Imagine the meltdown if we ended up 5th but got in to the CL instead of them haha
Oil Money in Football | New City expose
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Also by punishing these sort of clubs, the players would potentially move to the more traditional historic clubs with a bigger following.
City are one of the best clubs in Europe. A TV company won't pay the same amount for a liscence when one of the best clubs is missing.
United are one of the biggest clubs especially commercial and viewership.
Do you think the CL get less TV money next year if we don't qualify?
Confirms a lot of what I expected. But, boy, if I was an Arsenal fan I'd detest Kroenke with all my soul. He puts nothing back into the club.
On the night we beat Juventus, they were also showing City winning 5-0. You literally wouldn't have known, not a single cheer. There was a table of 6 Italian Juve fans in the same pub, who were living every moment, as much as the United fans were.
Well I understand you're not a lawyer but you might be able to understand that, what law are you talking about? Clubs have a contractual relationship with UEFA, there's nothing statutory about it.
Manchester City are facing a possible Champions League ban over alleged manipulation of sponsorship money, Uefa has confirmed.
Yves Leterme, the chief investigator of Uefa’s club financial control body (CFCB), said that City may face “the heaviest punishment” as a result of the case.
Uefa and the Premier League are investigating leaked emails that appear to show £59.5 million of sponsorship money that was supposed to come from the Etihad airline in 2015 was paid instead by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), City’s owner.
The alleged manipulation, published by Der Spiegel, the German magazine, from the Football Leaks cache of documents, would appear to be a breach of financial fair play, which relies on clubs truthfully reporting their financial transactions.
The Times revealed last month that Uefa is set to impose a ban on European competition for the club if the charges are proved, and that City executives could also face personal sanctions.
That has now been confirmed by Leterme who told the Belgian magazine Sport and Strategy: “If it is true what has been written, there might be a serious problem. This can lead to the heaviest punishment: exclusion from the Uefa competitions.
“If the information is correct, this possibly goes against truthful reporting. The financial fair play rules are based on a system of declaration, three months after the clubs have closed their accounts, they have to deposit their figures. Then we do random checks on the truthfulness of those figures. The accounts are examined and approved internally and externally.”
City have already been sanctioned once for FFP breaches, in 2014 when they were fined a conditional £49 million — reduced to £16 million after the club met various Uefa conditions — and senior Uefa figures believe that a second offence, especially if figures are proved to have been manipulated, would have to carry sporting sanctions.
The club executives who could face personal disciplinary charges are Simon Pearce, an Australian who is a director of Manchester City Ltd and special adviser to City’s chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, and Jorge Chumillas, who was the City Football Group’s chief financial officer in 2015.
One email from Chumillas to Pearce, referring to the Etihad sponsorship deal worth £67.5 million annually, stated: “Please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG.”
According to leaked documents, City also backdated sponsorship deals with partners from Abu Dhabi — Etihad, Aabar and the tourism authority. Chumillas asked Pearce in an email if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors, and Pearce replied: “Of course, we can do what we want.”
A month ago Aleksander Ceferin, the Uefa president, described it as “a concrete case” but would not reveal any further details about the investigation .
City have not challenged the authenticity of any of the emails or documents.”
Yves Leterme, the chief investigator of Uefa’s club financial control body (CFCB), said that City may face “the heaviest punishment” as a result of the case.
Uefa and the Premier League are investigating leaked emails that appear to show £59.5 million of sponsorship money that was supposed to come from the Etihad airline in 2015 was paid instead by Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), City’s owner.
The alleged manipulation, published by Der Spiegel, the German magazine, from the Football Leaks cache of documents, would appear to be a breach of financial fair play, which relies on clubs truthfully reporting their financial transactions.
The Times revealed last month that Uefa is set to impose a ban on European competition for the club if the charges are proved, and that City executives could also face personal sanctions.
That has now been confirmed by Leterme who told the Belgian magazine Sport and Strategy: “If it is true what has been written, there might be a serious problem. This can lead to the heaviest punishment: exclusion from the Uefa competitions.
“If the information is correct, this possibly goes against truthful reporting. The financial fair play rules are based on a system of declaration, three months after the clubs have closed their accounts, they have to deposit their figures. Then we do random checks on the truthfulness of those figures. The accounts are examined and approved internally and externally.”
City have already been sanctioned once for FFP breaches, in 2014 when they were fined a conditional £49 million — reduced to £16 million after the club met various Uefa conditions — and senior Uefa figures believe that a second offence, especially if figures are proved to have been manipulated, would have to carry sporting sanctions.
The club executives who could face personal disciplinary charges are Simon Pearce, an Australian who is a director of Manchester City Ltd and special adviser to City’s chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak, and Jorge Chumillas, who was the City Football Group’s chief financial officer in 2015.
One email from Chumillas to Pearce, referring to the Etihad sponsorship deal worth £67.5 million annually, stated: “Please note that out of those 67.5m pounds, 8m pounds should be funded directly by Etihad and 59.5 by ADUG.”
According to leaked documents, City also backdated sponsorship deals with partners from Abu Dhabi — Etihad, Aabar and the tourism authority. Chumillas asked Pearce in an email if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors, and Pearce replied: “Of course, we can do what we want.”
A month ago Aleksander Ceferin, the Uefa president, described it as “a concrete case” but would not reveal any further details about the investigation .
City have not challenged the authenticity of any of the emails or documents.”
No, because it was negotiated beforehand, but viewing figures will suffer. When we dropped to the EL in 2012, there was an instant surge in EL viewing figure and dip in CL’s.
Frankly though, City has a minuscule following worldwide compare to the traditional clubs. You’d likely get a higher viewing number subbing them with AC Milan.
Good, hopefully it actually goes ahead.
Very doubt they will be banned. Pep said they won't sign anyone in January, probably all the money will go towards bribing UEFA.
He’s pretty much detested. My own viewpoint there, but I’m sure I’m not alone.
Having him as the owner is as bad as having an oil baron but in reverse. He’s put absolutely nothing into the club but creams everything out of it.
I would be absolutely shocked if any actual punishment comes out of this. Expecting a slap on the wrist in the form of a fine.
Indeed. He's quite the opposite of a sugardaddy owner. City fans really won the lottery with Abu Dhabi buying their club and puuring billions into it.
You are right - I should have written rules rather than law - but I think you understand what I meant anyway.
Manchester City and PSG are both part of UEFA - UEFA have rules in Place for anyone wanting to participate in their tournaments. If City and PSG choose to NOT follow those rules (Which is the case here) - UEFA can punish them for instance by refusing them to participate in Champions League.
United fans are behind you, Pride of Manchester!
Does anyone actually know City's CL ratings? Or a site which tracks such things?
Gut feeling says around the Napolis and Atletico Madrids but it would be nice to see some hard numbers.
Right, but this doesn't give UEFA legal authority to do whatever they want just because it's their tournament or their competition. UEFA and the tournaments they run are still bound by relevant legislation, which is what a legal challenge from City or PSG would be based on (e.g. EU Competition Law). I don't think it will come to this, but let's say City/PSG are banned from participating in the Champions League due to contravening FFP, then City/PSG could consider challenging that decision in court on the premise that FFP contravenes EU Competition Law. Or they could also apply to CAS on the basis of the application of FFP itself and the punishment meted out.
Based on what Infantino has said, it seems that the whole reason City and UEFA negotiated our original punishment in the first place was to avoid the risk of such a legal challenge.
not that it matters - there simply is no chance that PSG or City will be banned. And as much as I would like to see it happening - I don't want us to get a place in the C.L because of this.
I don't care if we get in as they got banned. I had to endure years of no European football as a result of Liverpool fans behaviour. If City have rules they need to follow, which they blatantly haven't, then they need the full concequences implemented against them.
Can't simply judge an owner by how much he puts in. Have to take into account how much is taken out and where that goes as well.
But yeah kroenke doesn't seem the best.
Yeah, of course I understood, i was taunting you a bit, it's fair game ^^
Of course you're supposed to comply with the rules you agreed on, but remember that UEFA also has, by their own statute, the possibility to negociate sanctions or a bit of leeway.
I've said that here already, I'm in favor of a well designed FFP. It means a FFP with clear rules (meaning, for exemple, that UEFA can re-evaluate your contracts once but not do it, say "ok we're good now" and then decide 2 years later the 1st re-evaluation wasn't accurate so the decide to do it all over again) and a FFP that would give a bit of leeway for a couple of years when an new investor shows up in order to develop the club. Otherwise it doesn't make sense because a lot of clubs benefited from the lack of rules a couple of years back (Chelsea for exemple).
This is like saying we shouldn't be using DNA evidence against people suspected of crimes many years ago. New evidence in regards City has now come to light. UEFA are well within their rights to start looking at their accounts again, especially as they now know fraudulent activity has occurred. The fact that City refused to comment on the allegations proves their guilt. If you know you are innocent you state you are innocent & fight to clear your name. City have not even tried to clear their name. They have just threatened to bankrupt UEFA if they try to take action against them.
It's crazy if effectively two very wealthy countries of dubious ethics have UEFA under the threat of prolonged lawsuits, just to be able to cheat.
And while I hate what has happened to City and PSG wasn't FFP meant to protect against the opposite of what has happened to them? So in effect, City and PSG should be exempt- no chance of them destroying a club into bankruptcy.
And while I hate what has happened to City and PSG wasn't FFP meant to protect against the opposite of what has happened to them? So in effect, City and PSG should be exempt- no chance of them destroying a club into bankruptcy.
City & PSG can go bankrupt at any time. If the owners decide to stop putting their own money in then they would be unlikely to be able to meet their wage bill. City's declared wage bill is already high. The recent leaks showed that in some cases they were paying double what they actually declared. Mancini was being paid as a consultant & a team manager. Pep's declared salary is £20 Mill, it's likely that his true salary will be between £30 to £40 Mill. As far as we know the likes of Silva, Aguero & Kompany have never agitated for moves. When putting 2 + 2 together you would have to conclude that players are being paid well above the norm to join & stay at City.
The big clubs wanted FFP to stop state funded clubs running amok. It cannot be good in the long run to have teams who have the financial power to turn off UEFA's lights if they don't get their way. This can only lead to corruption.
Any other examples of a person/group/country pumping Billions into a football club before FFP other than Chelsea?
Also there is leeway for new owners to develop a club, if the investor really is in for the long haul they can invest as much as they like into the clubs, stadium, training complex, academy etc.
So basically we want City rightfully punished in all ways.
But not this season, as we need them to stop Liverpool
But not this season, as we need them to stop Liverpool
Innit, and it will be absolutely paltry as well like a hundred grand or something. Which is logical considering the offence they committed isn't it?
EDIT: Spelled paltry as poultry. Idiot.
Its arguable that a lot of the big clubs are already there without and state backing. United aren't a football team, they're a global brand. UEFA need United and the other big clubs competing in their flagship competitions because frankly, if they break away and go and set up their own (which has been mooted numerous times) UEFA ceases to be of any relevance whatsoever.
United are a very well run club from a financial standpoint. They were at the forefront of taking football from where it was, to where it is today as a multi-billion pound industry. Everyone wins from that standpoint because the people at the top of the tree are raking it in through. Its not going to change and that's why UEFA won't do anything about any of this.
Its only my opinion but to be honest as a football fan I prefer the PL now to what it was before when it was United v one other club each season. There wasn't a level playing field when one club could go and buy the best players from its rivals - even if as a young lad I loved seeing United dominate and then we didn't see anywhere near the amount of peak, world class footballers here since they were all in Italy and (to a lesser extent) Spain.
Regaring City, you obviously don't know much about the UAE Sheikhs. They aren't just using City as their PR campaign or as a plaything. They are genuinely football crazy and have a passion for the game. Of course, PR and shady sponsorship deals are perks or side-benefits.
Dunno about PSG, but City aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
Is that why the mighty Fan-Sheik has attended 1 game?
They obviously don't get kick out of coming for games as they do of watching Barca on TV.
It's true though. They have this desire to build up a club imitating the Barca model. That was the primary reason for buying City. Not denying the secondary reasons of course, but their interest in the game is quite high.
Kick them out of the CL tomorrow and let them focus on the league.So basically we want City rightfully punished in all ways.
But not this season, as we need them to stop Liverpool
When did United ever do that?
Can't remember us signing anyone from Arsenal, Liverpool, Newcastle, Chelsea or Blackburn bar May when we were directly competing with them. So who did we buy to weaken our rivals?
During the 90's United were quite often not even the biggest spenders each transfer window.
I don't remember there being a transfer window in the 90s
In somewhat slightly related news, City's Arndale merchandise shop has closed down.
I don't remember there being a transfer window in the 90s
In somewhat slightly related news, City's Arndale merchandise shop has closed down.
Well there wasn't a formal window but you couldn't sign players between March and the end of the season. But still United didn't spend the most every summer, in fact they were probably out spent most summers.
Also, they were allowed to make smallish losses of about 50mil over two seasons. If they were more patient and say only signed 1 or 2 big players for a few years they would have been grand, but success would have come a lot slower, and maybe the sheikh would have lost interest.
They might be fans but they also have a big interest in pedaling uae propaganda, and flashing they’re money.
Andy Cole from Newcastle in 1995 - I remember reading it on teletext and being shocked that they let us
Also, I don't know if it counts but Robin Van Persie, Berbatov and Luke Shaw who almost went to Chelsea.