Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Man City - the new bitters?


Naz17
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, No2 said:

It also goes 9th, 14th, 10th, based on the inability to count I'd be unlikely to trust anything else in that table.

Yeah, having a look though there's a few others around, the numbers are all similar. This is some from transfermarkt and I think they're normally about spot on. 

Screenshot_20200217-163634.jpg

 

Out of that list only 6 teams have spent less than us (when you see all of it) and city are miles away. As are county road FC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the defence runs...Etihad, a company the royal family own, were losing money because of commitments that they had made which overstretched them, such as the city naming rights etc, the royal family then pumped money in to Etihad to keep their books clean, ergo the City money was paid for by Etihad and therefore clean. 
 

It doesn’t take a logical leap to infer that the money came from the sheik, but, technically it didn’t as Etihad makes it one removed and it’s their liabilities that are the issue, not City’s. This has been the defence in a previous case so could work.

 

They might just get this overruled when it’s clear as fucking day they circumvented the rules. Cunts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

So, the defence runs...’Etihad, a company the royal family own, were losing money because of commitments that they had made which overstretched them, such as the city naming rights etc, the royal family then pumped money in to Etihad to keep their books clean, ergo the City money was paid for by Etihad and therefore clean. 
 

It doesn’t take a logical leap to infer that the money came from the sheik, but, technically it didn’t as Etihad makes it one removed and it’s their liabilities that are the issue, not City’s. This has been the defence in a previous case so could work.

 

They might just get this overruled when it’s clear as fucking day they circumvented the rules. Cunts.

Did they also say what the reason was for Etihad Airways losing money for every year of its existence bar one before they got involved with city? Probably not eh?

 

I see the cunts are trying to flood newspaper comment that we breached FFP a few years ago when we werent even qualifying for UEFA competitions and therefore, were not subject to FFP rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year, South African athlete Caster Semenya did exactly that after Cas found in favour of governing body the IAAF (now World Athletics) in its legal battle with her over rules requiring her to take testosterone-suppressing medication. The Swiss court temporarily suspended the ruling pending a more reasoned hearing.

These are truly extraordinary times in sports law. Alongside the City case, Cas is also being asked to decide whether to uphold the World Anti-Doping Agency's qualified ban of Russia before the Tokyo Olympics this summer.

 

 

 

So the company they keep is an inter-sex athlete (who was awarded a medal after some Russian dope had it taken off her) with an obvious competitive advantage and Russian dopes who have already served time for, ummm, doping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

That’s what the argument states, that Etihad, and their liabilities, were propped up by ADG, meaning Etihad made good on their promises because of the sheiks, not that the sheiks paid directly. A loophole, but loopholes are the bread and butter of litigation. 
 

Etihad, funded by ADG, paid the sponsorship, due to Etihad not having funds to, therefore they did not not fund, but relied on monies from an external source to fund (ADG) and met their obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

That’s what the argument states, that Etihad, and their liabilities, were propped up by ADG, meaning Etihad made good on their promises because of the sheiks, not that the sheiks paid directly. A loophole, but loopholes are the bread and butter of litigation. 
 

Etihad, funded by ADG, paid the sponsorship, due to Etihad not having funds to, therefore they did not not fund, but relied on monies from an external source to fund (ADG) and met their obligations.

This goes beyond that and is seemingly backed by evidence from 2010. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

That’s what the argument states, that Etihad, and their liabilities, were propped up by ADG, meaning Etihad made good on their promises because of the sheiks, not that the sheiks paid directly. A loophole, but loopholes are the bread and butter of litigation. 
 

Etihad, funded by ADG, paid the sponsorship, due to Etihad not having funds to, therefore they did not not fund, but relied on monies from an external source to fund (ADG) and met their obligations.

No man -- the internal emails are very specific about where the money for those rights came from, and also how they should be accounted for. From Etihad was like 9 mil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TheHowieLama said:

No man -- the internal emails are very specific about where the money for those rights came from, and also how they should be accounted for. From Etihad was like 9 mil


And their argument will be that yes, 9m came from Etihad, but the Ruling family gave a company they own money to meet the obligations it had towards another company.

 

They did not directly fund, they gave the money to Etihad to meet its commitments to City. Three different entities in essence where one borrows to pay the other.
 

Its bollocks, but a legal minefield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone would like to read the most embarrassing thread on the internet then have a look through some of the posts on here.

 

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/anti-uefa-demonstration-at-madrid-game.344661/

 

"injustice" "Klanfield" it goes on. They honestly think anyone looks at them other than the lottery winning shitebag no-marks that they actually are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


And their argument will be that yes, 9m came from Etihad, but the Ruling family gave a company they own money to meet the obligations it had towards another company.

 

They did not directly fund, they gave the money to Etihad to meet its commitments to City. Three different entities in essence where one borrows to pay the other.
 

Its bollocks, but a legal minefield.

 “While Etihad asserts that it funded the $640m [total] cost of the sponsorship of Manchester City ‘from its own liquidity,’ it provides no such evidence and fails to address the contrary evidence that the US airlines submitted on this point: an internal study that [the consultants] prepared for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, which states that the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi – not Etihad – covers the cost. As an internal document that was not intended for public release, [the consultants’] study is particularly probative of the funding’s true source.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

 “While Etihad asserts that it funded the $640m [total] cost of the sponsorship of Manchester City ‘from its own liquidity,’ it provides no such evidence and fails to address the contrary evidence that the US airlines submitted on this point: an internal study that [the consultants] prepared for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, which states that the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi – not Etihad – covers the cost. As an internal document that was not intended for public release, [the consultants’] study is particularly probative of the funding’s true source.”


I don’t think anyone’s in any doubt where the funds came from, but legally if they show that A gave B funds to pay C then B owes A and C gets paid from B, not A in official accounts and they have circumvented the rules.
 

If they can show this they’ll have an argument.

 

I am in no way saying this is fact, or that it will succeed, but legally if they can show/fabricate a money chain with the above it’s a way of saying fuck you UEFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruce Spanner said:

 

If they can show this they’ll have an argument.

 

If they can show that this is what happened at the time and it is shown as such on all of the parties books, then yea, they have an argument. And of course they still have other stuff to worry about.

 

They may need a bigger argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


I don’t think anyone’s in any doubt where the funds came from, but legally if they show that A gave B funds to pay C then B owes A and C gets paid from B, not A in official accounts and they have circumvented the rules.
 

If they can show this they’ll have an argument.

 

I am in no way saying this is fact, or that it will succeed, but legally if they can show/fabricate a money chain with the above it’s a way of saying fuck you UEFA.

This is new, separate evidence from 2010 about a different case that shows where the cash actually came from. It is in addition to the emails and shows that the money wasn't going through Etihad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:


I don’t think anyone’s in any doubt where the funds came from, but legally if they show that A gave B funds to pay C then B owes A and C gets paid from B, not A in official accounts and they have circumvented the rules.
 

If they can show this they’ll have an argument.

 

I am in no way saying this is fact, or that it will succeed, but legally if they can show/fabricate a money chain with the above it’s a way of saying fuck you UEFA.

What they need to show is that Ethiad provided the sponsorship money from their own liquidity. They can't, and what's more, there is evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

If anyone would like to read the most embarrassing thread on the internet then have a look through some of the posts on here.

 

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/anti-uefa-demonstration-at-madrid-game.344661/

 

"injustice" "Klanfield" it goes on. They honestly think anyone looks at them other than the lottery winning shitebag no-marks that they actually are. 


Fair play. They’ve collected nearly £5k for banners when they don’t even know what they’ll say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their reputation is in tatters as they have now been exposed for the cheats they are. They can try spin it all they like but those internal emails that were leaked are damaging and shows the extend of their deception. 

 

People need to remember that they have not been booted out for breaking FFP but have been booted out for submitting fraudulent financial documentation. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

This is new, separate evidence from 2010 about a different case that shows where the cash actually came from. It is in addition to the emails and shows that the money wasn't going through Etihad. 


Ah, things move quickly, excellent news.

 

Wonder what the new argument will be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...