Zidane and Moomba's FFP chat.

Oct 5, 2009
53,178
42,438
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.
I know it's difficult for you to understand but Der Spiegel are not the source of the documents that embarrassed both City and PSG.

Football Leaks is the source. And it certainly reeks of desperation to try and pin the actions of one person who isn't even employed by Der Spiegel as representative of the entire organisation.

What happens if the investigation comes back as not all clear? All I hear is that in that case it will be taken to court, it's unfair blah blah blah blah.

I am happy to accept UEFA's decision on this one although some aren't prepared to by the looks of it.
i understand that football leaks is the source of the documents. which no one else has seen. and der spiegel have exclusivity to. why havent other news publications been able to see them to verify the accuracy? why take it at face value with no proof? what, newspaper publications never lie or embellish the story? all i want to see is proof that what der spiegel have written is accurate. i dont think that's unreasonable.

the reporter was an employee of der spiegel since 2017, and not long after other reporters expressed concerns about him and der spiegel covered it up/found nothing. they were happy to publish articles written by him since 2011. but questions shouldn't be asked of other departments? come off it.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
i understand that football leaks is the source of the documents. which no one else has seen. and der spiegel have exclusivity to. why havent other news publications been able to see them to verify the accuracy? why take it at face value with no proof? what, newspaper publications never lie or embellish the story? all i want to see is proof that what der spiegel have written is accurate. i dont think that's unreasonable.

the reporter was an employee of der spiegel since 2017, and not long after other reporters expressed concerns about him and der spiegel covered it up/found nothing. they were happy to publish articles written by him since 2011. but questions shouldn't be asked of other departments? come off it.

You'd have a point if the reporter was involved in making up the leaked documents.

Neither club are denying the documents though so for me there's no reason to doubt them. And it is quite a stretch to accuse football leaks over falsifying the whole thing.
 
Oct 5, 2009
53,178
42,438
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.
You'd have a point if the reporter was involved in making up the leaked documents.

Neither club are denying the documents though so for me there's no reason to doubt them. And it is quite a stretch to accuse football leaks over falsifying the whole thing.
if der spiegel is willing to cover up one reporter, its not far fetched that there could be others.

clubs would be mad to deny stuff like emails. and i didnt accuse football leaks of falsifying anything.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
if der spiegel is willing to cover up one reporter, its not far fetched that there could be others.

clubs would be mad to deny stuff like emails. and i didnt accuse football leaks of falsifying anything.

Two totally unrelated things because the story is from football leaks. And they weren't willing to cover them up, legal action was taken against them and they are no longer employed.

If you want to try and attack someone's credibility it has to be football leaks. Either argue why the documents are/could be false or don't argue at all.
 
Oct 5, 2009
53,178
42,438
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.
Two totally unrelated things because the story is from football leaks. And they weren't willing to cover them up, legal action was taken against them and they are no longer employed.

If you want to try and attack someone's credibility it has to be football leaks. Either argue why the documents are/could be false or don't argue at all.
it was reportedly ignored when two people from a town he had written about in 2016 contacted der spiegel about his lies, highlighting 11 of them.

i dont understand what the problem is with questioning the legitimacy of stuff we haven't seen. imagine just taking stuff put out by the sun or the daily mail on face value.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
it was reportedly ignored when two people from a town he had written about in 2016 contacted der spiegel about his lies, highlighting 11 of them.

i dont understand what the problem is with questioning the legitimacy of stuff we haven't seen. imagine just taking stuff put out by the sun or the daily mail on face value.

I didn't realise that the scum or daily mail reported on this. Once again this is football leaks that sourced the documents, not Der Spiegel. Unless you are prepared to argue that Football Leaks falsified the documents or Der Spiegel are lying about getting the documents from Football Leaks. Do you claim either of those two things happened?
 
I didn't realise that the scum or daily mail reported on this. Once again this is football leaks that sourced the documents, not Der Spiegel. Unless you are prepared to argue that Football Leaks falsified the documents or Der Spiegel are lying about getting the documents from Football Leaks. Do you claim either of those two things happened?

UEFA can't use Football Leaks as a source as they haven't seen the info, don't know where it came from or how it was acquired. They don't know if amendments or omissions we're made.

They can use Der Spiegel as a source but they will have to demonstrate that they are a reliable source that conducts due diligence and fact checking on the stories it published.

I doubt they'd risk either approach.

What they'll do instead is check the Der Spiegel info against the facts they already know. They'll use that to ask pointed questions if there are any discrepancies. And if there is a case to be made, that'll be what they use.

Personally I have my doubts there is a case to be made. But time will tell on that.
 
Oct 5, 2009
53,178
42,438
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.
I didn't realise that the scum or daily mail reported on this. Once again this is football leaks that sourced the documents, not Der Spiegel. Unless you are prepared to argue that Football Leaks falsified the documents or Der Spiegel are lying about getting the documents from Football Leaks. Do you claim either of those two things happened?
i dont know if you dont or won't understand my point, so i can't be bothered going round in circles anymore.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
UEFA can't use Football Leaks as a source as they haven't seen the info, don't know where it came from or how it was acquired. They don't know if amendments or omissions we're made.

They can use Der Spiegel as a source but they will have to demonstrate that they are a reliable source that conducts due diligence and fact checking on the stories it published.

I doubt they'd risk either approach.

What they'll do instead is check the Der Spiegel info against the facts they already know. They'll use that to ask pointed questions if there are any discrepancies. And if there is a case to be made, that'll be what they use.

Personally I have my doubts there is a case to be made. But time will tell on that.

It depends on the funding of sponsorship deals by owners of clubs being claimed as legitimate commercial income. To me the information released shows that to be the case. An invesrigation will delve further into this and wont just rely on a few news articles. If it turns out it is the case then serious penalties need to apply because the whole basis of FFP is clubs operating within their means. Whether you agree with it or not other clubs had to meet the same obligations and other clubs have been penalised.

You can't defend that sort of behaviour, it is unashamedly arrogant total disregard of FFP rules and if proven to be the case both City & PSG must be banned for next season if UEFA are to maintain any credibility.
 
It depends on the funding of sponsorship deals by owners of clubs being claimed as legitimate commercial income. To me the information released shows that to be the case. An invesrigation will delve further into this and wont just rely on a few news articles. If it turns out it is the case then serious penalties need to apply because the whole basis of FFP is clubs operating within their means. Whether you agree with it or not other clubs had to meet the same obligations and other clubs have been penalised.

We don't have enough information to tell if the funding of sponsorships was within the rules or not. We don't know who or what entities funded the sponsorships. We don't know what was declared to UEFA initially and we don't know what UEFA seen as a fair market value is. Without this knowledge we don't know if there is an issue or not.

You can't defend that sort of behaviour, it is unashamedly arrogant total disregard of FFP rules and if proven to be the case both City & PSG must be banned for next season if UEFA are to maintain any credibility.

I'll wait and see if we've done something wrong before I'll even think about defending "this sort of behaviour".

As I've said before I'd be happy if there is enough evidence to see us charged. I'd like to see all of the facts come out into the open. And if/when that happens we get a ban, so be it.
 

glenferry23

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 26, 2010
29,098
37,476
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Arsenal, New York Yankees

Zidane98 upon reading this news....

fH38AHyXgwGwTmvFRMIKP5lvd5s=.gif
 
Pretty much every response for comment from us has been met with the same reference to our original statement - club policy not to comment on alleged stolen or hacked emails etc etc.

I'd imagine that will be the case even if UEFA start an investigation.

They can ask specifics about contracts and things like that, but if the question is "are the emails real?" I suspect they'll get a "club policy is not to comment" type answer.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Pretty much every response for comment from us has been met with the same reference to our original statement - club policy not to comment on alleged stolen or hacked emails etc etc.

I'd imagine that will be the case even if UEFA start an investigation.

They can ask specifics about contracts and things like that, but if the question is "are the emails real?" I suspect they'll get a "club policy is not to comment" type answer.

How do you get time to post on here with your role as official FFP club spokesperson?
 

WealstoneRaider

Cancelled
10k Posts I reneged on a bet or agreement :(
Apr 8, 2015
17,469
9,803
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
https://app.football-italia.net/?referrer=https://www.football-italia.net/133514/psg-sponsors-can-poach-allan#article/footballitalia-133514

Article on how psg will be avoiding the ffp this window through sponsorship of other clubs through there owners

If that's true it really shows just how bad our game has become. Sponsorship deals are supposed to be genuine sponsorship deals - not funded by some rich a-hole in the ME who couldn't give two rats about 50m euros like it is $100 to you or I. Surely the UEFA CFCB won't allow the likes of PSG to launder their own money through other clubs as "sponsorship" with what they are already guilty of.
 
Unless the allegation is that Napoli will then sell on the cheap to PSG, any sponsorship deal won't affect FFP.

And if they did sell on the cheap, UEFA/FIFA are well within their rights to null the transfer.

All for an FFP benefit of less than £10m a year.

Sounds like bollocks to me.
 
Oct 5, 2009
53,178
42,438
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
West Adelaide Bloods, Man City.
adl always wants money up front, and lots of it. if he's been turning down 100 mil for koulibaly, and after getting 50 mil for jorginho, he'd want about 70 mil upfront for allan. a dodgy sponsorship to pay off a transfer fee over some years would mean nothing to him.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,366
36,501
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
adl always wants money up front, and lots of it. if he's been turning down 100 mil for koulibaly, and after getting 50 mil for jorginho, he'd want about 70 mil upfront for allan. a dodgy sponsorship to pay off a transfer fee over some years would mean nothing to him.

Yeah you are probably right. ADL wouldn't give a s**t about PSG's end of the deal, he just wants his big transfer fees in full and up front. No need for him to help them out selling their player at a dodgy lower value tied into a dodgy sponsorship deal.
 
Back