Football club finances / FFP

[moomba]

116?

Good luck. Maybe Piers Morgan might succeed where others failed.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Good luck. Maybe Piers Morgan might succeed where others failed.

Was he paying for your sponsors too?

 

[moomba]

Was he paying for your sponsors too?

I'll wait for the next episode to find out.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

I'll wait for the next episode to find out.

Great track back in the day.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[moomba]

Oh, so it wasnt staggering new evidence that Piers Morgan put out the other day.

Oh well. Got a few excited, and that's got to be a good thing.

 

[moomba]

FWIW, what I'm finding interesting is who funded and created the video that Morgan used.

Youtube channel started up a few days ago, gets access to (more) leaked UEFA docs, and has their work picked up by Piers Morgan.

So someone wants to put out a story that paints the club in a bad light, they make it out like its a smoking gun despite being spoken about widely at CAS and subject of at least two newspaper articles over the past few years.

Would love to know who's behind it. And what their end game is. Is it just a PR campaign, or something more to it?

 

[Bradesmaen]

FWIW, what I'm finding interesting is who funded and created the video that Morgan used.

Youtube channel started up a few days ago, gets access to (more) leaked UEFA docs, and has their work picked up by Piers Morgan.

So someone wants to put out a story that paints the club in a bad light, they make it out like its a smoking gun despite being spoken about widely at CAS and subject of at least two newspaper articles over the past few years.

Would love to know who's behind it. And what their end game is. Is it just a PR campaign, or something more to it?

What about

 

[Zidane98]

FWIW, what I'm finding interesting is who funded and created the video that Morgan used.

Youtube channel started up a few days ago, gets access to (more) leaked UEFA docs, and has their work picked up by Piers Morgan.

So someone wants to put out a story that paints the club in a bad light, they make it out like its a smoking gun despite being spoken about widely at CAS and subject of at least two newspaper articles over the past few years.

Would love to know who's behind it. And what their end game is. Is it just a PR campaign, or something more to it?

Whataboutisms and conspiracy theories. Seems a common theme amongst City fans.

 

[moomba]

Oh god you two are boring.

Whatever the origins of the video has nothing to do with the charges. They'll be heard when they're heard and the video will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

As I understand the payments form part of the charges against us as they did during UEFAs case against us. Were they legal or not, time will tell. CAS thought they were legit, the league might think differently. I'm pretty sure the payments were made before the leagues FFP existed so I'm not sure how that works.

But the origins of the video interest me, as doesnt the regular revisiting of old news every few months that gets people worked up into a frenzy. If you think someone setting up a YouTube station, releasing a video with leaked UEFA documents and two days later having it discussed by Piers Morgan is just a happy coincidence then that's your prerogative.

I'd be much happier if you guys were capable of arguing that than once again turning it back into a criticism of me or City supporters. Wishful thinking I guess.

 

[moomba]

FWIW, this was the argument at CAS relating to the £30m.

I imagine we'll argue much the same this time around.

 

[Zidane98]

FWIW, this was the argument at CAS relating to the £30m.

I imagine we'll argue much the same this time around.

"No reason to doubt" except from the fact that he is an employee of a state owned Abu Dhabi enterprise run by Sheikh Mansours royal family.

How many other clubs have their owner pay its own sponsorship deals out of interest?

 

[moomba]

"No reason to doubt" except from the fact that he is an employee of a state owned Abu Dhabi enterprise run by Sheikh Mansours royal family.

How many other clubs have their owner pay its own sponsorship deals out of interest?

I'd imagine the league might need a little more evidence than "he's an employee of a state owned Abu Dhabi enterprise run by Shiekh Mansours Royal family" to counter the accounting evidence provided.

Some like to automatically presume that anything to do with Abu Dhabi must be dishonest, I think the league will still need to provide some evidence.

Will be interesting to see.

As for other clubs having an owner pay its own sponsorship deals - Stoke, Tottenham (in the past), Red Bull teams, Bayern Munich come to mind without putting much thought into it. If Mansour wanted to put a picture of his favourite car on our shirt and pay for the privilege, it would be totally within the laws of the game.

But our contention will be that the sponsorship was paid in full by Etisalat.

 

[jd2010]

I'd imagine the league might need a little more evidence than "he's an employee of a state owned Abu Dhabi enterprise run by Shiekh Mansours Royal family" to counter the accounting evidence provided.

Some like to automatically presume that anything to do with Abu Dhabi must be dishonest, I think the league will still need to provide some evidence.

Will be interesting to see.

As for other clubs having an owner pay its own sponsorship deals - Stoke, Tottenham (in the past), Red Bull teams, Bayern Munich come to mind without putting much thought into it. If Mansour wanted to put a picture of his favourite car on our shirt and pay for the privilege, it would be totally within the laws of the game.

But our contention will be that the sponsorship was paid in full by Etisalat.

Did Sugar own Holsten or Hewlett Packard?

 

[Zidane98]

I'd imagine the league might need a little more evidence than "he's an employee of a state owned Abu Dhabi enterprise run by Shiekh Mansours Royal family" to counter the accounting evidence provided.

Some like to automatically presume that anything to do with Abu Dhabi must be dishonest, I think the league will still need to provide some evidence.

Will be interesting to see.

As for other clubs having an owner pay its own sponsorship deals - Stoke, Tottenham (in the past), Red Bull teams, Bayern Munich come to mind without putting much thought into it. If Mansour wanted to put a picture of his favourite car on our shirt and pay for the privilege, it would be totally within the laws of the game.

But our contention will be that the sponsorship was paid in full by Etisalat.

Adidas owns just 8.3% of Bayern Munich. Man City fans consistently try and claim that Sheikh Mansour is just a private businessman and that all commercial revenue contracts with Abu Dhabi state owned enterprises are genuine transactions at market value and definitely not owner equity investment.


In your case you had a supposedly private businessman paying a sponsorship deal up front before the contract was even complete. That didn't happen with any of examples you quoted (Stoke, Bayern, Spurs).

What SM cannot do under PL FFP rules is present what is really owner equity investment as a genuine commercial transaction.

And the evidence that is exactly what City has been doing is pretty extensive - hence here we are with 100+ charges.

 

[moomba]

The wonderful thing about charges, is that they are charges, not evidence or proof.

And as much as we have already been found guilty in the court of zidane98 from Melbourne, we have also faced a number of charges from football authorities which were deemed to lacking any evidence to support them.

One such charge was that Etisalat was owner investment and not a legitimate sponsorship. CAS felt that there was no evidence to support that theory.

So you'll forgive me if I wait and see what tbis new tribunal says before self-flagellating over a breaking new smoking gun story that has been public knowledge for years.

 

[moomba]

Did Sugar own Holsten or Hewlett Packard?

I might be wrong on Spurs. I though Amstrad was a shirt sponsor, but had a look and doesn't seem so. They may have been a minor sponsor, but maybe not.

 

[Zidane98]

The wonderful thing about charges, is that they are charges, not evidence or proof.

And as much as we have already been found guilty in the court of zidane98 from Melbourne, we have also faced a number of charges from football authorities which were deemed to lacking any evidence to support them.

One such charge was that Etisalat was owner investment and not a legitimate sponsorship. CAS felt that there was no evidence to support that theory.

So you'll forgive me if I wait and see what tbis new tribunal says before self-flagellating over a breaking new smoking gun story that has been public knowledge for years.

That'll be just one small thing amongst a myriad of charges. Of course, when your club is up on 100+ charges investigated over 4 years something is clearly amiss.


Another thing to mention is you won't have a panel weighted heavily in your favor this time around like it was with CAS. That'll be significant.

 

[moomba]

That'll be just one small thing amongst a myriad of charges. Of course, when your club is up on 100+ charges investigated over 4 years something is clearly amiss.

And still a charge isn't proof or evidence of anything.

Another thing to mention is you won't have a panel weighted heavily in your favor this time around like it was with CAS. That'll be significant.

Ha ha, dont be silly.

 

[RPCB]

I just got chills thinking of a future where Moomba is constantly coming into bat for Manchester United if Qatar buys the club.

 

[moomba]

I just got chills thinking of a future where Moomba is coming into bat for Manchester United if Qatar buys the club.

I'll stick to the merits of any argument, it's the only way to be.

Wouldn't say that arguing we should wait and see if there is a guilty verdict against a club before deciding they're guilty is particularly going in to bat for anyone either.

 

[Zidane98]

I just got chills thinking of a future where Moomba is constantly coming into bat for Manchester United if Qatar buys the club.

He has no choice but to defend other sportswashers so the mental gymnastics will be interesting to say the least.

 

[RPCB]

I'll stick to the merits of any argument, it's the only way to be.

Wouldn't say that arguing we should wait and see if there is a guilty verdict against a club before deciding they're guilty is particularly going in to bat for anyone either.

True, it will take a while to reach such verdict. No need to stress about things out of anyone’s control.

 

[moomba]

He has no choice but to defend other sportswashers so the mental gymnastics will be interesting to say the least.

Whereas others are incapable of sticking to the merits of an argument so consistently play the man, and not the ball.

 

[moomba]

What I will say is that for the UEFA charges I was pretty confident that we would get off. I knew the rules in detail, I knew the merits of UEFA case, and I knew where it would fail.

For this one, I wouldn't make a call one or the other. I haven't looked at the Premier league rules in detail, and it's not clear what the charges are.

Some presume we are guilty, some will presume we're guilty even if we're found innocent of all charges. And that's fine.

But I'm happy to see what happens.