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

When FSG provided a loan for the main stand or the AXA, did they do so with a small interest rate included? I think they did and if so it will save us from any shit heading in the direction of Arsenal, Everton and Brighton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott_M said:

Some serious propaganda at play from somebody…


City

 

IMG_2656.jpeg
 

Premiership

 

IMG_2657.jpeg

 

That last bit about how rules are necessary. It's laughable that something like that even needs to be said. The sheer audacity of the City owners is almost laughable too, almost.

 

It must be a rare thing for them lot to be in a situation of being challenged about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Megadrive Man said:

It makes me wonder if FSG told Klopp there would be little money to spend and no movement on the big three's new contracts this summer because they were waiting for the outcome on the City trials.

 

If it becomes a free for all, FSG's model simply doesn't work anymore. They must be contemplating selling up? 

 

I can't see that. The club was actively up for sale for the 12 months prior to klopp telling him he wanted out. If that was the driving factor, they'd surely have sold then? I think it's far more likely with the relationship with PIF through golf, they'll get into bed with them over football. 

 

11 minutes ago, No2 said:

When FSG provided a loan for the main stand or the AXA, did they do so with a small interest rate included? I think they did and if so it will save us from any shit heading in the direction of Arsenal, Everton and Brighton. 

If my memory serves me well, which it normally doesn't, I think the initial loans were at below market rates, but we're later converted to loans closer to normal market rates. But I think they were "pass through" type loans, so we weren't borrowing FSGs money, purely leveraging the rates the group could facilitate. So for instances if LFC alone could get 5%, but FSG have better credit rating so could get 4, it was borrowed at FSG level and passes through to LFC. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://x.com/WelsbyElton/status/1843291257172533686?t=pIwC6zw7K-D_W9LAlJuqCg&s=19

 

 

Elton Welsbys timeline all about supporting City and criticising the PL. basically the "Red cartel" trying to fix everything to stay at the top. 

 

Wait til he finds out that Usmanov can't funnel his dirty money jn anymore and that they've been taken over by the Friedkin group who operate similar to FSG.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

 

So it has not knock on impact at all on whether rules that were allegedly broken are still applicable? 

Supposedly not. Those rules didn't exist for the years they've been charged. I guess there would have been a chance had they won on all counts and the court could have said "there should be no cost control", and city perhaps could have used it as a basis to undermine all PSRs rules. But they haven't won in that regard. Quite the opposite..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barrington Womble said:

Supposedly not. Those rules didn't exist for the years they've been charged. I guess there would have been a chance had they won on all counts and the court could have said "there should be no cost control", and city perhaps could have used it as a basis to undermine all PSRs rules. But they haven't won in that regard. Quite the opposite..

 

Okay, good. Thanks for the info. I had read something a while back that suggested this was their 'way out' of the charges. Thankfully not. 

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...