Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

City don't have a case to answer here. In 2013/14 They accepted their dodgy fine (took a pinch to keep elite cartel happy) and everyone included UEFA moved on. City are now a self sufficient company, making decent profits from now undervalued sponsorships.

Listen to the football financial advisors on SSN they’ve been echoing this for a year now that their Nike deal especially is tremendously undervalued as is their recently signed Puma deal which includes sister club Girona FC

£1.3 billion of oil money directly injected into the club. Is that on the books? The fact they only got a slap on the wrist shows FFP is corrupt. Last night's leak says they were even allowed to pick their own punishment :eek: Extremely dodgy.

The case to answer was in the early 2010's but UEFA had no interest in actually applying FFP to any decent standard. It should have been expulsion from the CL as soon as they broke the rules.

Michel Platini went from completely backing FFP to saying it should be relaxed in the space of a couple of years. A man who recently said the 98 World Cup was "slightly fixed" and got an 8 year ban from football for a series of "breaches". There is something wrong about the way City and PSG got around FFP under him.

But that's it, both clubs have got away with it now.

gstack166

IncognitoMan wrote: »

£1.3 billion of oil money directly injected into the club. Is that on the books? The fact they only got a slap on the wrist shows FFP is corrupt. Last night's leak says they were even allowed to pick their own punishment :eek: Extremely dodgy.

The case to answer was in the early 2010's but UEFA had no interest in actually applying FFP to any decent standard. It should have been expulsion from the CL as soon as they broke the rules.

Michel Platini went from completely backing FFP to saying it should be relaxed in the space of a couple of years. A man who recently said the 98 World Cup was "slightly fixed" and got an 8 year ban from football for a series of "breaches". There is something wrong about the way City and PSG got around FFP under him.

But that's it, both clubs have got away with it now.

Ask yourself why they had no interest in applying it to a decent standard? Because it’s iilegal. You cannot change rules to say an invester cannot invest in his business, can you see the logic behind why it wasn’t enforced?

They never ‘got away’ with it either, it’s common knowledge they both threatened them with court proceedings & UEFA backed down, knowing they would be crucified in a court of law for not allowing an owner to invest in their business.

I can’t understand what people are arguing about over this. (Not the FFP idea as a concept) but the way it was implemented to guarantee the cartel remained untouched.

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

Clubs could well end up regretting this if they push on. Broadcasting rights money is plateauing. It's all about branding and **** but that only brings in so much actual cash. Going from around 30 home matches per season to 15 and having to match the money from both the CL and domestic league will be tough I would have thought.

Locally it is but not internationally

Consider this

All the big clubs have big presences in Asia and the Americas, but it's still just the tip of the ice berg.

Right now if you have a Champions league game starting at 7.45pm in London (8.45 in Europe) on a Tuesday or Wednesday then the start time is as follows in Asia and the US.

Delhi - 1:15am
China - 3.45am
KL - 3.45am
New York - 2.45pm
LA - 11.45am

Now if you look at EPL or La Liga start times on a Saturday or Sunday then it's any time between
New Delhi - 5.30pm and 11pm (1.15am if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)
China and KL - 8pm and 1.30am (4am if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)
New York 7.30am and 12.30pm (3pm if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)
LA - 4.30am to 9.30am (12 noon if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)

So rather than have high profile teams playing each other in the middle of a weekday night/morning in a European Super League you could have them playing at reasonable times on the weekend.

Thus the audience can be bigger and thus grow further,

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

Ask yourself why they had no interest in applying it to a decent standard? Because it’s iilegal. You cannot change rules to say an invester cannot invest in his business, can you see the logic behind why it wasn’t enforced?

They never ‘got away’ with it either, it’s common knowledge they both threatened them with court proceedings & UEFA backed down, knowing they would be crucified in a court of law for not allowing an owner to invest in their business.

There's nothing illegal about UEFA not letting them into the Champions League.
It's their competition they can easily say clubs must have made a profit over the last couple of seasons to compete. That should have been the punishment, fines are a different matter.

Yes Man City got away with it and here's how :

2009 - Michel Platini: Very pro FFP.

2010 - Platini votes for Qatar 2022 (maybe bribed, maybe not)

2011 - Qatar state buys PSG, Platini son - CEO of Burrda Sport a sportswear brand with ties to Qatar.

2012/2013 - Platini starts to soften his stance on FFP

2015 - Platini: publicly pushes to relax FFP

That's how they got away with it. Man City broke the rules and paid no significant price because Platini has some serious questions over his reign and ties with Qatar/PSG.

But like I said last time, that's it now though both clubs have got away with breaking the rules. Nobody cares anymore.

I have yet to be convinced that PSG make enough money playing in the french league to pay for Neymar, Cavani, Mbappe, Thiago Silva etc. legitimately or that any of the Man City sponsorship deals from the earlier part of the 2010's represented market value for the size of the club. A club that regularly doesn't sell out home games especially on CL nights. A club who was given 400m to name their stadium at a time when they had zero premier league titles and nobody was getting that money for naming rights.

That 400m deal at the time was way way over the top

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium.

source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

I can’t understand what people are arguing about over this. (Not the FFP idea as a concept) but the way it was implemented to guarantee the cartel remained untouched.

The point is City did break those rules and got away with it. Just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean they shouldn't have been implemented. The only way FFP can work is if it's enforced and it wasn't. So if you like the idea as a concept you should surely see why City and PSG should have faced greater punishment when they broke the rules. Or should it be different for them?

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

City are now a self sufficient company, making decent profits from now undervalued sponsorships.

You don't genuinely believe that, do you?

Minderbinder

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Clubs could well end up regretting this if they push on. Broadcasting rights money is plateauing. It's all about branding and **** but that only brings in so much actual cash. Going from around 30 home matches per season to 15 and having to match the money from both the CL and domestic league will be tough I would have thought.

Locally it is but not internationally

Consider this

All the big clubs have big presences in Asia and the Americas, but it's still just the tip of the ice berg.

Right now if you have a Champions league game starting at 7.45pm in London (8.45 in Europe) on a Tuesday or Wednesday then the start time is as follows in Asia and the US.

Delhi - 1:15am
China - 3.45am
KL - 3.45am
New York - 2.45pm
LA - 11.45am

Now if you look at EPL or La Liga start times on a Saturday or Sunday then it's any time between
New Delhi - 5.30pm and 11pm (1.15am if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)
China and KL - 8pm and 1.30am (4am if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)
New York 7.30am and 12.30pm (3pm if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)
LA - 4.30am to 9.30am (12 noon if there is an 8pm Saturday kickoff)

So rather than have high profile teams playing each other in the middle of a weekday night/morning in a European Super League you could have them playing at reasonable times on the weekend.

Thus the audience can be bigger and thus grow further,

I don’t think there’s a huge market in Asia for football. There is certainly no appetite in China to pay anything near the kind of prices people pay in the UK and Ireland. For example I can watch every single game live in the premier league this season in China for around €30. I can watch all the CL games for free the next day because they have dedicated websites that upload games without giving the score away.

Chinese people simply won’t pay that much for football. I’d imagine India would be even less inclined. Maybe they’ll buy the merchandise but they would do that anyway regardless of there being a super league or not.

gstack166

IncognitoMan wrote: »

There's nothing illegal about UEFA not letting them into the Champions League.
It's their competition they can easily say clubs must have made a profit over the last couple of seasons to compete. That should have been the punishment, fines are a different matter.

Yes Man City got away with it and here's how :

2009 - Michel Platini: Very pro FFP.

2010 - Platini votes for Qatar 2022 (maybe bribed, maybe not)

2011 - Qatar state buys PSG, Platini son - CEO of Burrda Sport a sportswear brand with ties to Qatar.

2012/2013 - Platini starts to soften his stance on FFP

2015 - Platini: publicly pushes to relax FFP

That's how they got away with it. Man City broke the rules and paid no significant price because Platini has some serious questions over his reign and ties with Qatar/PSG.

But like I said last time, that's it now though both clubs have got away with breaking the rules. Nobody cares anymore.

I have yet to be convinced that PSG make enough money playing in the french league to pay for Neymar, Cavani, Mbappe, Thiago Silva etc. legitimately or that any of the Man City sponsorship deals from the earlier part of the 2010's represented market value for the size of the club. A club that regularly doesn't sell out home games especially on CL nights. A club who was given 400m to name their stadium at a time when they had zero premier league titles and nobody was getting that money for naming rights.

That 400m deal at the time was way way over the top



source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways



The point is City did break those rules and got away with it. Just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean they shouldn't have been implemented. The only way FFP can work is if it's enforced and it wasn't. So if you like the idea as a concept you should surely see why City and PSG should have faced greater punishment when they broke the rules. Or should it be different for them?

Look we obviously have different opinions on this, I take your points truly, but, my main grieveance with it is it shouldn’t have been applied to begin with. Why shouldn’t a club be able spend the owners money? Why shouldn’t a team rise from ashes to compete. The fact of attendance of the stadium has no bearing on it being wrong, Manchester City is a working class club with a fan base predominantly from Manchester.

If you go to Anfield, OT, Stamford bridge, a large percentage are foreign national, nothing wrong with that what so ever but your fooling yourself if you think Manchester United’s crowds wouldn’t be half of what is is now with the football they play be it not for the day trippers.

I genueily & maybe in the minority here would rather a half empty stadium full of true long term fans than have it full of people going because it’s a day out. That’s my opinion now not saying how it should be.

Guy:Incognito

Minderbinder wrote: »

. I can watch all the CL games for free the next day because they have dedicated websites that upload games without giving the score away.

.

Delayed coverage of sport is ****.

Minderbinder

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Minderbinder wrote: »

. I can watch all the CL games for free the next day because they have dedicated websites that upload games without giving the score away.

.

Delayed coverage of sport is ****.

It's not ideal for sure but it's better than watching in a comatose state at 3:45am on a weekday. That'll cause brain damage for sure. The good thing is I don't know the result and I can watch the full game at a time that suits me.

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

. The fact of attendance of the stadium has no bearing on it being wrong, Manchester City is a working class club with a fan base predominantly from Manchester.

If you go to Anfield, OT, Stamford bridge, a large percentage are foreign national, nothing wrong with that what so ever but your fooling yourself if you think Manchester United’s crowds wouldn’t be half of what is is now with the football they play be it not for the day trippers.

I genueily & maybe in the minority here would rather a half empty stadium full of true long term fans than have it full of people going because it’s a day out. That’s my opinion now not saying how it should be.

Yes but the fact the club has a shorter reach globally would in normal cases mean a lesser sponsorship deal. The entire idea of sponsorship is to get your brand exposed to most amount of people you can. That's what raises the questions over the City deals. The fact they were so far ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool deals.

Edit: nothing wrong with day trippers either. None of my business why anyone supports whatever club.

gstack166

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Yes but the fact the club has a shorter reach globally would in normal cases mean a lesser sponsorship deal. The entire idea of sponsorship is to get your brand exposed to most amount of people you can. That's what raises the questions over the City deals. The fact they were so far ahead of Arsenal and Liverpool deals.

Edit: nothing wrong with day trippers either. None of my business why anyone supports whatever club.

Does anyone raise the question why the Sheiks don’t get praised for clearing the debts of a club that were on the brink of bankruptcy, create mass employment & vastly improve the infrastructure of East Manchester, contribute a vast some of money to the local facilities around the area?

No, he signed an inflated sponsorship deal with his own state controlled airline, that’s much more of a issue instead isn’t it.

Adamcp898

gstack166 wrote: »

Does anyone raise the question why the Sheiks don’t get praised for clearing the debts of a club that were on the brink of bankruptcy, create mass employment & vastly improve the infrastructure of East Manchester, contribute a vast some of money to the local facilities around the area?

No, he signed an inflated sponsorship deal with his own state controlled airline, that’s much more of a issue instead isn’t it.

Well for one; City do get plenty of praise for the regeneration work they've done in that particular part of Manchester.

But you're missing the point if you think it's solely just the idea of an 'inflated' sponsorship deal and nothing more that raises eyebrows.

Speaking more generally across the whole of football because it's becoming more and more of an issue at a number of big clubs in Europe now, the intentions behind inflated transfer & sponsorship deals is the actual problem.

That is to say you may not always be paying £20 million over the odds for a player or accepting £50 million in 'extra add-ons' for sponsorship because the various parties just think they're worth it and can afford it. It's because football has the capacity to be a massive vehicle for money laundering and other grey/black 'investment' opportunities, much in the way inflated property prices were/are the go to.

IncognitoMan

gstack166 wrote: »

Does anyone raise the question why the Sheiks don’t get praised for clearing the debts of a club that were on the brink of bankruptcy, create mass employment & vastly improve the infrastructure of East Manchester, contribute a vast some of money to the local facilities around the area?

No, he signed an inflated sponsorship deal with his own state controlled airline, that’s much more of a issue instead isn’t it.

Yes. It's an extremely risky and dangerous model for Clubs to pursue. It might work for some but it will destroy others.

You are thinking a bit too short sighted here I think.

If you look at it outside City and it's effect on the whole game. Every club ends up paying more because they have to to compete with the oil money. Eventually clubs need to make more to compete and eventually that cost will fall to the fan be it match going or TV viewer. I wonder would you have a similar view had Newcastle been the side that the Sheiks took over?

But even looking at it from a City point of view, sure it's great when it works out and so far for City it has, so far. Just better hope they stick around because it will become a very bleak future very quickly if they do leave for whatever reason, you never know whats around the corner. Unlikely maybe but where would that leave City?

They have City way in over their heads because they built too quickly. It's a foundation built on quicksand. On money City don't have. I say this as someone who doesn't want to see City destroyed, I don't want to see it happen to any club. We need these clubs to have a good league on show. Wouldn't it be better to know the owners could pull out and City would be safe financially?

Basically what FFP should be about is keeping clubs operating within their means. So they are stable and safe long term but once Qatar got involved UEFA lost all interest in FFP and FIFA is way too money grabbing to even attempt to put sensible measures in place.

Cantona's Collars

City's commercial revenue in 2009 was £18 million,in 2015 it was £175 million.
Nothing dodgy at all in an almost ten fold increase in commercial revenue at a club with a small, localised fan base.

ERG89

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

City's commercial revenue in 2009 was £18 million,in 2015 it was £175 million.
Nothing dodgy at all in an almost ten fold increase in commercial revenue at a club with a small, localised fan base.

If all of a sudden a club wins their first league title in 45 years it's not all that crazy for their revenue to skyrocket even it's a little inflated.
I'm sure Chelsea were the same getting the Samsung deal was the biggest in England at the time & they were just a couple years into the success.
Football is getting more commercial every year & if you have people who know how to sell the club.
In them 6 years City won 2 leagues & were regulars in the CL which has got to count for something at the end of the day.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/GFFN/status/1059365809133367296

"Breaking | Football Leaks Headline: AS Monaco owner Dmitry Rybolovlev allegedly attempted to hide injections into the club via a fictitious sponsorship contract & through a series of off-shore accounts through Hong Kong & the British Virgin Islands. More follows."

IncognitoMan

spiegel.de : first installment of a four-part series on the Manchester City football team that will be published Monday through Thursday of this week

Manchester City Exposed
Chapter 1: Bending the Rules to the Tune of Millions


http://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-exposed-bending-the-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html

Harry Palmr

Some bedtime breakfast reading

/over to blue moon

Well, no matter what one thinks of the reporting and what we are being asked to believe as facts there are so many direct quotes from so many senior executives means someone is either to be asked to account for themselves (Man City) or get sued (Der Spiegel). The real question is whether UEFA has any stomach for an investigation of their own.

Unearthly

City to get a warning and a 50k fine

IncognitoMan

We'll see what else comes in the next 3 parts but it doesn't look good from a City point of view. Not that there was ever much doubt about their finances before.

UrbanFret

IncognitoMan wrote: »

spiegel.de : first installment of a four-part series on the Manchester City football team that will be published Monday through Thursday of this week

Manchester City Exposed
Chapter 1: Bending the Rules to the Tune of Millions


http://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-exposed-bending-the-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html

Seriously was this article written by a ten year old. Absolute bollocks.:rolleyes:

Harry Palmr

Beware of something style wise being lost in translation. It does read in a rudimentary fashion but that shouldn't distract from the quotes and the names.

IncognitoMan

UrbanFret wrote: »

Seriously was this article written by a ten year old. Absolute bollocks.:rolleyes:

The information has to be legitimate. They've named and quoted people who work for City. If it was untrue it would be libel and they would be sued to the high heavens.

If you don't like the way it's written the BBC have a pretty good summary:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46101803

edit: also this isn't just written by some random internet blog. It's one of the biggest newspapers in Europe. The paper has previous it seems with this kind of stuff.

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/cfbcity/status/1059580087811608577

Cantona's Collars

The Telegraph:

Manchester United are among a group of top clubs in Europe urging caution over setting up a European Super League.

UrbanFret

Wouldn't happen to be a big game coming up this week? Wait.oh thats right the derby.

TitianGerm

UrbanFret wrote: »

Wouldn't happen to be a big game coming up this week? Wait.oh thats right the derby.

What the hell does that have to do with the leaks? Do you think Jose has fabricated a load of fake emails, released them to the papers just to mess with City?

Hell Jose is stepping up the mind games big time :pac:

Richard Hillman

I would like to see the Super League. My only reservation is if they manoeuvre it to suit external, non traditional markets.

Formula 1 is practically dead at this stage because they took the races out of the heartland, to have money spinning short term gains in Asia and North America.

If they are going to have games in Asia and kick off times to suit the Asian market, then don't be surprised if people stop giving a **** about it after a few years.

Harry Palmr

UrbanFret wrote: »

Wouldn't happen to be a big game coming up this week? Wait.oh thats right the derby.

Ah yes of course a German paper decided to go now because of a local derby in England.

Cantona's Collars

The Telegraph are ignoring the elephant in the room completely and are basically cheerleading City's rise with a book review.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/11/05/manchester-city-20-years-ago-losing-tomansfield-auto-windscreens/

Harry Palmr

Direct link to part 2

http://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-and-the-fight-against-financial-fairplay-a-1236347.html#ref=rss

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1059766613518544901

New leak: how Man City set up separate company to pay players' image rights, and then sent money from that company from Abu Dhabi to cover those payments. Took £30m off the wage bill.

gimli2112

I'm not surprised this happened, I'm more surprised that they've been caught. They probably paid a fortune to ensure this didn't happen. They'll pay a fine now into FIFA's / UEFA's coffers and sure it'll all be grand.

Where's the antagonistic tone coming from in Der Spiegel's article? Why do they seem to hate City so much?

IncognitoMan

Pretty damning so far. They simply can't pay a fine and move on. Although I think that's probably what will happen.

UrbanFret

gimli2112 wrote: »

I'm not surprised this happened, I'm more surprised that they've been caught. They probably paid a fortune to ensure this didn't happen. They'll pay a fine now into FIFA's / UEFA's coffers and sure it'll all be grand.

Where's the antagonistic tone coming from in Der Spiegel's article? Why do they seem to hate City so much?

Because of the fall of Bayern munich. Led by ruminigge. *****. Who in the past has never hated his hatred for city , yet is strangely quite now.

UrbanFret

TitianGerm wrote: »

What the hell does that have to do with the leaks? Do you think Jose has fabricated a load of fake emails, released them to the papers just to mess with City?

Hell Jose is stepping up the mind games big time :pac:

Not accusing UTD at all. The british Media cant stand that their darlings are no longer top dogs.

TitianGerm

UrbanFret wrote: »

Not accusing UTD at all. The british Media cant stand that their darlings are no longer top dogs.

Em this is European media breaking the story and has absolutely nothing to do with United.

This is a mess that City have brought on themselves.

UrbanFret

TitianGerm wrote: »

Em this is European media breaking the story and has absolutely nothing to do with United.

This is a mess that City have brought on themselves.

I havent said UTD were behind it at all .

Cantona's Collars

https://twitter.com/TimesSport/status/1059791487775531008

Spanish league chiefs have called on Uefa to take action against #MCFC after new leaked files revealed the full extent to which the club are alleged to have deceived the European body over FFP.

TitianGerm

UrbanFret wrote: »

I havent said UTD were behind it at all .

I said it's not the English media targeting City because United have fallen away. You said that.

IncognitoMan

UrbanFret wrote: »

I havent said UTD were behind it at all .

So what was this statement supposed to imply?

UrbanFret wrote: »

Wouldn't happen to be a big game coming up this week? Wait.oh thats right the derby.

I know City fans (not sure if you are or aren't) will want to deflect this but there has always been suspicions that their finances were dodgy/cheating. Nothing said so far is really that surprising just confirming what was already suspected.

brinty

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TimesSport/status/1059791487775531008

Spanish league chiefs have called on Uefa to take action against #MCFC after new leaked files revealed the full extent to which the club are alleged to have deceived the European body over FFP.

Spanish league might need to get itself in order first before making any demands elsewherer.
Loans that'll never be collected from kings (Real)
Tax Evasion (Messi and Ronaldo..)
Political fronts (Barca and Bilbao!!!)

Cantona's Collars

I can't believe that it's all a conspiracy by United and the media to bring City down before Sunday.

OneEightSeven

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Pretty damning so far. They simply can't pay a fine and move on. Although I think that's probably what will happen.

They could force them to play their games behind closed doors, but I doubt that would effect their performance as they're well used to playing in an empty stadium.

gimli2112

When the "Spanish League Chiefs" have become the protectors of morality you know all is lost.

Mr.Nice Guy

Not sure this is related to the leaks but Monaco's owner is in trouble now.

https://twitter.com/jeremysmith98/status/1059864000303915010

eagle eye

I'm completely against a super league. I won't watch it if it happens. I rarely watch a group stage game in the ECL anymore.
I'd much rather watch Bournemouth against Watford than some random game between two continental sides.
I've tuned into Championship games regularly during ECL group stages and the early knockout stages.
I think there is a chance it could do a lot of damage to the game. I'm not sure it'll work out well either because like every league it'll be only a matter before three to four teams start to dominate and there'll be less interest in it then.

lawred2

It's inevitable.

It's a business.

Harry Palmr

Guardian finally deciding to run it (though only as a report on a report)

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/nov/06/manchester-city-uefa-financial-fair-play

Johnmb

I think those teams would want to be careful. It might make them short-term money, but I don't think it'll work long-term, and their domestic leagues might not take them back, or will make them start at/near the bottom.

As much as the idea of (for example) Man Utd v Barca sounds like a great match, it is when it's rare. If it's twice EVERY season, in a league format not a European semi or something like that, it'll lose it's special status. They bulk of Utd fans will always be up for playing their main rivals in England (Liverpool, City, etc.), but playing big names from Europe doesn't have the same draw if the uniqueness is lost.