Football 19/20

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Neil are you calling Etihad liars?

I'm calling City liars. If any of that falls back onto Etihad, it is what it is.

And the emails prove beyond all doubt that City lied to UEFA, and City haven't denied the contents of the emails.

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

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.

Again Neil you are making things up in your own head. Where Etihad gets its cash from has no relevance on what is a fair value deal. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

Where Etihad gets its cash from has no relevance on what is a fair value deal. 

yes it does. The deal was with Etihad, and not some rich bloke.

If the deal isn't worth that amount to Etihad then it cannot be a fair value deal.

[eFestivals]

hey easty, let's start at the beginning...

1. do City and you accept that City have to follow the UEFA FFP rules?

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

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.

The trouble is the elite will never change the rules to let others catch up and take their share of the pie. I therefore feel the only 2 options are accepting people may bend/break the rules or accept the status quo as it exists. That’s why I don’t care if City break the rules.

[TheGayTent]

22 hours ago, pryce said:

I hope Leeds dont get promoted... Premiership doesn't seem fun 

 

Dusseldorf has beaten me again, hanging 

 

Got Dusseldorf vs Koln ice hockey in a few hours

What you doing up there - get yourself on the terrace !

[TheGayTent]

Some photos of my trip. 
Barcelona vocal support was poor, Leganes much noisier despite obviously being a much smaller ground. Clearly tourists like me don’t help matters. I enjoyed Celta’s late equaliser against Real Madrid. 
 

Edited February 17, 2020 by TheGayTent

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I'm calling City liars. If any of that falls back onto Etihad, it is what it is.

And the emails prove beyond all doubt that City lied to UEFA, and City haven't denied the contents of the emails.

City have not commented on the emails other to say they are stolen and out of context. Why would City comment directly on anything if they intent to take UEFA to court? That would be stupid.

The emails prove absolutely nothing, they are stolen. The guy who stole them is currently awaiting trial on hacking and extortion charges. How can he be trusted if he was using the hacked information for personal gain?

Again, not even UEFA are insinuating City have lied or broken any regulation. UEFA are saying City have mislead them and been uncooperative. City have basically said fuck you, we have done nothing wrong, we have irrefutable evidence to prove we have done nothing wrong and we will see you in court.

Now for the 5th time, show me any evidence that City have broken any regulation and show me the regulation they have broken.

[eastynh]

Neil that is not how the fair value criteria works. You have just made that up in your own head.

It was worth that amount, they just could not afford it. PWC and Octagon both agree that any sponsorship deal with Manchester City was worth a set amount. They actually state how much a sponsorship deal would be worth. They give actual figures. These are independent groups working at the behest of UEFA, not Manchester City. These are financial experts. It was these financial experts that stated the figure, you are not a financial expert and you are just making stuff up.

EDIT - The Abu Dhabi executive council are a guarantor for Etihad airlines. There is no law against this. It was the executive council that paid the money to City. UEFA think it was ADUG that paid the money. They believe this to be the case from the hacked emails.

An independent enquiry called Open Skies which looks into Qatar, Emiraties and Etihad airlines receiving massive state subsidies which made it difficult for American airlines to compete have looked into this. The findings can be seen in the link below. They state that it was the executive council that paid the money to City, which as guarantors of Etihad, they have every right to do. The money did not come from ADUG to cover the Etihad deal, which UEFA is alleging.

http://www.openandfairskies.com/press-releases/newly-unearthed-etihad-documents/

Edited February 17, 2020 by eastynh

[eastynh]

So Neil, if Emirates are receiving massive state subsidies, does this mean the Arsenal sponsorship deal is also not fair value and they should also be banned for misleading UEFA about where their sponsorship money is actually coming form?

 

EDIT- It seems from the open skies investigation that Etihad did not fully pay the sponsorship monies, even though they publicly stated that they did. The money was paid by the Abu Dhabi executive council. If the money did not come from ADUG and came from the Abu Dhabi executive council then it is not owner investment. UEFA are trying to say that it is. But it should not matter either way as UEFA have already stated that the Etihad deal is fair value.

Basically it seems City have been creative. Not broken any rule, any law or any regulation and UEFA have tried to stitch them up.

So there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that City have broken any regulation, not a single one. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by eastynh

[TheGayTent]

On 2/15/2020 at 1:43 PM, TheGayTent said:

A whole lot of hot air written in here by people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. 

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

Still true

[Wooderson]

Heysel and Aparteid. You hate to see it.

[The Nal]

Made me laugh.

Not as much as City made me laugh, but still, a chuckle. 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by The Nal

[eastynh]

Neil do you not think your stance on Etihad being backed up by Abu Dhabi is a bit hypocritical considering you ask for donations to help keep the website running?

Now I have no issue with that as I have donated in the past myself, bought the cups and will donate again in the future.

Now I appreciate the scale is different but the principal is the same. Why is it ok for you to ask for and receive donations to keep your website afloat but it is wrong for Etihad to do the same?

[Hugh Jass]

There's a football version of Godwin's Law on display here:

Any argument between fans of elite clubs will inevitably contain a reference to Hillsborough/Heysel/Munich...

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

hey easty, let's start at the beginning...

1. do City and you accept that City have to follow the UEFA FFP rules?

 

forget the other  bollocks, let's start at the beginning.

Do you? Do they?

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

There's a football version of Godwin's Law on display here:

Any argument between fans of elite clubs will inevitably contain a reference to Hillsborough/Heysel/Munich...

It would not have done though Hugh. It was a debate and discussion all about football finances until Wooderson started dishing out totally uncalled for insults while showing a total lack of self awareness.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

Neil do you not think your stance on Etihad being backed up by Abu Dhabi is a bit hypocritical considering you ask for donations to help keep the website running?

care to show me what rules I've agreed to that I'm breaking by doing that...? :rolleyes: 

There's no irrelevant crap you won't spout in order to avoid the bit where you know City are guilty.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

forget the other  bollocks, let's start at the beginning.

Do you? Do they?

I never have and have been totally against FFP from the start.

Now show me what regulation they have broken.

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

It would not have done though Hugh. It was a debate and discussion all about football finances until Wooderson started dishing out totally uncalled for insults while showing a total lack of self awareness.

To be honest I came in, saw chat about Heysel and thought "fuck that" and am now wandering off again.

[eastynh]

Just now, eFestivals said:

care to show me what rules I've agreed to that I'm breaking by doing that...? :rolleyes: 

There's no irrelevant crap you won't spout in order to avoid the bit where you know City are guilty.

City have not broken any rules though by the executive council backing up Etihad. Please show me what regulation they have broken by that happening.

[eastynh]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

To be honest I came in, saw chat about Heysel and thought "fuck that" and am now wandering off again.

Wooderson started calling City a despicable little club. I just stated hold on a minute, City have been banned for apparently creative accounting and refusing to be co operative with UEFA. I just asked what was the more despicable act, what City have been banned for or what Liverpool got banned for. Surely that is a valid point to make and I would have expected Wooderson to have a little more self awareness.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

I never have and have been totally against FFP from the start.

apart from all the times you've claimed different, obvs.

 

5 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Now show me what regulation they have broken.

 

Article 58.4 states that "relevant income and expenses from related parties (i.e. anyone involved in the ownership group) must be adjusted to reflect the fair value of any such transactions." 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, eastynh said:

Wooderson started calling City a despicable little club.

City's statement as posted by easty...

Quote

Manchester City is disappointed but not surprised by today’s announcement by the UEFA Adjudicatory Chamber. The Club has always anticipated the ultimate need to seek out an independent body and process to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence in support of its position.

In December 2018, the UEFA Chief Investigator publicly previewed the outcome and sanction he intended to be delivered to Manchester City, before any investigation had even begun. The subsequent flawed and consistently leaked UEFA process he oversaw has meant that there was little doubt in the result that he would deliver.  The Club has formally complained to the UEFA Disciplinary body, a complaint which was validated by a CAS ruling.  

Simply put, this is a case initiated by UEFA, prosecuted by UEFA and judged by UEFA. With this prejudicial process now over, the Club will pursue an impartial judgment as quickly as possible and will therefore, in the first instance, commence proceedings with the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the earliest opportunity.

here's that bit I've bolded....

“If it is true what has been written, there might be a serious problem,” he said to questions about the Der Spiegel coverage. “This can lead to the heaviest punishment: exclusion from the Uefa competitions. If the information is correct, this possibly goes against truthful reporting.”

Which is fuck all like the lie that Easty has swallowed.

Despicable little club, turning their fans into Trump-like w*nkers to try to whitewash their own wrong-doing.

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by eFestivals

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

apart from all the times you've claimed different, obvs.

 

 

Article 58.4 states that "relevant income and expenses from related parties (i.e. anyone involved in the ownership group) must be adjusted to reflect the fair value of any such transactions." 

 

 

 

Right so City have not broken that regulation have they? If UEFA judged that it fair value then the related party is allowed to put the money in. UEFA judged it to be fair value so it does not matter if the money came from ADUG or the Abu Dhabi executive group.

I have also provided given you details which show the Etihad money came from the Abu Dhabi executive group and not ADU. By UEFA's own definitions the Abu Dhabi executive group is not a related party to ADUG.

So try again, what regulation have City broke?