They were 2 seperate items that totaled approximately £400m.

The acadamy could be descibed as part of a sponsorship deal because it's on the flightpath to Manchester Airport and the word 'Etihad' is painted in massive letters on the roof (same as the stadium) so half the passengers on an incoming flight see it when they're coming into land, even at night when it's all lit up.

The media make out City were given a cheque for £400m which is total bollox. There would have been stage payments for the acadamy over a number of years and annual payments for the shirt and naming rights deal.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 16 minutes ago
Funny how in this case you accept that the "PL and UEFA, neither of which objected at the time"

but over on the other thread you aint accepting the same position on United's covid losses and decision by the PL....calling it

"Corruption at it’s most blatant"

Blinkered Boris at it again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every other club was allowed to write off about £1m for Covid, United were allowed to write off £40m.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 12 hours ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 16 minutes ago
Funny how in this case you accept that the "PL and UEFA, neither of which objected at the time"

but over on the other thread you aint accepting the same position on United's covid losses and decision by the PL....calling it

"Corruption at it’s most blatant"

Blinkered Boris at it again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every other club was allowed to write off about £1m for Covid, United were allowed to write off £40m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That is utter rubbish! Totally made up figure. There was no limited put on losses. Losses had to be proved to be actual.

Wvertons reliance on covid was spurious in some cases, arguing things like covid devalued the market so players were sold for less. They cited Richarlison as being worth 80m and sold for 60m. It was rejected.

Detailed analysis of their case here:

https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/sticky-toffees-why-everton-were-docked-10-points/

Detailed analysis of utds covid situation here:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5687061/2024/08/08/manchester-uniteds-40m-controversial-covid-loss-explained/

The club was also permitted to make a £40m Covid claim, which first came to light last year. The Red Devils' huge claim was reportedly double all the other 19 Premier League clubs combined.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13845947/Manchester-United-Premier-League-113-3m.html

Course we did Boris, anyone that thinks any PL club is not corruptly bending any rule they can find is incredibly naive

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
The club was also permitted to make a £40m Covid claim, which first came to light last year. The Red Devils' huge claim was reportedly double all the other 19 Premier League clubs combined.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-13845947/Manchester-United-Premier-League-113-3m.html


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's recap:

United losses were 50 times other clubs.

Correction 40 times

Correction clubs were allowed £1m losses

Correction Utds 40m covid losses are "reportedly" (The Daily Fail ) all other PL teams.

Which of these statements are you now going with because it's hard to keep track

Why the fek is this even on an article about City’s APT case anyway?

Are you disputing the fact that United claimed more than the other 19 clubs combined and it was £40m on the grounds that it was in the Daily Mail?

It’s hilarious that you’ve managed to hijack an article more successfully than a Liverpool fan and you’re defending United with more vigour than SE85

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 minutes ago
Why the fek is this even on an article about City’s APT case anyway?

Are you disputing the fact that United claimed more than the other 19 clubs combined and it was £40m on the grounds that it was in the Daily Mail?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am contesting it, yes!.

Do you have anything more than a Daily Mail piece that states uniteds losses were "reportedly" as much as the other 19. No facts, no evidence, no quotes, just the daily mail saying "reportedly" and you treat that as gospel

Are you that weak minded that you believe what the Mail tells you? Do you believe all the Daily Mail headlines?

Use some feckin discretion or act like a mug who laps up the Daily Mail garbage. Your choice!

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 13 minutes ago
It’s hilarious that you’ve managed to hijack an article more successfully than a Liverpool fan and you’re defending United with more vigour than SE85
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its a public football forum. Cry more