comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 minutes ago
I’m not the one suggesting anything.
You are the one who is suggesting that City's deal doesn’t reflect fair market value, but you are using spurious comparisons to do so, and have now just admitted that you don’t actually know how City’s deal breaks down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows because totally legit City won’t release the figures
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our figures are stated in our annual accounts. You can get it in Company Hoiuse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Although the club have not been willing to provide the media with the precise breakdown of where the money will be spread, they will present the figures to Uefa if necessary.“
Go on then how much of the £20m pa was naming rights of stadium and how much shirt sponsorship?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£40m was for naming rights for the stadium, shirts and the training pitch.
For a fair comparison, how much did Liverpool earn for their shirt sponsorhip alone in 2011?
“ £40m was for naming rights for the stadium, shirts and the training pitch.”
What are the individual costs of naming rights, shirts and the training pitch?
Apparently it’s available at companies house.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 29 seconds ago
Mancini
Anything to back any of that up?
How much more did we spend than our rivals?
This is all moot anyway as FFP wasn’t in place then. You can’t cite rules from decades ago and expect to apply them to now. These are the rules now, stick to them, simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are sticking with the rules. Our record shows we have complied wth FFP since 2014 till date.Current case refers to the earlier infringement of 2014.
It's sad that your greedy owners want exclusive access to the trough. Hence, they seek to punish City for doing good while covering their greedy aris.
But what goes around comes around. If CAS uphold the verdict, we will take it on the chin and move on.
We will not be worse off. A couple of friendlies in the Middle East can make up for lost CL revenues.
“ We are sticking with the rules. Our record shows we have complied wth FFP since 2014 till date.Current case refers to the earlier infringement of 2014.”
Well obviously you weren’t
Haven’t read all of the thread but the Etihad deal was overinflated at the time, then subsequently under inflated. One thing to note is we at least used 160m of it to actually build a training ground from it, more than some others who sold naming rights for their training grounds have done...
Not sure why that’s a topic though as it was deemed market value at the time of the assessment.
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
Mancini
Anything to back any of that up?
How much more did we spend than our rivals?
This is all moot anyway as FFP wasn’t in place then. You can’t cite rules from decades ago and expect to apply them to now. These are the rules now, stick to them, simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google is your friend.
Your club blew everyone out of the water.
Your club broke the British transfer record many times while hovering up all the top talents across the land.
Liverpool were all paying the highest salaries at the time.
In fact, you started the model that's now translated to become the behemoth of today.
Or do you think your legends like John Barnes, Kenny Dalglish etc came through the famous Liverpool academy?
No matter what way you spin it £20m per season for shirt sponsorship and naming rights is well OTT compared to deals bigger clubs had at the time.
—————
In not spinning anything. You’re the one doing that!
£20m for shirt sponsorship ALONE was common place in 2011. Again, as you don’t actually know how much the shirt sponsorship deal was worth and how much the naming rights were worth, you’re misrepresenting the deal.
“The shiftiness is further compounded by the fact the sponsorship deal is between two companies owned by the same person”
—————————
Im sorry? Mansour owns Etihad Airways? Prove it. Simply saying that Sheikh Mansour is deputy PM and Etihad is government owned won’t cut it.
“ but can afford to spend £200m on sponsorship and £200m on developing a plot of land thousands of miles away in East Manchester.”
—————————————
The amount spent on the campus has nothing to do with losses. Nor does it have anything to do with FFP. That figure could be anything and it wouldn’t matter a jot. That figure has never come under any scrutiny.
In fact, the amount of the overall deal itself isn’t under scrutiny. What is under scrutiny is how that amount has been paid, whether it has been solely paid for by Etihad (which is allowed), or propped up by Sheikh Mansour (which isn’t allowed).
Now, considering what you earlier stated about Etihad and City both being owned by the same person (Mansour), then that surely begs an obvious question...
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
Mancini
Anything to back any of that up?
How much more did we spend than our rivals?
This is all moot anyway as FFP wasn’t in place then. You can’t cite rules from decades ago and expect to apply them to now. These are the rules now, stick to them, simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google is your friend.
Your club blew everyone out of the water.
Your club broke the British transfer record many times while hovering up all the top talents across the land.
Liverpool were all paying the highest salaries at the time.
In fact, you started the model that's now translated to become the behemoth of today.
Or do you think your legends like John Barnes, Kenny Dalglish etc came through the famous Liverpool academy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were the one that made the claim. Back it up.
The reason I’m also citing the price of naming rights at other clubs is to highlight what was perceived to be the market value at the time.
——————————
That’s fine. All I’m asking you to do is compare the naming rights cost at Arsenal (or Newcastle) to the naming rights cost at City.
You can’t do that, because you don’t know the value of the naming costs at City. Therefore you’re not making a true like for like comparison at all.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
No matter what way you spin it £20m per season for shirt sponsorship and naming rights is well OTT compared to deals bigger clubs had at the time.
—————
In not spinning anything. You’re the one doing that!
£20m for shirt sponsorship ALONE was common place in 2011. Again, as you don’t actually know how much the shirt sponsorship deal was worth and how much the naming rights were worth, you’re misrepresenting the deal.
“The shiftiness is further compounded by the fact the sponsorship deal is between two companies owned by the same person”
—————————
Im sorry? Mansour owns Etihad Airways? Prove it. Simply saying that Sheikh Mansour is deputy PM and Etihad is government owned won’t cut it.
“ but can afford to spend £200m on sponsorship and £200m on developing a plot of land thousands of miles away in East Manchester.”
—————————————
The amount spent on the campus has nothing to do with losses. Nor does it have anything to do with FFP. That figure could be anything and it wouldn’t matter a jot. That figure has never come under any scrutiny.
In fact, the amount of the overall deal itself isn’t under scrutiny. What is under scrutiny is how that amount has been paid, whether it has been solely paid for by Etihad (which is allowed), or propped up by Sheikh Mansour (which isn’t allowed).
Now, considering what you earlier stated about Etihad and City both being owned by the same person (Mansour), then that surely begs an obvious question...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say the Etihad campus was subject to FFP. You’re misinterpreting what I said.
Exactly and there’s evidence, via a consultant, that states the money came from the Abu Dhabi government and not through Etihad.
What question does it beg?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 seconds ago
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the market is willing to pay for it, then you can't complain. Just like London clubs charge more in gates taking compared to the rest of the country.
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 seconds ago
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the market is willing to pay for it, then you can't complain. Just like London clubs charge more in gates taking compared to the rest of the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What market, aside from the nepotistic one surrounding Abu Dhabi, the ruling family, deputy PM Mansour and government owned Etihad and City?
The actual football market at the time wasn’t willing to pay that. Hence why Spurs & Chelsea found the market wasn’t willing to pay £10-15m and Arsenal only got £2.8m for naming rights of their new stadium.
Before 2012 most football fans outside of the UK didnt even realise Manchester had a second team....yet that second team is able to secure the most lucrative sponsorship deal of its kind in the world at the time
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
That’s what you’re being punished for.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 54 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opposite rather as such payment would not be allowed.
Liverpool were just a club dining off their history between 2006 and 2014, they weren't serious contenders for anything yet they like to think they were up there with United, Arsenal and Chelsea during that period.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
Before 2012 most football fans outside of the UK didnt even realise Manchester had a second team....yet that second team is able to secure the most lucrative sponsorship deal of its kind in the world at the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, the likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal et al weren’t able to clinch such a deal but off the back of one FA cup win in 30 odd years City were able to.
Seems legit.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 10 seconds ago
Liverpool were just a club dining off their history between 2006 and 2014, they weren't serious contenders for anything yet they like to think they were up there with United, Arsenal and Chelsea during that period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of sponsorship yes we were/still are.
You do know they take other things into account as well when deciding how much sponsorship is worth?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
That’s what you’re being punished for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t, it’s that two other sponsorships were overinflated and that the money for the Etihad deal was subsidised from Mansours company. If it came from the government then that’s the latter one gone.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 seconds ago
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the market is willing to pay for it, then you can't complain. Just like London clubs charge more in gates taking compared to the rest of the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the market is it. It would be like me winning the lottery and sponsoring my kids U9s team to the tune of £10k, when most other deals would cover the cost of the kit and a few balls. Its what is known in the valuation world as a 'special purchaser' whose rationale falls outside of a prudent, willing buyer or seller.
But like you say, the sum of money is not the subject of the investigation, it's who is paying it (or whether its being fully received from the stated sponsor)
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
That’s what you’re being punished for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t, it’s that two other sponsorships were overinflated and that the money for the Etihad deal was subsidised from Mansours company. If it came from the government then that’s the latter one gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s really not;
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/17/manchester-city-sponsorship-covered-by-abu-dhabi-government-not-etihad
So the Abu Dhabi government are allowed to fund City through sponsorship of government owned companies?
Don’t think so.
We operate in a free market environment. If an investor thinks City is worth that amount in sponsorship, then they'll pay it.
-----
Not according to FFP mate.
There's more than 400 members of the UAE Royal Family in a population of 11m. There's bound to be some overlap in business interests but there is no evidence of mass collusion.
I should imagine that amongst the FTSE 100 companies in this country there will be connections to people on the fringes of our Royal Family.
Sign in if you want to comment
So the date is set at CAS
Page 8 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 20/5/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 9 minutes ago
I’m not the one suggesting anything.
You are the one who is suggesting that City's deal doesn’t reflect fair market value, but you are using spurious comparisons to do so, and have now just admitted that you don’t actually know how City’s deal breaks down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No one knows because totally legit City won’t release the figures
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our figures are stated in our annual accounts. You can get it in Company Hoiuse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“ Although the club have not been willing to provide the media with the precise breakdown of where the money will be spread, they will present the figures to Uefa if necessary.“
Go on then how much of the £20m pa was naming rights of stadium and how much shirt sponsorship?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
£40m was for naming rights for the stadium, shirts and the training pitch.
For a fair comparison, how much did Liverpool earn for their shirt sponsorhip alone in 2011?
posted on 20/5/20
“ £40m was for naming rights for the stadium, shirts and the training pitch.”
What are the individual costs of naming rights, shirts and the training pitch?
Apparently it’s available at companies house.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 29 seconds ago
Mancini
Anything to back any of that up?
How much more did we spend than our rivals?
This is all moot anyway as FFP wasn’t in place then. You can’t cite rules from decades ago and expect to apply them to now. These are the rules now, stick to them, simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are sticking with the rules. Our record shows we have complied wth FFP since 2014 till date.Current case refers to the earlier infringement of 2014.
It's sad that your greedy owners want exclusive access to the trough. Hence, they seek to punish City for doing good while covering their greedy aris.
But what goes around comes around. If CAS uphold the verdict, we will take it on the chin and move on.
We will not be worse off. A couple of friendlies in the Middle East can make up for lost CL revenues.
posted on 20/5/20
“ We are sticking with the rules. Our record shows we have complied wth FFP since 2014 till date.Current case refers to the earlier infringement of 2014.”
Well obviously you weren’t
posted on 20/5/20
Haven’t read all of the thread but the Etihad deal was overinflated at the time, then subsequently under inflated. One thing to note is we at least used 160m of it to actually build a training ground from it, more than some others who sold naming rights for their training grounds have done...
Not sure why that’s a topic though as it was deemed market value at the time of the assessment.
posted on 20/5/20
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
Mancini
Anything to back any of that up?
How much more did we spend than our rivals?
This is all moot anyway as FFP wasn’t in place then. You can’t cite rules from decades ago and expect to apply them to now. These are the rules now, stick to them, simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google is your friend.
Your club blew everyone out of the water.
Your club broke the British transfer record many times while hovering up all the top talents across the land.
Liverpool were all paying the highest salaries at the time.
In fact, you started the model that's now translated to become the behemoth of today.
Or do you think your legends like John Barnes, Kenny Dalglish etc came through the famous Liverpool academy?
posted on 20/5/20
No matter what way you spin it £20m per season for shirt sponsorship and naming rights is well OTT compared to deals bigger clubs had at the time.
—————
In not spinning anything. You’re the one doing that!
£20m for shirt sponsorship ALONE was common place in 2011. Again, as you don’t actually know how much the shirt sponsorship deal was worth and how much the naming rights were worth, you’re misrepresenting the deal.
“The shiftiness is further compounded by the fact the sponsorship deal is between two companies owned by the same person”
—————————
Im sorry? Mansour owns Etihad Airways? Prove it. Simply saying that Sheikh Mansour is deputy PM and Etihad is government owned won’t cut it.
“ but can afford to spend £200m on sponsorship and £200m on developing a plot of land thousands of miles away in East Manchester.”
—————————————
The amount spent on the campus has nothing to do with losses. Nor does it have anything to do with FFP. That figure could be anything and it wouldn’t matter a jot. That figure has never come under any scrutiny.
In fact, the amount of the overall deal itself isn’t under scrutiny. What is under scrutiny is how that amount has been paid, whether it has been solely paid for by Etihad (which is allowed), or propped up by Sheikh Mansour (which isn’t allowed).
Now, considering what you earlier stated about Etihad and City both being owned by the same person (Mansour), then that surely begs an obvious question...
posted on 20/5/20
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 5 minutes ago
Mancini
Anything to back any of that up?
How much more did we spend than our rivals?
This is all moot anyway as FFP wasn’t in place then. You can’t cite rules from decades ago and expect to apply them to now. These are the rules now, stick to them, simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Google is your friend.
Your club blew everyone out of the water.
Your club broke the British transfer record many times while hovering up all the top talents across the land.
Liverpool were all paying the highest salaries at the time.
In fact, you started the model that's now translated to become the behemoth of today.
Or do you think your legends like John Barnes, Kenny Dalglish etc came through the famous Liverpool academy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You were the one that made the claim. Back it up.
posted on 20/5/20
The reason I’m also citing the price of naming rights at other clubs is to highlight what was perceived to be the market value at the time.
——————————
That’s fine. All I’m asking you to do is compare the naming rights cost at Arsenal (or Newcastle) to the naming rights cost at City.
You can’t do that, because you don’t know the value of the naming costs at City. Therefore you’re not making a true like for like comparison at all.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
No matter what way you spin it £20m per season for shirt sponsorship and naming rights is well OTT compared to deals bigger clubs had at the time.
—————
In not spinning anything. You’re the one doing that!
£20m for shirt sponsorship ALONE was common place in 2011. Again, as you don’t actually know how much the shirt sponsorship deal was worth and how much the naming rights were worth, you’re misrepresenting the deal.
“The shiftiness is further compounded by the fact the sponsorship deal is between two companies owned by the same person”
—————————
Im sorry? Mansour owns Etihad Airways? Prove it. Simply saying that Sheikh Mansour is deputy PM and Etihad is government owned won’t cut it.
“ but can afford to spend £200m on sponsorship and £200m on developing a plot of land thousands of miles away in East Manchester.”
—————————————
The amount spent on the campus has nothing to do with losses. Nor does it have anything to do with FFP. That figure could be anything and it wouldn’t matter a jot. That figure has never come under any scrutiny.
In fact, the amount of the overall deal itself isn’t under scrutiny. What is under scrutiny is how that amount has been paid, whether it has been solely paid for by Etihad (which is allowed), or propped up by Sheikh Mansour (which isn’t allowed).
Now, considering what you earlier stated about Etihad and City both being owned by the same person (Mansour), then that surely begs an obvious question...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn’t say the Etihad campus was subject to FFP. You’re misinterpreting what I said.
Exactly and there’s evidence, via a consultant, that states the money came from the Abu Dhabi government and not through Etihad.
What question does it beg?
posted on 20/5/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 seconds ago
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the market is willing to pay for it, then you can't complain. Just like London clubs charge more in gates taking compared to the rest of the country.
posted on 20/5/20
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
posted on 20/5/20
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 21 seconds ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 seconds ago
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the market is willing to pay for it, then you can't complain. Just like London clubs charge more in gates taking compared to the rest of the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What market, aside from the nepotistic one surrounding Abu Dhabi, the ruling family, deputy PM Mansour and government owned Etihad and City?
The actual football market at the time wasn’t willing to pay that. Hence why Spurs & Chelsea found the market wasn’t willing to pay £10-15m and Arsenal only got £2.8m for naming rights of their new stadium.
posted on 20/5/20
Before 2012 most football fans outside of the UK didnt even realise Manchester had a second team....yet that second team is able to secure the most lucrative sponsorship deal of its kind in the world at the time
posted on 20/5/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
That’s what you’re being punished for.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 54 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opposite rather as such payment would not be allowed.
posted on 20/5/20
Liverpool were just a club dining off their history between 2006 and 2014, they weren't serious contenders for anything yet they like to think they were up there with United, Arsenal and Chelsea during that period.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
Before 2012 most football fans outside of the UK didnt even realise Manchester had a second team....yet that second team is able to secure the most lucrative sponsorship deal of its kind in the world at the time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, the likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal et al weren’t able to clinch such a deal but off the back of one FA cup win in 30 odd years City were able to.
Seems legit.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 10 seconds ago
Liverpool were just a club dining off their history between 2006 and 2014, they weren't serious contenders for anything yet they like to think they were up there with United, Arsenal and Chelsea during that period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of sponsorship yes we were/still are.
You do know they take other things into account as well when deciding how much sponsorship is worth?
posted on 20/5/20
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
That’s what you’re being punished for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t, it’s that two other sponsorships were overinflated and that the money for the Etihad deal was subsidised from Mansours company. If it came from the government then that’s the latter one gone.
posted on 20/5/20
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 seconds ago
All you need to know about the sponsorship of their stadium is that it was comfortably the most valuable sponsorship of its kind and all this was on a club who had won 1 trophy (FA Cup 2011) since winning the league cup 35 years earlier and at the time had not made a single appearance in the Champions League.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the market is willing to pay for it, then you can't complain. Just like London clubs charge more in gates taking compared to the rest of the country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not the market is it. It would be like me winning the lottery and sponsoring my kids U9s team to the tune of £10k, when most other deals would cover the cost of the kit and a few balls. Its what is known in the valuation world as a 'special purchaser' whose rationale falls outside of a prudent, willing buyer or seller.
But like you say, the sum of money is not the subject of the investigation, it's who is paying it (or whether its being fully received from the stated sponsor)
posted on 20/5/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 21 seconds ago
If there's evidence that money came from the government, then I imagine that will be the main part of our defence!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How so?
That’s what you’re being punished for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it isn’t, it’s that two other sponsorships were overinflated and that the money for the Etihad deal was subsidised from Mansours company. If it came from the government then that’s the latter one gone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s really not;
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/feb/17/manchester-city-sponsorship-covered-by-abu-dhabi-government-not-etihad
So the Abu Dhabi government are allowed to fund City through sponsorship of government owned companies?
Don’t think so.
posted on 20/5/20
We operate in a free market environment. If an investor thinks City is worth that amount in sponsorship, then they'll pay it.
-----
Not according to FFP mate.
posted on 20/5/20
There's more than 400 members of the UAE Royal Family in a population of 11m. There's bound to be some overlap in business interests but there is no evidence of mass collusion.
I should imagine that amongst the FTSE 100 companies in this country there will be connections to people on the fringes of our Royal Family.
Page 8 of 11
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11