So the date is set at CAS

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Both parties have agreed to hold the hearing behind closed doors.

There must be a compromise in the offing.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator