Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

Ask him where the £20m from the women's team came from.

That’s all you have to say about his tweets?

rob316

gstack166 wrote: »

That’s all you have to say about his tweets?

How is it even possible that city commercial revenue is only 40m less than United's?

That figure rings massive alarm bells. We are supposed to believe man city's brand value is only 15% less than United's?

It just doesn't add up.

gstack166

rob316 wrote: »

How is it even possible that city commercial revenue is only 40m less than United's?

That figure rings massive alarm bells. We are supposed to believe man city's brand value is only 15% less than United's?

It just doesn't add up.

I’m not a financial expert I’m afraid & im not saying that they are, or that they’re innocent of cooking the books, I don’t know! Nor does anyone on this thread?

Not saying this is happening but can the suggestion that the Glazers are cooking the books to skim more money off United be ruled out? They have form.

The only reason they’re involved in that club is to take out as much as they can, they’ve no interest nor the money to invest in it.

rob316

gstack166 wrote: »

I’m not a financial expert I’m afraid & im not saying that they are, or that they’re innocent of cooking the books, I don’t know! Nor does anyone on this thread?

Not saying this is happening but can the suggestion that the Glazers are cooking the books to skim more money off United be ruled out? They have form.

The only reason they’re involved in that club is to take out as much as they can, they’ve no interest nor the money to invest in it.

Take United out of it, it's 100m more than Chelsea, arsenal and Liverpool.

gstack166

rob316 wrote: »

Take United out of it, it's 100m more than Chelsea, arsenal and Liverpool.

Liverpool haven’t won a title a league in 30 years. There kit sponsor kit & main sponsorship doesn’t touch City. Arsenal have the same sponsorship effectively as City with the main money coming from UAE. Chelsea’s deal would definitely be comprimised because of a Russian owner too.

Again, I don’t know the ins-and-outs of their money & neither does anyone here. I feel like I need to stress in every message I’m NOT saying they are innocent but I am saying they’re definitely not as cooked as they are made out.

Interesting Liverpool are at the forefront of wanting the Premier League to investigate Coty according to the papers. American owners once again who have no interest in pumping money in, the just want to take out as much as they can. They’ve invested heavily now & it mightn’t be enough to get them over the line to win titles so they know they’ll have to spend big again to surpass city & don’t want to do it.

Let’s just wait and see the outcome then all we become clear, but like I’ve said before, if proved innocent they’re still be people not happy. The club won’t be able win this no matter they do.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

I feel like I need to stress in every message I’m NOT saying they are innocent but I am saying they’re definitely not as cooked as they are made out.

So you do think that they have been fiddling the books then?

gstack166

ozzy jr wrote: »

So you do think that they have been fiddling the books then?

Take out of it what you want. I don’t give a **** what you do, look back on my posts I’ve said time again I don’t know. Ignore the other questions ask to you too by me, waste of time on this prick of s thread Cos all you want to see is City are guilty posts.

So City aren't far off Utds revenue? Sounds legit

IncognitoMan

People can sit there and say it's fans jealous but the truth is the club isn't important, it could have anyone, it could be Newcastle, it could be SPAL. The problem remains the same, if you let a club run around financially doping their accounts and paying way over the odds for players there is a knock on effect and it's one that will destroy clubs.

Every club in Europe feels it. Look at the Neymar transfer, look what that did to the fees of just two decent players in Philippe Coutinho and Ousmane Dembele. It's insane. City paying 50m+ for a defender every 6 months, guess what happens to the going price of any decent or even potentially decent defender?

The people who will end up paying for it is the fans and they are already being squeezed tight enough. You can't have one or two clubs operating outside the rules everyone else works within. It completely destabilizes the market.

I actually think no one person or family should be able to own a football club. They should be self run with a board for the communities and wider they represent. None profit.

Not run as a way of improving your image with the western world.

Not because you are bored and want a toy.

Not because you see a business opportunity.

These clubs are worth much more than that and need protection.

That includes the likes of City and PSG who are one decision to pull funding away from disappearing into the abyss (there's no way either club are self sufficient). It includes leaches like the Glazers as well.

After that we can get started on football agents.

But for now I'll settle with Man City receiving the punishments they have earned. Then look into PSG.

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

Again, I don’t know the ins-and-outs of their money & neither does anyone here.

If you believe this

gstack166 wrote: »

they’re definitely not as cooked as they are made out.
.

Then you can't say this.

.G.

Nobody can know for sure if they've cooked the books apparently. Meanwhile here's one tiny example of a City email in which they lay out the money from sponsor Etihad and where exactly the money is coming from, £8m from the sponsor, the rest from ADUG.

Yep, defo the case that nobody can know if they're cooking the books. Defo.

theoneeyedman

If City are cooking their books as described, is there a possibility the Inland Revenue would look into it.

For instance, if they have under declared player salaries, would HMRC not be out of pocket? Wasn't it something like this that caught Rangers out a number of years ago?

kippy

RoboKlopp wrote: »

So City aren't far off Utds revenue? Sounds legit

Oh it's legit alright.
The bit that's not legit is where from and how they are getting that revenue, which is the more difficult part to prove.

Agent Coulson

The Tax man always gets his man

Unless everything is filtered through a multinational letter box Tax haven like Ireland.

rwbug

There is no evidence anywhere of under declared player salaries - even from the leaked documents. The closest to it was Mancini receiving an additional wage from Abu Dhabi.

The Etihad deal posted above is perfectly fine - it has been assessed as fair value so the source of funding is irrelevent and perfectly fine by uefas rules.

The problem will be with Aabar & Etisalat deals - they look like they could be related party deals even though they are not declared as such and they have paid inflated deals.

Agent Coulson

What happens if FIFA fined nothing, UEFA find something, The FA find something and The Premier League find nothing.


There neighbors Qatar nearly own FIFA and have there own issues with the UAE could they influence the investigation to shift attention away from there own corruption in football.

kippy

rwbug wrote: »

There is no evidence anywhere of under declared player salaries - even from the leaked documents. The closest to it was Mancini receiving an additional wage from Abu Dhabi.

The Etihad deal posted above is perfectly fine - it has been assessed as fair value so the source of funding is irrelevent and perfectly fine by uefas rules.

The problem will be with Aabar & Etisalat deals - they look like they could be related party deals even though they are not declared as such and they have paid inflated deals.

I'd like to know on what basis the Etihad deal was deemed to be fair value and what impartial party made that call.
Its still, as far as I know, the biggest deal of its kind in any sport paid over 10 years.
This was back in 2011.
There is no other sponsor that would pay this kind of money or even close to it to a club such as City particularly back in 2011.

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

Liverpool haven’t won a title a league in 30 years. There kit sponsor kit & main sponsorship doesn’t touch City. Arsenal have the same sponsorship effectively as City with the main money coming from UAE. Chelsea’s deal would definitely be comprimised because of a Russian owner too.

Again, I don’t know the ins-and-outs of their money & neither does anyone here. I feel like I need to stress in every message I’m NOT saying they are innocent but I am saying they’re definitely not as cooked as they are made out.

Interesting Liverpool are at the forefront of wanting the Premier League to investigate Coty according to the papers. American owners once again who have no interest in pumping money in, the just want to take out as much as they can. They’ve invested heavily now & it mightn’t be enough to get them over the line to win titles so they know they’ll have to spend big again to surpass city & don’t want to do it.

Let’s just wait and see the outcome then all we become clear, but like I’ve said before, if proved innocent they’re still be people not happy. The club won’t be able win this no matter they do.

Man City kit deal with nike £12M per year
Livepool Kit deal with New Balance £45M per year

bucketybuck

gstack166 wrote: »

I feel like I need to stress in every message I’m NOT saying they are innocent but I am saying they’re definitely not as cooked as they are made out.

Seems like all you do want to stress in every message is "whatabout".

Whatabout the people investigating, whatabout Heysel, whatabout the Glazers, whatabout Liverpools owners.

Manchester City under investigation. What about them?

kippy

citytillidie wrote: »

Man City kit deal with nike £12M per year
Livepool Kit deal with New Balance £45M per year

Rightly so.
Totally justifiable figures.

rwbug

Agent Coulson wrote: »

What happens if FIFA fined nothing, UEFA find something, The FA find something and The Premier League find nothing.

They are investigating different things.

Fifa are investigating City for the same thing Chelsea got their 2 window transfer ban. Chelsea were found guilty on 29 of 92 investigations. City are being investigated for 9 possible infringments.

FA are investigating City paying money to Jadon Sancho's father.

Uefa - FFP

Trigger

citytillidie wrote: »

Man City kit deal with nike £12M per year
Livepool Kit deal with New Balance £45M per year

Man city kit deal with Puma just announced is £65m a year

citytillidie

astradave wrote: »

Man city kit deal with Puma just announced is £65m a year

Yep but that is not in these figures, that is from next season and for 6 teams so wonder how that will work out money wise

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

Man City kit deal with nike £12M per year
Livepool Kit deal with New Balance £45M per year

Man city kit deal with Puma is £65m a year. Please check your facts before posting.

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

Man city kit deal with Puma is £65m a year. Please check your facts before posting.

As above that is coming in from next season not on the current books and is for 6 teams not just Man City

TitianGerm

gstack166 wrote: »

Man city kit deal with Puma is £65m a year. Please check your facts before posting.

You might want to check your facts, the £65m is for the City group not Man City.

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

As above that is coming in from next season not on the current books and is for 6 teams not just Man City

You replied in jest that City’s sponsorship deal was less that Liverpool’s and in 2012 when the Nike deal was signed it was but don’t tell me the market rate for City now is £12m a year and Liverpool’s is more than double if you compare the success of the 2 clubs in the last decade.

kippy

gstack166 wrote: »

You replied in jest that City’s sponsorship deal was less that Liverpool’s and in 2012 when the Nike deal was signed it was but don’t tell me the market rate for City now is £12m a year and Liverpool’s is more than double if you compare the success of the 2 clubs in the last decade.

Liverpool's fanbase globally is still far greater than City's.

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

You replied in jest that City’s sponsorship deal was less that Liverpool’s and in 2012 when the Nike deal was signed it was but don’t tell me the market rate for City now is £12m a year and Liverpool’s is more than double if you compare the success of the 2 clubs in the last decade.

Where have I said that i am just pointing out what the current deal each team has for their kits.

gstack166

kippy wrote: »

Liverpool's fanbase globally is still far greater than City's.

Why haven’t Nike or Adidas pumped up the money then? Like they always do for Madrid, United, Barca? They look for exposure & winning teams that’s why New Balance make Liverpool’s kits.

rwbug

City will get the vast majority of that £65 million. NYCFC could have claimed a largish amount but they are tied in to the MLS deal with Adidas. Girona might get a million or two out of it, Melbourne, the second division Uruguyan club and the lower division Chinese team won't be able to claim much at all. City will easily be getting £60 million plus of that deal.

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

Why haven’t Nike or Adidas pumped up the money then? Like they always do for Madrid, United, Barca? They look for exposure & winning teams that’s why New Balance make Liverpool’s kits.

Because Liverpool signed the best deal for them, Nike and Adidas want control of all merchandise and take a cut, while also running all club shops. Liverpool struck a deal with Warrior then New Balance where they still run their club shops and sell their own merchandise but hey don't let facts get in the way

~Rebel~

eagle eye wrote: »

This is all such minor stuff on the grand scale of corruption in soccer. Something like this grabs the headlines but there is so much corruption going on that you'll never see anybody getting badly punished just in case they'd lift the lid.

I think this one grabs the attention too, because it just feels like things are so shady with it. Like, regardless of proof, I think most non-city fans, or bystanders, would look at the overall picture, and call shenanigans. So as a story, it's one with a great chance of drawing in anyone with any interest at all in the sport.

.G.

rwbug wrote: »

There is no evidence anywhere of under declared player salaries - even from the leaked documents. The closest to it was Mancini receiving an additional wage from Abu Dhabi.

The Etihad deal posted above is perfectly fine - it has been assessed as fair value so the source of funding is irrelevent and perfectly fine by uefas rules.

The problem will be with Aabar & Etisalat deals - they look like they could be related party deals even though they are not declared as such and they have paid inflated deals.

Uefa were told the money was coming from Etihad and it wasn't. Its a direct cash injection from the owners disguised as sponsorship which isn't allowed. The £8m is perfectly fine, the £69 odd million from ADUG via Etihad, Melbourne and New york isn't

Agent Coulson

gstack166 wrote: »

You replied in jest that City’s sponsorship deal was less that Liverpool’s and in 2012 when the Nike deal was signed it was but don’t tell me the market rate for City now is £12m a year and Liverpool’s is more than double if you compare the success of the 2 clubs in the last decade.

New Balance also had record breaking shirt sales last season and this season and actually ran out of Liverpool home shirts last month.


New Balance more than made there money back.

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

Because Liverpool signed the best deal for them, Nike and Adidas want control of all merchandise and take a cut, while also running all club shops. Liverpool struck a deal with Warrior then New Balance where they still run their club shops and sell their own merchandise but hey don't let facts get in the way

There’s always an excuse. City aren’t allowed earn more than Liverpool according to this thread. Ye need to grow up, the figures are published & in Europe we have an innocent till proven guilty policy so you just need to accept that Liverpool aren’t this global powerhouse that ye think ye are.

gstack166

superg wrote: »

Uefa were told the money was coming from Etihad and it wasn't. Its a direct cash injection from the owners disguised as sponsorship which isn't allowed. The £8m is perfectly fine, the £69 odd million from ADUG via Etihad, Melbourne and New york isn't

Bull****. They can’t investigate a deal again that they already investigated & deemed fine. It’s in the rules, look it up.

kippy

gstack166 wrote: »

There’s always an excuse. City aren’t allowed earn more than Liverpool according to this thread. Ye need to grow up, the figures are published & in Europe we have an innocent till proven guilty policy so you just need to accept that Liverpool aren’t this global powerhouse that ye think ye are.

Tbf they are.
City are allowed earn more than Liverpool but not if its outside of the rules that all clubs are supposed to abide by.

.G.

theoneeyedman wrote: »

If City are cooking their books as described, is there a possibility the Inland Revenue would look into it.

For instance, if they have under declared player salaries, would HMRC not be out of pocket? Wasn't it something like this that caught Rangers out a number of years ago?

I don't think they under declared wage value but they moved image rights to a different company so image rights weren't on City's books so City effectively pay the players less as the other company pays the image rights.

kippy

gstack166 wrote: »

Bull****. They can’t investigate a deal again that they already investigated & deemed fine. It’s in the rules, look it up.

They can investigate if they want and particularly if new facts come to light.

gstack166

kippy wrote: »

They can investigate if they want and particularly if new facts come to light.

Check it up. They can’t. They’ve cleared the deal.

Especially when this ‘new light’ is from a source that’s not credible.

.G.

gstack166 wrote: »

Bull****. They can’t investigate a deal again that they already investigated & deemed fine. It’s in the rules, look it up.

I've already told you this once Ali, that email is from 2016, not covered under the previous investigations. You'd know that if you actually read it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la won't help.

Now back to ignoring you.

.G.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

New Balance also had record breaking shirt sales last season and this season and actually ran out of Liverpool home shirts last month.


New Balance more than made there money back.

And our kit deal is up for renewal next year so lets see what that comes out at.

gstack166

superg wrote: »

I've already told you this once Ali, that email is from 2016, not covered under the previous investigations. You'd know that if you actually read it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la won't help.

Now back to ignoring you.

What are you talking about? That email from 2016 means nothing because the deal was cleared from UEFA in 2014, I wish you would ignore me Cos you’re talking bollocks.

kippy

gstack166 wrote: »

Check it up. They can’t. They’ve cleared the deal.

Especially when this ‘new light’ is from a source that’s not credible.

Look what up?

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

There’s always an excuse. City aren’t allowed earn more than Liverpool according to this thread. Ye need to grow up, the figures are published & in Europe we have an innocent till proven guilty policy so you just need to accept that Liverpool aren’t this global powerhouse that ye think ye are.

I am just pointing out facts and how the Liverpool kit deal works V other manufacturers

gstack166

kippy wrote: »

Look what up?

Check the Etihad deal they investigated in 2014. It’s untouchable now, they can’t re open a case they cleared them for. Won’t state this again.

~Rebel~

gstack166 wrote: »

Interesting Liverpool are at the forefront of wanting the Premier League to investigate Coty according to the papers. American owners once again who have no interest in pumping money in, the just want to take out as much as they can. They’ve invested heavily now & it mightn’t be enough to get them over the line to win titles so they know they’ll have to spend big again to surpass city & don’t want to do it.

It's funny how you try to paint Liverpool ownership in a negative light. Probably the most ideal version of ownership in the league. As you mention, they've no interest in pumping money in - and were firm in their initial statement when buying in, that FFP was a major part of swaying them to take over the club. Over time they've gradually increased Liverpool's revenue through natural means - improved sponsorship deals, increased brand awareness, increasingly shrewd work in the transfer market. They made mistakes, and learned from them, and moved ever upwards without needing to go 'pet-project'ing with it. They've run the club the way any club should be run - self sufficiently.

So it's no surprise that they're firmly against a club that is built upon everything FFP is supposed to be preventing.

Agent Coulson

gstack166 wrote: »

Check it up. They can’t. They’ve cleared the deal.

Especially when this ‘new light’ is from a source that’s not credible.

Care to give a link to They can't since you say they can't where are you getting your legal expertise?

Since they are being investigated by a number of governing bodies bases all over the world do you know the legal reason why in each Country they are based in that they can't or are you just guessing on something you saw on Law and Order.

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

Check the Etihad deal they investigated in 2014. It’s untouchable now, they can’t re open a case they cleared them for. Won’t state this again.

What if there is new evidence or even revelations that City provided false evidence they can re-investigate it again