or to join or start a new Discussion

270 Comments
Article Rating 3 Stars

So the date is set at CAS

June 8 - 10.
Lets go City.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 4 hours, 23 minutes ago
Thanks Melton. Understand why related party investment has to come under more scrutiny.

That brings me back to my earlier point made to Fields. If Etihad are a related party to Mansour, then why would Mansour (as the allegation makes) subsidise the Etihad deal through ADUG, and not through Etihad themselves?

That’s what I can’t quite understand about the allegation itself.

Boris, our deal with Etihad was blown out of the water 5 years or so ago with the shirt sponsorship deals (alone) that other clubs were signing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it makes no sense to say that, Etihad and Mansour are not related at all - if they were, this would actually all have been much easier and wouldn’t get anywhere near this as the transfer would have just been from Etihad to us.

What’s more likely to have happened, if there has been wrongdoing, is that Etihad asked Mansour to cover it through Adug due to wanting their own books to look better. At the time of the emails, that would have made sense as Etihad were, to be completely honest, pretending to be a profitable company. Since the green skies case though, they haven’t at all (they’ve made huge losses the last few years). Again, people need to remember all of the allegations are linked to reporting periods six or seven years ago, not recently.

I just hope we have more than just arguing the technicalities of it though, both in terms of already being punished for it already at the time and it also being past the duration they can investigate. As much as they are legitimate points to make, I personally would want to know that Etihad were solely liable, given that is what we and they have both stated.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

“I just hope we have more than just arguing the technicalities of it though, both in terms of already being punished for it already at the time and it also being past the duration they can investigate.”

I agree. If it goes against the club there is a conversation to be had, I hope we will be able to have it on here too without it becoming inane, but see what happens first I suppose.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by gratedbean (U4885)
posted 2 hours, 38 minutes ago
“I just hope we have more than just arguing the technicalities of it though, both in terms of already being punished for it already at the time and it also being past the duration they can investigate.”

I agree. If it goes against the club there is a conversation to be had, I hope we will be able to have it on here too without it becoming inane, but see what happens first I suppose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, I'm not sure on here will lead to a decent conversation about it if it does go that way!

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

I thought this was an interesting article.

Seems we had a good realtionship with Bayern Munich at one time, now they hate us with a vengence. Something must have happened to sour that relationship.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/football-documents-show-secret-plans-for-elite-league-of-top-clubs-a-1236447.html

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

Probably didn’t help when Boateng engineered his own move there

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
I do understand the conflict of interests.

But it makes no sense for Mansour to top up a deal through his company ADUG, who actually do own City. That is explicitly and rightfully not allowed. The club, the owners undoubtedly know this.

Especially when he could, if what you say is true, quite easily put the money directly into Etihad, who do not own City. And, as long as the deal represents fair market value (UEFA themselves don’t regard it to be “too excessive” ), that would be allowed. (Irrespective of how shady you or I would deem that to be).

The whole allegation, based on stolen emails obtained by a man who is currently in prison (facing a trial for numerous counts of hacking, sabotage, and fraud), raises so many questions in and of itself.


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

I am no expert on this cases whatsoever. My question is, if a second company, regardless of ownership, is topping up the sponsorship deal of a club then surely that is evidence that the Sponsorship is inflated and not fair MV. Etihad gets presence and exposure for their money. What does whoever tops up the deal get for their money and if its nothing then the deal is inflated because its subsidised, and anything that is subsidised isnf fair MV.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

The Etihad deal was deemed fair market value, wasn’t it?

If Etihad’s bad management led to them being unable to pay the sponsorship, and thus needed outside investment to pay it, that’s a different matter - and one which is being looked at.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

In a less high profile sport than Premier League football then Eithad may have withdrawn their sponsorship, but if a comapny has access to credit then it can use it where it feels appropriate.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 day, 2 hours ago
I do understand the conflict of interests.

But it makes no sense for Mansour to top up a deal through his company ADUG, who actually do own City. That is explicitly and rightfully not allowed. The club, the owners undoubtedly know this.

Especially when he could, if what you say is true, quite easily put the money directly into Etihad, who do not own City. And, as long as the deal represents fair market value (UEFA themselves don’t regard it to be “too excessive” ), that would be allowed. (Irrespective of how shady you or I would deem that to be).

The whole allegation, based on stolen emails obtained by a man who is currently in prison (facing a trial for numerous counts of hacking, sabotage, and fraud), raises so many questions in and of itself.


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

I am no expert on this cases whatsoever. My question is, if a second company, regardless of ownership, is topping up the sponsorship deal of a club then surely that is evidence that the Sponsorship is inflated and not fair MV. Etihad gets presence and exposure for their money. What does whoever tops up the deal get for their money and if its nothing then the deal is inflated because its subsidised, and anything that is subsidised isnf fair MV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It all depends on who the company is though. If, say, Cadbury’s decide to sponsor a football team and then one season they say the money itself will come from a different company, why would the football team care?

In terms of market value, it doesn’t say anything about that at all. All it says is whether that company was able to pay what they committed to.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

I should have read on, what Darren said already would have done!

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
1 Vote
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
1 Vote

Average Rating: 3 from 2 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article Ranking82/500
Article Views1090
Average Time(mins)1.83
Total Time(mins)1875.28
Do Not Sell My Personal Information