Football 19/20

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

A sponsorship deal can only be fair value to Etihad if Etihad are the ones funding that deal.

If they cannot afford the deal - and the emails show they couldn't (or wouldn't, doesn't matter which) - then it ceases to be fair value.

Neil Chevrolet could not afford the United sponsorship deal. GM was bailed out with billions by the American government.

Also the criteria you state is not what is used to judge fair value. It does not matter if an establishment can afford ot or not. 

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you're saying they've been banned under FFP rules but without an allegation of financial wrongdoing....?  

You show me where they are alleged to have done any financial wrong doing or broken any laws.

They have been banned for allegedly bending the rules (which is not illegal) and telling UEFA to fuck off.

There is absolutely no evidence which suggests Sheikh Mansour gave a penny to Etihad. The emails suggest it was the ruler of UAE. There are no rules against the ruler of a nation giving its state airline money.

I will ask you again. Which is worst, racist chanting or what City are alleged to have done?

[Gnomicide]

36 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Emails don't prove anything. I have repeatedly asked you to show where emails prove any wrong doing from City and you are unable to do so. You keep saying emails prove City have done wrong. Please show me these emails and then show me which regulation they are proven to have broken. Surely if you are certain these emails prove what you are saying then that should not be a difficult request.

I was not using Heysel to disscuss FFP, I was using Heysel to highlight what despicable is. There is a massive difference. Now again I will ask you as you seem not to be able to counter one single valid point I have raised, which would would be considered mire despicable?

1) Killing football fans

2) An owner investing his own money into his own club.

Get one thing clear in your head, Liverpool are not the victims when it comes to Hysel. They tried to totally erase in from their history. If a Liverpool fan calls another club despicable for not breaking any laws then surely you can say hold on a minute, you should have a bit more self awareness. Heysel was a tragedy, but make no mistake, Liverpool fans were at fault for it. They deserve no sympathy for it. It took them decades to apologise for it and when they did, the Juventus fans turned their back on them.

City have not even been banned for breaking FFP regulations. They have been done for bending the rules and basically telling UEFA to fuck off.

Is any Liverpool fan asking for sympathy for Heysel? I've never seen it if they are. It was a horrific event, people were charged, found guilty and served time for it. 

Of course, just like City fans would never throw bottles at a coach, you'd never find any story of one killing a supporter of another club either. Unless you Goggled it.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil Chevrolet could not afford the United sponsorship deal. GM was bailed out with billions by the American government.

the US govt wasn't paying Utd.  

Despite the state of GM's finances, GM were still placing sponsorship from their own funds - and the amount of that deal stood up against the value of other deals (which the Etihad deal doesn't).

 

8 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Also the criteria you state is not what is used to judge fair value. It does not matter if an establishment can afford ot or not. 

it's already been highlighted to you several times that falsely inflating the value of a deal is very definitely and very specifically outside of the rules.  

Look, I don't really agree with the FFP rules myself, but they are the rules and from what's in the public domain it's clear that City broke them.

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, Gnomicide said:

Is any Liverpool fan asking for sympathy for Heysel? I've never seen it if they are. It was a horrific event, people were charged, found guilty and served time for it. 

Of course, just like City fans would never throw bottles at a coach, you'd never find any story of one killing a supporter of another club either. Unless you Goggled it.

Gnom this disscussion was about FFP. Wooderson then started giving totalky uncalled for snide digs. I would not have mentioned Heysel. You can't have it both ways. As a Liverpool fan, you can't expect to sling mud at another football club for being banned from Europe when the circumstances for your ban were far, far, far worse. It is not even debatable which was the more despicable act. It was a total lack of self awareness from Wooderson. I am not sure he understands what despicable actually means. There would have been no mention of Heysel untill Wooderson came out with a totally uncalled for and disproportionate remark

Speak about FFP, lets debate and disscuss. There is no need for snide remarks from either side.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, eastynh said:

There are no rules against the ruler of a nation giving its state airline money.

there are rules about over-inflated deals and what might be considered fair value.  

If Etihad couldn't or wouldn't fund their own deal then they cannot have thought it fair value.

Edited February 17, 2020 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

Neil out of interest what do you think the rules should be on spending. Should owners be allowed to pump huge money in and compete, should we have spendings caps when (in theory) anyone can compete. Or do you think the current system is about right?

[eastynh]

13 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the US govt wasn't paying Utd.  

Despite the state of GM's finances, GM were still placing sponsorship from their own funds - and the amount of that deal stood up against the value of other deals (which the Etihad deal doesn't).

 

it's already been highlighted to you several times that falsely inflating the value of a deal is very definitely and very specifically outside of the rules.  

Look, I don't really agree with the FFP rules myself, but they are the rules and from what's in the public domain it's clear that City broke them.

It is not clear City have broken any rules. There is nothing in the public domain apart from stolen emails, published in a paper which has recently admitted printing false news stories.

Where Etihad gets its money from is none of UEFA's business. It Etihad could not afford the deal, thats not Citys problem. UEFA have judged it fair value. UEFA have no right to audit  Etihads books. 

City are not alleged to have broken any rules.

You point about saying I don't agree with FFP but thems the rules is like saying I don't agree with apartheid but thems the rules.

I will ask you for the 3rd time. What is worse? What City have done or racist chanting?

Edited February 17, 2020 by eastynh

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Neil out of interest what do you think the rules should be on spending. Should owners be allowed to pump huge money in and compete, should we have spendings caps when (in theory) anyone can compete. Or do you think the current system is about right?

I'd have no problem with owners pumping in however much they wanted to - providing it wasn't put on the club as a debt, and providing something can be done to cover the associated future costs (wages, etc) as well as the now-spend.

But that's not how the rules are, and the convo is about what the rules are and how City have broken those rules.

[zahidf]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

Where Etihad gets its money from is none of UEFA's business. 

City are not alleged to have broken any rules.

You point about saying I don't agree with FFP but thems the rules is like saying I don't agree with apartheid but thems the rules.

I will ask you for the 3rd time. What is worse, what is worse? What City have done or racist chanting?

Lol it is if it's being used as a 'front' for rule breaking money into the club. Which it clearly is

Apartheid??? Does that make Mansour Mandela? 

Clearly racist chanting is worse. But you're just indulging in whataboutism

 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Where Etihad gets its money from is none of UEFA's business.

but sponsorship deals not being artificially over-inflated *IS* UEFA's business. Which ultimately makes where Etihad gets it's money UEFA's business if Etihad do a sponsorship deal.

But anyway, the emails say that Etihad didn't receive that money, and that not-Etihad paid City for Etihad's sponsorship deal.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

You point about saying I don't agree with FFP but thems the rules is like saying I don't agree with apartheid but thems the rules.

OMFG  

As that's the level of your 'thinking', I'm out.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Clearly racist chanting is worse.

amusingly, this is something City's fans have been fingered for too ... So I guess eastynh is saying that City need more punishment than just the two season ban.  

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Lol it is if it's being used as a 'front' for rule breaking money into the club. Which it clearly is

Apartheid??? Does that make Mansour Mandela? 

Clearly racist chanting is worse. But you're just indulging in whataboutism

 

It does not make Mandour Mandela in anyway, it is the principal of the matter.

Racist chanting is far worse as you admit. Racist chanting gets you a 50K fine. City have been fined 30 milkion and banned for 2 years. It maybe whataboutism but it highlights how abject UEFA are and where their prioritie lie. They are not interested in right, wrong or the goid of the game, they are interested in money. 

[eastynh]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

amusingly, this is something City's fans have been fingered for too ... So I guess eastynh is saying that City need more punishment than just the two season ban.  

City should get fucked for that idiot doing monkey chants. It was disgusting and abhorent.

[eastynh]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

OMFG  

As that's the level of your 'thinking', I'm out.

You're out because you have offered absolutely nothing to counter any wrong doing. 

Not one bit of evidence have you provided that City have done anything wrong. 

You then started making things up about what is considered fair value. 

Now the apartheid thing is an extreme example but the principal is the same.You can't say I don't agree with the rules but thems the rules for one thing and then say something different for another set of rules, regardless of their extremity.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

it is the principal of the matter

the only principled thing in this matter are the rules of the competition. City only have principles if they abide by those rules.  

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

You then started making things up about what is considered fair value. 

Care to tell me how a deal is fair value if the body signing the deal cannot pay for that deal?  

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Now the apartheid thing is an extreme example but the principal is the same.

only if the non-whites of South Africa signed up to the apartheid rules in the way City signed up to the FFP rules.

Fucks sake.  

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Care to tell me how a deal is fair value if the body signing the deal cannot pay for that deal?  

The fair value deal is decided on what a club could be expected to get if it got the deal elsewhere. Octogan and PWC are tasked with deciding what is considered fair value. Whether the company can afford the deal is totally irrelevant. Fair value comes down to whether the club could attract a similar sponsorship deal with a party that was not directly related. Both PWC and Octogan decided the deal was fair value.

It clearly could afford the deal as it was given money by the ruler of the UAE, there is absolutely no law restricting investment from a government into its state airline. UEFA can set it's rules but it can not rule on where a commercial enterprise receives its money from. That is totally outside its juristidction.

Also Etihad was not shown to be a directly related party was it? I am not 100% sure on that and would have to check up. If that is the case then it could have sponsored City upto any amount. The fair value test would not have counted. I am not sure on that point though regarding whether Etihad was ever adjudged to be arelated party

Which company could not afford the sponsorship deal they signed with the Football league years ago? That was not the football leagues problem

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The fair value deal is decided on what a club could be expected to get if it got the deal elsewhere.

 - the Etihad deal is waaaaaay above what anyone could have reasonably expected - which is why it was flagged up as possibly dodgy from the moment it was announced.

And as Etihad don't believe it's worth paying - because otherwise they'd have paid it - it can't be a deal that could be expected from elsewhere (cos otherwise, it would have been got elsewhere for the same numbers without the owner owner's-brother [yeah, that's fooled everyone, eh?  ] having to put his hand in his own pocket).

Edited February 17, 2020 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, eastynh said:

It clearly could afford the deal as it was given money by the ruler of the UAE

but it wasn't. The money didn't pass thru Etihad's hands.

The money was paid directly to City by Mansoor's brother.

[eastynh]

 

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 - the Etihad deal is waaaaaay above what anyone could have reasonably expected - which is why it was flagged up as possibly dodgy from the moment it was announced.

And as Etihad don't believe it's worth paying - because otherwise they'd have paid it - it can't be a deal that could be expected from elsewhere (cos otherwise, it would have been got elsewhere for the same numbers without the owner owner's-brother [yeah, that's fooled everyone, eh?  ] having to put his hand in his own pocket).

And now it is looked at as undervalued, a great deal for Etihad and a fantastic investment.

Etihad have said they fully paid the sponsorship fee to City. Their books will have been independently audited.

UEFA's auditors, PWC and Octagan have all stated the deal was fair value. I prefer to believe them rather than listen to you who has made up some fictitious criteria in your own head about what the fair value test actually is.

Now again I will ask you to provide information that City have broken any FFP regulation.

Edited February 17, 2020 by eastynh

[eastynh]

Neil are you calling Etihad liars? As they say they met the sponsorship agreement with Manchester City fully

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, eastynh said:

UEFA's auditors, PWC and Octagan have all stated the deal was fair value.

they stated it was fair value when City had told them that Etihad were the ones paying it.

Turns out City told porkies, which makes the evaluation made with those porkies invalid.