Football Leaks: UEFA Investigation into Manchester City

gstack166

TitianGerm wrote: »

You could set up 100s of companies and have them spend €500 each, every week for you. Problem solved.

Bit like what the City owners did when they used their state companies to pump extra funds into City, but only in reverse.

That still doesn’t answer my question. Why should I set up companies for me to be able to spend my own money as I see fit.

TitianGerm

gstack166 wrote: »

That still doesn’t answer my question. Why should I set up companies for me to be able to spend my own money as I see fit.

The law says you can't murder people either. But sure if you want to murder someone you should be able to shouldn't you?

The laws and rules are there to be followed whether you like them or not.

gstack166

TitianGerm wrote: »

The law says you can't murder people either. But sure if you want to murder someone you should be able to shouldn't you?

The laws and rules are there to be followed whether you like them or not.

Give over for ffs

Drumpot

gstack166 wrote: »

OK first of all, nobody on this forum can debate the motives of the owners as none of us are in that circle so draw a x through that right away. The ‘sinister’ ways, have the club been proved guilty of an offence that I’m not aware of yet? Draw an x under that too until after the investigation is complete.

I didn’t compare any owner to Jack Walker or owners at all for that matter, You stated Liverpool & United’s achievements should be held to higher regard which is drivel, & I merely pointed out that without huge financial backing Liverpool would of been nowhere, as a contrary to your statement about them being built organically.

I didn’t make a defence for breaking the rules, I just pointed out that they’re new rules because you made it out every club had been following them since the beginning of time. I’m all for whatever rules but this rule was designed specifically to hinder clubs reaching the top, not in the slightest of helping them avoiding dropping to the bottom.

If I clear €500 a week after tax & I win the euro millions tonight for a €100m jackpot, would I not feel aggrieved a law being passed next year that forbids me from spending over €500 a week?

We actually can debate the motives of the owner . I understand why somebody defending City wouldn't see this as helpful when trying to legitimize the Chelsea/City projects.

Everybody signed up to the FFP rules, even City. It doesn't matter why they were brought in, everybody agreed to follow them. If City didn't intend on following them they shouldn't of agreed to follow them . . I really don't understand your point here . .

Lets rephrase it so, United grew organically, Liverpool moreso then City/Chelsea. There are different degrees of attaining success. The source of funds and reasons of owners investing in a club are not all the same and as such not all comparable.

Mr.H

Shanotheslayer wrote:

Talk about a stretch!

Mk dons who almost became dublin dons and who where originally wimbledon disagree

Nothing major will come from this I'd imagine.

.G.

gstack166 wrote: »

They can’t use them because City will bring them to court & the evidence won’t be admissible. It’s the sponsorship that’s questionable that they’re going to investigate, that all money is come through the Sheiks Abu Dhabi companies that are inflated.

UEFA will not have any power to compel any Abu Dhabi company to open its books so the investigation would focus purely on City. If UEFA can't prove that these companies are related parties or that the source of funds is ADUG then they have no case.

UEFA is a private entity with its own competitions that clubs can enter if they meet the rules set out by UEFA. City are free to spend what they like on their squad but that doesn't mean UEFA have to allow them to enter their competitions. Its not up to UEFA to prove related parties, its up the City to prove they aren't if they want to be in the UEFA comps

They set the rules, you follow them or you don't compete. Same with the premier league who will have their own rules. Either City follow the rules set out by the competition owners or they face not being allowed into said competition and there's nothing Citys owners, their lawyers or anyone else in Abu Dhabi can do about it.

As for illegally acquired documents, its not a criminal case fought in a court of law where there are rules over things that can be allowed. I read an article on it recently where a lawyer said they can use what they like regardless of how they got it because its one private organisation enforcing their own rules on another private organisation who agreed to abide by those rules so that it could play in its competitions. City could refuse to supply documents all they want and UEFA could refuse them entry based on that cos they won't prove the emails and documents are false.

Theirs an email from Citys Chief executive saying most of the money from a sponsorship will come from the owners. Absolute proof of wrong doing, regardless of how its obtained UEFA can use that proof if they want, they aren't bound by the laws of the land because it won't be in a court of law, the only laws that matter are their own.

gstack166

superg wrote: »

UEFA is a private entity with its own competitions that clubs can enter if they meet the rules set out by UEFA. City are free to spend what they like on their squad but that doesn't mean UEFA have to allow them to enter their competitions.

They set the rules, you follow them or you don't compete. Same with the premier league who will have their own rules. Either City follow the rules set out by the competition owners or the face not being allowed into said competition and there's nothing Citys owners, their lawyers or anyone else in Abu Dhabi can do about it.

As for illegally acquired documents, its not a criminal case fought in a court of where there are rules over things that can be allowed. I read an article on it recently where a lawyer said they can use what they like regardless of how they got it because its one private organisation enforcing their own rules on another private organisation who agreed to abide by those rules so that it could play in its competitions. City could refuse to supply documents all they want and UEFA could refuse them entry based on that cos they won't prove the emails and documents are false.

Theirs an email from Citys Chief executive saying most of the money from a sponsorship will come from the owners. Absolute proof of wrong doing, regardless of how its obtained UEFA can use that proof if they want, they aren't bound by the laws of the land because it won't be in a court of law, the only laws that matter are their own.

Let me try to clear this up as I understand it. FFP is clear that owners or related parties to them can inject funds via sponsorships. But the definition of a related party can be subjective.It's set out in the accounting standard IAS24 & City (and their auditors) maintain that none of the Abu Dhabi companies are related parties under this. If they were then the transactions would have to be specified as such in the accounts and they aren't. UEFA may dispute this.

If they were related parties then those deals have to be at 'fair market value'. The main Etihad deal was deemed to be FMV by UEFA so should be fireproof, regardless of where the money originated. So any issue is with the other sponsorships - Etisalat, Aabar & Visit Abu Dhabi.

The argument is therefore presumably (a) whether these are related parties & if so (b) whether the deals are therefore FMV. If not (a) then (b) doesn't apply. UEFA's auditors claimed that they were related parties and they were overvalued. That might have to be tested in court.

As well as IAS24, UEFA have self-defined a related party as any entities from a connected source, eg Abu Dhabi state companies. These are not allowed to contribute >30% of total revenue and I believe they don't (it's maybe 20% at the very most). So that's not an issue either.

So the core issue may be whether the other three companies are related parties under IAS24 & whether the deals are FMV. however if this only relates to the 2012/13 year then it's questionable whether UEFA could revisit the 2014 settlement agreement.

UEFA knew of these deals in 2014 and had questioned them but we failed anyway & were sanctioned. The Galatasaray CAS ruling possibly closes the route of a re-opened punishment but there's the potential issue around source of funds/timing.

If this additional funding carried on after the 2014 agreement then this may be a key issue for investigation. UEFA would presumably want to check whether it was disguised owner investment so would have to conclusively prove that these funds came from ADUG/Sheikh Mansour.

I can't imagine UEFA has any power to compel any Abu Dhabi company to open its books so the investigation would focus purely on City. If UEFA can't prove that these companies are related parties or that the source of funds is ADUG then they have, in my view, no case.

There may be other avenues or issues for them to investigate but I have no knowledge of what these may be. I note that City have welcomed the investigation & I think it's needed to clear this up once and for all. The question is whether people will accept it if City are cleared.

.G.

Once again, you seem to think the onus is on UEFA to prove that City aren't eligible to play in UEFA competitions. I would view it as being the opposite, if City want to be European champions some day they agree to do it based on the restrictions UEFA place on all clubs in that competition and its up to them to prove they have followed those rules.

The UEFA anthem is always booed at City so why not just pull out of the competition and spend what you like and how you like to?

gstack166

superg wrote: »

Once again, you seem to think the onus is on UEFA to prove that City aren't eligible to play in UEFA competitions. I would view it as being the opposite, if City want to be European champions some day they agree to do it based on the restrictions UEFA place on all clubs in that competition and its up to them to prove they have followed those rules.

The UEFA anthem is always booed at City so why not just pull out of the competition and spend what you like and how you like to?

Expulsion from European competitions is the extreme punishment, very unlikely it’ll get to that stage IMHO.

Of course it’s up to UEFA to prove wrongdoing, City have complied with UEFA & UEFA were satisfied already, they’ve welcomed the investigation as I’ve stated numerous times already, that tells me they’ll comply in assisting UEFA. There is nothing more than that they can do I’d imagine surely?

.G.

We'll have to agree to disagree as to who has the burden of proof. If my local u12 team throws on a couple of u15 bangers in a cup game tomorrow and someone complains, they'll be the ones having to prove bangers weren't 15! However I agree with you that very little will come of it. Too much money coming from that region for them to be overly harsh, we all know the entire governance of the games from FIFA, UEFA down indivdual country FA's are corrupt, there's far too much money in the game for them not to be.

Mr.H

I dont know why people seem to think the burden of proof is on UEFA

To qualify for their competitions you must fulfil certain criteria. The burden is firmly on the club to show that they abide by the rules. When any suspicion is there, UEFA are entitled to deny entry to the competition.

You also seem to talk as if they done nothing wrong. If they didnt, they wouldnt have hidden it. The salary lists from a couple of years ago is a perfect example. They showed they City paid very little in wages compared to others. Of course they were being dodgy. Its laughable you think they wherent

.G.

Fully agree on where the burden of proof lies. UEFA already have the football leaks documents and emails which prove wrongdoing, they could use them as all the proof they need right now if they wished. We know these documents and emails are legit because at no point has City come out and said they are fake or falsified, all they've said is that they were "hacked or stolen".

So the proof of wrong doing is already there in the public domain, what City have to do now is decide how they fight that and that means the burden of proof is on them to prove they did nothing wrong. It also goes past the point of the initial UEFA investigation, some of the emails relate to payments in 2016. Since they got away with it from 2010 to 2014, it would be reasonable to assume the practice of sending owners money via sponsors has continued right up to the present day.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/football-leaks-manchester-city-und-die-sponsoren-fotostrecke-167278.html

gstack166

superg wrote: »

Fully agree on where the burden of proof lies. UEFA already have the football leaks documents and emails which prove wrongdoing, they could use them as all the proof they need right now if they wished. We know these documents and emails are legit because at no point has City come out and said they are fake or falsified, all they've said is that they were "hacked or stolen".

So the proof of wrong doing is already there in the public domain, what City have to do now is decide how they fight that and that means the burden of proof is on them to prove they did nothing wrong. It also goes past the point of the initial UEFA investigation, some of the emails relate to payments in 2016. Since they got away with it in 2012 and 2013, it would be reasonable to assume the practice of sending owners money via sponsors has continued right up to the present day.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/football-leaks-manchester-city-und-die-sponsoren-fotostrecke-167278.html

But it’s simple for City to show they aren’t lying (even if they are) the sponsorship inflation is easy to cook because UEFA can’t get Abu Dhabi companies to open there books, i made this point clear numerous times.

UEFA has to prove City tampered with the figures, it’s only way they can nail them if that’s what they ultimately want.

They cannot use Der Speigel now either as they are unreliable again as I’ve posted previous, they’ve admitted Journalists fabricated stories.

City are fully prepared to take UEFA to court over all this (even the leaked emails from Football Leaks stayed that)

Unless UEFA can prove it, nothing can not nor will be done. City complied in 2014 & UEFA were satisfied, to revisit previous agreements they need prove there was lies told, Der Speigels findings are null & void now on 2 counts, both I’ve stated here on this post and previous posts.

RayCun

Der Spiegel's findings aren't null and void because a different journalist lied about a different story.

Either the documents are real, or they are not. If the documents are real, then City misrepresented the source of their income, in a deliberate attempt to break FFP rules. It's not just the sponsorship, the documents say that they understated the amount they paid Mancini by paying most of his salary through a third party.

I think the fact that most clubs in the premier league have also called for an investigation shows that the rest of the football world is tired of City and PSG having a massive pipeline of funds.

gstack166

RayCun wrote: »

Der Spiegel's findings aren't null and void because a different journalist lied about a different story.

Either the documents are real, or they are not. If the documents are real, then City misrepresented the source of their income, in a deliberate attempt to break FFP rules. It's not just the sponsorship, the documents say that they understated the amount they paid Mancini by paying most of his salary through a third party.

I think the fact that most clubs in the premier league have also called for an investigation shows that the rest of the football world is tired of City and PSG having a massive pipeline of funds.

So we should believe a publication who printed stolen documents from hackers who’ve since been arrested that have admitted lying above a club who protested their innocence throughout & passed FFP last time UEFA came calling?

Thank god you’re not a judge.

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

Thank god you’re not a judge.

Your thinking with your heart. Not your head

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

Your thinking with your heart. Not your head

No I’m thinking of the law of the land. Innocent until proven guilty.

RayCun

It isn't a matter of believing the publication.

It's about the evidence - documents which were leaked (says one side) or hacked (says the other). It doesn't matter which. It isn't a criminal case with those rules of evidence.

City have never denied that the documents were legitimate. And the documents show that they broke the rules.

.G.

gstack166 wrote: »

But it’s simple for City to show they aren’t lying (even if they are) the sponsorship inflation is easy to cook because UEFA can’t get Abu Dhabi companies to open there books, i made this point clear numerous times.

UEFA has to prove City tampered with the figures, it’s only way they can nail them if that’s what they ultimately want.

They cannot use Der Speigel now either as they are unreliable again as I’ve posted previous, they’ve admitted Journalists fabricated stories.

City are fully prepared to take UEFA to court over all this (even the leaked emails from Football Leaks stayed that)

Unless UEFA can prove it, nothing can not nor will be done. City complied in 2014 & UEFA were satisfied, to revisit previous agreements they need prove there was lies told, Der Speigels findings are null & void now on 2 counts, both I’ve stated here on this post and previous posts.

They don't need to look at any companies books, they already have the proof, its not them that needs to explain it. And its got nothing to do with journalists fabricating anything either, the emails and documents are there in black and white and City haven't disputed their veracity, all they've said is they are hacked or stolen which means they are legit, they've just been obtained in a way they aren't happy about but is neither here nor there for a private entity like UEFA.

They can take them to court all they like, you think UEFA will allow them entry to their competitions while they do so? No chance.

Also you keep saying you've said things numerous times, so what? Thats it, end of discussion cos gstack said so?

They don't need to revisit the previous agreements, some of the emails and documents are from years after the original case was taken and can therefore be tried separate, and I'd imagine, a whole lot more thoroughly.

And you keep referring to law, its a not a legal case. Its one private business breaking the rules of another private business who would be well within their rights to not allow that business to partake in their competitions.

TitianGerm

Lads you are absolutely wasting your time trying to discuss anything with gstack. He has proven countless times on Boards that his opinion will not be swayed no matter what. Once he makes up his mind he will dig in his heels and will not be moved.

gstack166

RayCun wrote: »

It isn't a matter of believing the publication.

It's about the evidence - documents which were leaked (says one side) or hacked (says the other). It doesn't matter which. It isn't a criminal case with those rules of evidence.

City have never denied that the documents were legitimate. And the documents show that they broke the rules.

Yes they have. They’ve stated time after time again that ‘the attempt to ruin the name of Manchester City is orangised & clear’ & wont make any further comment.

They’ve stated this since the very beginning. Even if they came out strongly denying it, the likes of you would have a problem with it too because your mind is already made up so what difference would it make for them to rant about their innocence?

RayCun

gstack166 wrote: »

Yes they have. They’ve stated time after time again that ‘the attempt to ruin the name of Manchester City is orangised & clear’ & wont make any further comment

So, as I said, they have never denied that the documents are real.

gstack166

RayCun wrote: »

So, as I said, they have never denied that the documents are real.

That’s enough of a denial for me. Why did they welcome the decision of an investigation then if they never denied it.

RayCun

gstack166 wrote: »

That’s enough of a denial for me. Why did they welcome the decision of an investigation then if they never denied it.

If they pinky swore that they hadn't done anything wrong it would be enough for you.

gstack166

RayCun wrote: »

If they pinky swore that they hadn't done anything wrong it would be enough for you.

Probably would have the same effect on me as a green with envy football fan of another club on a internet forum crying that they’re guilty.

.G.

All they have to do to their actual statement was put "falsified" emails and documents rather than "hacked or stolen". They didn't.

In their later statement they actually admit they are City emails but are "out of context". What possible context could there be for sending money via the owner to sponsors who then send it to the club.

We'll find out in about 3 years

gstack166

superg wrote: »

All they have to do to their actual statement was put "falsified" emails and documents rather than "hacked or stolen". They didn't.

In their later statement they actually admit they are City emails but are "out of context". What possible context could there be for sending money via the owner to sponsors who then send it to the club.

We'll find out in about 3 years

Something tells me if you find out they’re innocent or there’s no proof in the allegations you won’t be satisfied. Maybe that’s just me though.

.G.

There is proof though. I linked to it earlier. Actual City emails.

RayCun

gstack166 wrote: »

Something tells me if you find out they’re innocent or there’s no proof in the allegations you won’t be satisfied. Maybe that’s just me though.

And if the investigation finds they broke the rules you'll shrug your shoulders and accept whatever punishment is handed down?

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

Expulsion from European competitions is the extreme punishment, very unlikely it’ll get to that stage IMHO.

Of course it’s up to UEFA to prove wrongdoing, City have complied with UEFA & UEFA were satisfied already, they’ve welcomed the investigation as I’ve stated numerous times already, that tells me they’ll comply in assisting UEFA. There is nothing more than that they can do I’d imagine surely?

Why would it be extreme? Other clubs have been banned for it City is no different.

If UEFA find that City did mislead them over its finances then a ban is what it should be.

https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/12/04/manchester-city-finances-uefa-ffp

gstack166

RayCun wrote: »

And if the investigation finds they broke the rules you'll shrug your shoulders and accept whatever punishment is handed down?

I’ve stated time again if they’re found guilty then they deserve the punishment fitted. Why do I feel I’m going around in circles talking about this?

I’ve not given an opinion or if I think they’re guilty or innocent, I’m posting facts that I have checked on FFP and the investigation but unless you come out with City are guilty here, you have a counter argument on why they ARE guilty even though I’ve never protested their innocence. It’s tiresome

RayCun

gstack166 wrote: »

I’ve stated time again if they’re found guilty then they deserve the punishment fitted.

In this thread? Where?

Because you have said
"Martin Samuel & every city fan to fair agree the books were cooked, everyone knew that, "

And you've said it would be impossible to prove they cheated.

And that City would bring UEFA to court if they weren't allowed in the Champions league.

I haven't seen you say anything about accepting punishment if found guilty. Your line seems to be that they didn't do anything wrong, but if they did then no-one can prove they did anything wrong, and if someone does they will go to court to argue they shouldn't be punished for doing anything wrong.

UrbanFret

The emails weren't leaked or hacked they were stolen By this criminal who is still in possession of them.

http://josimarfootball.com/dirty-john-the-dark-side-of-rui-pinto/

Hardly a paragon of virtue.

Shanotheslayer

If even City are found innocent people will still think they're guilty.

What you know and what you can prove is a big difference

theoneeyedman

UrbanFret wrote: »

The emails weren't leaked or hacked they were stolen By this criminal who is still in possession of them.

http://josimarfootball.com/dirty-john-the-dark-side-of-rui-pinto/

Hardly a parable of virtue.

A parable?? Lol!

Now you're attacking the source of the info, rather than the info (the email content) itself.

Anyone with a brain will know there is a lot of truth in this story. The City project has a particularly pointed angle to it.... basically reputation laundering the Abu Dhabi ruling regime. It's obviously money well spent, with city fans and Internet trolls/warriors completely on board with Al Nahyen family. While the methods are somewhat similar to the likes of Abramovich at Chelsea and other owners with more money than sense, it's aim is political rather than a vanity project. It's sad that fans can't see themselves being used as pawns by this nasty regime

Mr.H

gstack166 wrote:

That’s enough of a denial for me. Why did they welcome the decision of an investigation then if they never denied it.

So the owner has never injected more than 40 million of his own money over three years? All the money they spend is from legitamit sponsorships based on market value on what they would have received from a sponsor if it wasnt dodgy. Would a regular sponsor have paid as much for man city to wear their product given their fan base size comparable to other clubs?

Do you believe that they are innocent and have never tried to mislead uefa about the source of their income?

UrbanFret

There is a lot of ****e posted by a lot of people who know **** all only what the frenzied media have fed them. Bayern in particular have been behind pushing this agenda and now that they are no longer a super power in European football they are really throwing the toys out of the pram.

Mr.H

Shanotheslayer wrote:

If even City are found innocent people will still think they're guilty.

So you believe they are innocent?

POKERKING

Mr.H wrote: »

So the owner has never injected more than 40 million of his own money over three years? All the money they spend is from legitamit sponsorships based on market value on what they would have received from a sponsor if it wasnt dodgy. Would a regular sponsor have paid as much for man city to wear their product given their fan base size comparable to other clubs?

Do you believe that they are innocent and have never tried to mislead uefa about the source of their income?

Fan base isnt really that important for a lot of the sponsors. Its about getting their product in front of the world at the best times and like it or not city have been involved in the tail end of most of the excitement in the premier league in the last few years and on the biggest stage week in week out.

Someone in here said last week that citys new deal with puma was clearly overvalued and only an idiot would think otherwise yet couldnt answer the question on what the going rate for the current premier league champions, league leaders, holders of the only two domestic trophies givin out this season and still in both fa cup and champs league! Its clear the sponsorship isnt about how many shirts will be shifted(although that number will only increase year in year out if city maintain the succes between new markets opening up and new generations of city fans), its about exposure at the highest level and city bring that as well any other club these days.

ozzy jr

gstack166 wrote: »

Why did they welcome the decision of an investigation then.

It's text book approach for people about to be caugh to welcome any investigation. Sure what would I have to worry about, I'm totally innocent. Here's what Lance Armstrong had to say.....


The 29-year-old American, whose US Postal team is currently under investigation in France, today welcomed the recent announcement that the urine samples frozen during the Tour would be analysed to ascertain if any misdemeanour had been committed. "If they're going to test the samples, hallelujah", said a defiant Armstrong, who insisted that his team had nothing to hide. Stating that the tests would put an end to the current speculation, he urged that the analysis be carried out as soon as possible. "I wanted them to test the samples after the Tour de France. They need to do a credible and professional job, with credible scientists. What are we waiting for? It doesn’t take long to test samples, but now they are saying it will be the end of January."

ozzy jr

I'd love to know where the city womens team got £20m to pay to the mens team for using the name or something stupid like that. Seems legit

AidoEirE

ozzy jr wrote: »

I'd love to know where the city womens team got £20m to pay to the mens team for using the name or something stupid like that. Seems legit

rob316

City have revenues of over 500m for the last season, it's trails Manchester United by only 80m. How is that even possible?

Are we honestly supposed to believe they legitimately have nearly caught up with United in just 10 years?

Mr.H

POKERKING wrote:

Fan base isnt really that important for a lot of the sponsors. Its about getting their product in front of the world at the best times and like it or not city have been involved in the tail end of most of the excitement in the premier league in the last few years and on the biggest stage week in week out.

Really? Im not sure. I mean how many semi finals of he champions league have they even been in in the last 10 years?

You really think sponsors think it doesnt matter about fan numbers?

Cool

gstack166

Mr.H wrote: »

Really? Im not sure. I mean how many semi finals of he champions league have they even been in in the last 10 years?

You really think sponsors think it doesnt matter about fan numbers?

Cool

They’ve been in the same amount of Champions League semi finals as Liverpool in the last 10 years plus have won 6x the amount of major trophies in them years so who would be the bigger draw to sponsorship based on that?

gstack166

Can I ask this to these ‘football financial experts’ on the thread who so much want to see the rules enforced why there isn’t a thread about the bad owners running their clubs into the ground.

What gets me about this FFP is clubs like Bolton, Blackpool, Sunderland, Coventry and many more have been ran into the ground by bad owners, The Shieks took a club that had been ran into the ground and invested into the club, improved local area, brought jobs and get roasted for it.

Maybe it’s just because they upset the apple cart of England’s elects who most of the glory fans on this forum support, not all, but most.

Or maybe I have just skipped past the aforementioned clubs threads? Anyone would think clubs are jealous otherwise but I know that’s not the case here

Agent Coulson

Good point maybe you start that thread on those clubs.

gstack166

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Good point maybe you start that thread.

No business of mine, if you follow my posts it’s hypocrisy that I mostly reply to. In particular the most hypocritical of the lot - Liverpool fans.

Agent Coulson

gstack166 wrote: »

No business of mine, if you follow my posts it’s hypocrisy that I mostly reply to. In particular the most hypocritical of the lot - Liverpool fans.

You raised about the other clubs so I’m guessing it is your business so why not start a thread about football clubs being ruined by owners then.


This thread is about investigations into City not the other clubs so why would anyone raise them in this thread.