Can't see the venerable PSG getting banned.
It's their 50th birthday this year, 40 years of which it was crippled with debt.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 29 minutes ago
UEFA accepted City’s claim that the sponsorship wasn’t inflated. Their issue is where the money has come from. Supposedly it’s not all coming from Etihad. There’s also the issue of the shell company set up to pay £24m in image rights to subsidise player and management wages. This is clearly not the same as what PSG were investigated for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my understanding too. I believe it has been reported that the leaked emails admitted that some of the sponsorship money was actually being paid directly by the owner. It isnt actually the value of the sponsorship that was a concern but that the funds weren't actually coming from the sponsor.
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 28 seconds ago
City are trying to push a narrative that whips up a persecution complex amongst its fans, when the truth of this decision, who made it, and how they came to make it, is somewhat different to the noise coming out of the etihad.
----------------------------------------
Is that unreasonable when you've been found guilty without hearing the evidence and have not been given chance to defend yourself?
The cases aren’t similar, as City haven’t been banned for inflating their sponsorship they’ve been banned for lying about where the money came from.
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 50 minutes ago
Wasn't there something similar with FSG and New Balance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but I think there was something similar with AIG and the Glaziers.
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The cases aren’t similar, as City haven’t been banned for inflating their sponsorship they’ve been banned for lying about where the money came from
---------------------------------------
...and you got this information from where?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The cases aren’t similar, as City haven’t been banned for inflating their sponsorship they’ve been banned for lying about where the money came from
---------------------------------------
...and you got this information from where?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the reports on it, such as this one from the BBC.
"The independent Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) said City had broken the rules by "overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to Uefa between 2012 and 2016", adding that the club "failed to cooperate in the investigation"."
Overstating the sponsorship revenue. So saying more money was coming in from sponsorships than actually was.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51510284
Have you been living under a rock, Boris?
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats funny, if you have nothing to hide you co-operate with the authorities that be regardless
I take it you don't work in a solicitors office.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats funny, if you have nothing to hide you co-operate with the authorities that be regardless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they wanted to cooperate but UEFA never asked for cooperation. They went with the information gained from a hack.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to know more than the City CFO.
"One of the emails, from City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, headed “Cashflow”, stated that Mansour’s own company vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), would be paying £57m as a “contribution to 13/14 sponsorship fee”, while only £8m was Etihad’s “direct contribution”. Then Chumillas sent invoices for Etihad, internally to the City executives Ferran Soriano and Simon Pearce, stating that for 2015-16, the Etihad sponsorship was £67.5m, of which “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG”."
From the Guardian.
It doesn't matter if the information came from a hacker who is now in jail. It does matter if it's genuine or not.
I think we will find out it is.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
I take it you don't work in a solicitors office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is that the solicitors that protect the bad men?
comment by Holland's big brother Europe (U1250)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats funny, if you have nothing to hide you co-operate with the authorities that be regardless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they wanted to cooperate but UEFA never asked for cooperation. They went with the information gained from a hack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but City did decline to cooperate.
'The Adjudicatory Chamber has also found that in breach of the regulations the Club failed to cooperate in the investigation of this case by the CFCB' .
Right OK. Topic is more about UEFA double standards and corruption
Yeah but the article is stupid because UEFA accepted City’s Etihad deal as being fair market value as well as PSG’s.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to know more than the City CFO.
"One of the emails, from City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, headed “Cashflow”, stated that Mansour’s own company vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), would be paying £57m as a “contribution to 13/14 sponsorship fee”, while only £8m was Etihad’s “direct contribution”. Then Chumillas sent invoices for Etihad, internally to the City executives Ferran Soriano and Simon Pearce, stating that for 2015-16, the Etihad sponsorship was £67.5m, of which “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG”."
------------------------------------------------
UEFA have been leaking parts of emails to the papers since last October yet they won't let City or the general public see whole, unedited emails or their replies.
But they weren't, so why punish one not the other. Bit of a stupid comment.
It’s been explained to you, ffs.
Sorry must have missed that
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to know more than the City CFO.
"One of the emails, from City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, headed “Cashflow”, stated that Mansour’s own company vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), would be paying £57m as a “contribution to 13/14 sponsorship fee”, while only £8m was Etihad’s “direct contribution”. Then Chumillas sent invoices for Etihad, internally to the City executives Ferran Soriano and Simon Pearce, stating that for 2015-16, the Etihad sponsorship was £67.5m, of which “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG”."
------------------------------------------------
UEFA have been leaking parts of emails to the papers since last October yet they won't let City or the general public see whole, unedited emails or their replies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering City officials wrote the emails, they probably know what they say.
Sign in if you want to comment
UEFA FFP: PSG vs City
Page 2 of 6
6
posted on 16/2/20
Can't see the venerable PSG getting banned.
It's their 50th birthday this year, 40 years of which it was crippled with debt.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 29 minutes ago
UEFA accepted City’s claim that the sponsorship wasn’t inflated. Their issue is where the money has come from. Supposedly it’s not all coming from Etihad. There’s also the issue of the shell company set up to pay £24m in image rights to subsidise player and management wages. This is clearly not the same as what PSG were investigated for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my understanding too. I believe it has been reported that the leaked emails admitted that some of the sponsorship money was actually being paid directly by the owner. It isnt actually the value of the sponsorship that was a concern but that the funds weren't actually coming from the sponsor.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by jlou1978 (U15376)
posted 28 seconds ago
City are trying to push a narrative that whips up a persecution complex amongst its fans, when the truth of this decision, who made it, and how they came to make it, is somewhat different to the noise coming out of the etihad.
----------------------------------------
Is that unreasonable when you've been found guilty without hearing the evidence and have not been given chance to defend yourself?
posted on 16/2/20
The cases aren’t similar, as City haven’t been banned for inflating their sponsorship they’ve been banned for lying about where the money came from.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 50 minutes ago
Wasn't there something similar with FSG and New Balance?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No but I think there was something similar with AIG and the Glaziers.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The cases aren’t similar, as City haven’t been banned for inflating their sponsorship they’ve been banned for lying about where the money came from
---------------------------------------
...and you got this information from where?
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Mason The King Greenwood (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The cases aren’t similar, as City haven’t been banned for inflating their sponsorship they’ve been banned for lying about where the money came from
---------------------------------------
...and you got this information from where?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From the reports on it, such as this one from the BBC.
"The independent Adjudicatory Chamber of the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) said City had broken the rules by "overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts and in the break-even information submitted to Uefa between 2012 and 2016", adding that the club "failed to cooperate in the investigation"."
Overstating the sponsorship revenue. So saying more money was coming in from sponsorships than actually was.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51510284
posted on 16/2/20
Have you been living under a rock, Boris?
posted on 16/2/20
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
posted on 16/2/20
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats funny, if you have nothing to hide you co-operate with the authorities that be regardless
posted on 16/2/20
I take it you don't work in a solicitors office.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats funny, if you have nothing to hide you co-operate with the authorities that be regardless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they wanted to cooperate but UEFA never asked for cooperation. They went with the information gained from a hack.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to know more than the City CFO.
"One of the emails, from City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, headed “Cashflow”, stated that Mansour’s own company vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), would be paying £57m as a “contribution to 13/14 sponsorship fee”, while only £8m was Etihad’s “direct contribution”. Then Chumillas sent invoices for Etihad, internally to the City executives Ferran Soriano and Simon Pearce, stating that for 2015-16, the Etihad sponsorship was £67.5m, of which “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG”."
From the Guardian.
posted on 16/2/20
It doesn't matter if the information came from a hacker who is now in jail. It does matter if it's genuine or not.
I think we will find out it is.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
I take it you don't work in a solicitors office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
is that the solicitors that protect the bad men?
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Holland's big brother Europe (U1250)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
City didn't cooperate because they weren't allowed to see the evidence.
That is the crux of the whole matter. If the evidence is so damning, why are UEFA refusing to reveal it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats funny, if you have nothing to hide you co-operate with the authorities that be regardless
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they wanted to cooperate but UEFA never asked for cooperation. They went with the information gained from a hack.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but City did decline to cooperate.
'The Adjudicatory Chamber has also found that in breach of the regulations the Club failed to cooperate in the investigation of this case by the CFCB' .
posted on 16/2/20
Right OK. Topic is more about UEFA double standards and corruption
posted on 16/2/20
Yeah but the article is stupid because UEFA accepted City’s Etihad deal as being fair market value as well as PSG’s.
posted on 16/2/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to know more than the City CFO.
"One of the emails, from City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, headed “Cashflow”, stated that Mansour’s own company vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), would be paying £57m as a “contribution to 13/14 sponsorship fee”, while only £8m was Etihad’s “direct contribution”. Then Chumillas sent invoices for Etihad, internally to the City executives Ferran Soriano and Simon Pearce, stating that for 2015-16, the Etihad sponsorship was £67.5m, of which “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG”."
------------------------------------------------
UEFA have been leaking parts of emails to the papers since last October yet they won't let City or the general public see whole, unedited emails or their replies.
posted on 16/2/20
But they weren't, so why punish one not the other. Bit of a stupid comment.
posted on 16/2/20
@mason
posted on 16/2/20
It’s been explained to you, ffs.
posted on 16/2/20
Sorry must have missed that
posted on 16/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
The sponsorship money did come from Etihad, where Etihad got the money from is no concern of UEFA's unless it was gained illegally which it wasn't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to know more than the City CFO.
"One of the emails, from City’s then chief financial officer, Jorge Chumillas, headed “Cashflow”, stated that Mansour’s own company vehicle, the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), would be paying £57m as a “contribution to 13/14 sponsorship fee”, while only £8m was Etihad’s “direct contribution”. Then Chumillas sent invoices for Etihad, internally to the City executives Ferran Soriano and Simon Pearce, stating that for 2015-16, the Etihad sponsorship was £67.5m, of which “£8m should be funded directly by Etihad and £59.5 [sic] by ADUG”."
------------------------------------------------
UEFA have been leaking parts of emails to the papers since last October yet they won't let City or the general public see whole, unedited emails or their replies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering City officials wrote the emails, they probably know what they say.
Page 2 of 6
6