Quantcast
Man City - the new bitters? - Page 145 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Naz17

Man City - the new bitters?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.”

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Anubis said:


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

They could base it on the Ajax fans one against them but go with "For Modern Football" and just have the sheikh with big bag of money not crossed out. 

 

Ajax-fans-show-the-banner-008.jpg?width=

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive difference here from other clubs protesting. City have absolutely broken the rules, been caught out and punished. Who the fuck do they think they are. I hate Real Madrid but I hope they fucking bum these wank stains. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I’m reading this right, then either

1) the airline paid City through massive illegal subsidies from the govt, ie City are okay but the airline is in massive shit that will be jumped on by their US competitors 

or

2) the govt paid City and the airline are in the clear but City are in the shit with UEFA

 

Bit of a Catch 22. My money is on 2 - if they could prove the airline paid City then they would have done so during the UEFA investigation 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their CEO has briefed their players that he expects the charges to go away and that they should "trust me like I trust you". That may have sounded better in his head given that they're currently 25 points off the pace in the league.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2020 at 14:03, 3 Stacks said:

They wouldn't award someone else their titles, surely? A points deduction next season would make more sense, if it came to that. Start them on -10 points or something like that. Like they did to Chievo Verona in Serie A a few years back. 

Minus 102 points would be more appropriate. 

23 hours ago, Leyton388 said:

 

City have also been taking note of transfer deals between some leading clubs that would appear to have benefited both parties.

David Luiz between Chelsea & PSG probably on that list! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

"A few thousand ref whistles will drown out their jingle. And a few thousand Catalan flags will show that twat from Madrid that we do not accept non-democratic bodies - that includes UEFA and the Spanish fascists (I'm sure Pep would like it too ;-)"

 

Absolute fucking lunacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time I've looked at that forum -- I took all the jibes at it with a pinch of salt, as its the internet and I presumed that -- it being City -- half the lunacies being ascribed to them are probably just juvenile writings of 10-16 year olds. Funniest thing about that thread posted above is that many of the writers have join dates of the mid-late 00s -- which means they both arrived on the scene before the millions got quite so cranked up, and also are presumably in their 20s and upwards. Which really does make one step back and think just what the fuck do they put in the water over there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×