me ever since I started following the sport.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
12,478
He trips over himself trying to set City and Chelsea apart.

Does he really think fans of non-top 6 clubs see Manchester United and Manchester City as different case studies in terms of how they've managed to maintain their dominance over the years? Does he or anyone else think money wasn't a major factor? It's something that's baffled me ever since I started following the sport.
Most sane people recognise the difference between United money and city money. They also recognise that while United clearly were lucky to be the top team at the emergence of sky that the single greatest factor in sustained success was Alex Ferguson. Like it or not, after Ferguson United suffered a natural decline despite spending way more. They left the door open for several well managed and non cheating clubs to take their place. We haven't been remotely competitive for 6 years in the league. You're living in absolute dreamland trying to say Uniteds success in origin and longevity is the same as city pumping more than a billion at every decent player and manager going until it clicked. United are a wealthy club and have an advantage as a result. But they are nothing like City.

You're taking a single factor 'money' and framing it as an all encompassing question. 'does he or anyone else think money wasn't a major factor'. Eh, no. Nobody thinks it wasn't. But that's still a separate issue to city and their cheating and spending
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,033
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Most sane people recognise the difference between United money and city money. They also recognise that while United clearly were lucky to be the top team at the emergence of sky that the single greatest factor in sustained success was Alex Ferguson. Like it or not, after Ferguson United suffered a natural decline despite spending way more. They left the door open for several well managed and non cheating clubs to take their place. We haven't been remotely competitive for 6 years in the league. You're living in absolute dreamland trying to say Uniteds success in origin and longevity is the same as city pumping more than a billion at every decent player and manager going until it clicked. United are a wealthy club and have an advantage as a result. But they are nothing like City.

You're taking a single factor 'money' and framing it as an all encompassing question. 'does he or anyone else think money wasn't a major factor'. Eh, no. Nobody thinks it wasn't. But that's still a separate issue to city and their cheating and spending
There is a strong correlation between money spent and where you finish in the table. SAF was amazing for us, and we've struggled to stay on top since due to incompetent leadership. But I reiterate, the number 1 factor is money.

My original post is related to the article I quoted, where he's saying City's success was a given due to their spending. Um, when has that not been the case?
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Manchester City and PSG should be thrown out of Europe, says La Liga president
"There are clubs who could not care less what their real incomes are when they want to sign a player because they receive incomes from a state,” said Javier Tebas, citing City and PSG by name. “It forces other clubs into an economic situation which is really living on the edge. It skews the balance of the entire European football structure."
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-city-psg-kicked-out-europe-la-liga-president
 

TMDaines

Fun sponge.
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
13,906
He trips over himself trying to set City and Chelsea apart.

Does he really think fans of non-top 6 clubs see Manchester United and Manchester City as different case studies in terms of how they've managed to maintain their dominance over the years? Does he or anyone else think money wasn't a major factor? It's something that's baffled me ever since I started following the sport.
I don’t know anyone, non-partisan, who fails to distinguish between clubs who acquired their wealth through good management and decision making, i.e. United, now Spurs, and those who are being financially doped. Most can even differentiate between those who are sugar daddied by a wealthy individual who treats them as a personal project, and those who are bankrolled to help achieve the legitimisation of a dictatorship.