So if they found that these fundings are illegal, then they would take a lot of other people to court?
For something that they’ve clearly dedicated a lot of time to, the thought that has gone into consequences for a case where no wrongdoing can be determined on City’s part is laughable: “uhh dunno Richard Masters resigns or somet lol”
I love that we have someone like Stefan doing the hard miles in this but now I’ve had enough of it all. I’m just tuned out now.
The PL is going to come out of this looking incredibly stupid.
The odds that City are going to be found guilty of the most serious charges are already low.
Regardless of whether people believe that City “bought their way out,” whether City are actually innocent, or whether there simply wasn’t enough evidence, the optics are going to be that the PL can’t enforce their own rules.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – whether a club is spending beyond their means should be outside of the league’s purview (and the FA’s, and UEFA’s, etc).
The Premier League is not an auditing firm, and they aren’t HM Revenue and Customs. They’re a football league.
City have already shown anyone with a brain that, surprise, there’s more than one way to run a club sustainably.
FFP and PSR were harebrained schemes. Both how long this is dragging out, as well as what the likely outcome of this is going to be, further that point.
If this gets posted in the other subs please link me the thread. Im not brave enough to post it myself but it would be a good read and i can have a little chuckle about all the triggered “teams with history” fans
r/soccer is a cess pool when it comes to City and im banned from r/premierleague.
It was/is a Rick Parry project. Look this clown up.
He was the original CEO of the Premier League – all the big money TV deals were his creation, CEO of Liverpool went after West Ham because Liverpool lost out on Mascherano, then investigated City as head of FFP for UEFA and now is the head of the EFL. He’s a money grubbing weasel and when he can’t win on the pitch, tries to grab more cash by going after his ‘enemies’.
I mean for the longest time (I’m sure they cracked down on the rules more lately after Newcastle takeover) being sponsored by a company your owner also owns wasn’t a problem. Leicester and King Power, Mike Ashley at Newcastle with Sports Direct etc etc.
So the accusation isn’t that we’ve been sponsored by a company HHSM owns or is part of, but that the sponsorship was inflated, an inflation supposedly funded by HHSM. CAS found no evidence of that to be true but people won’t care about that, because the people in question here are City and Etihad officials who they will all expect to be lying anyway.
But wasn’t there also a conclusion that the sponsorship amounts City got from Etihad & Etisalat etc actual fair market value? didn’t they evaluate that and found actually they were pretty much in line with other sponsorship deals?
So if there is no problem with an owner’s company sponsoring a team, and the market value of the sponsorship we got after evaluation actually being fine, what actually is the accusation?
I know there is other stuff such as paying Mancini from elsewhere etc. But 90% of the noise seems to be Etihad/Etisalat sponsorship inflation.
Edit: Reading more of the posts a lot of this is saying HHSM has nothing to do with Etihad at all. So is there, or was there, issues with ownership having links to their sponsors? and if so, how is it possible King power and Sports Direct, and Reb Bull etc all get to sponsor the teams they own?
English is not my first language here, so they say the funds are illegal…? If you trace back the history of England and its colony…what is purely legal?
8 comments
So if they found that these fundings are illegal, then they would take a lot of other people to court?
For something that they’ve clearly dedicated a lot of time to, the thought that has gone into consequences for a case where no wrongdoing can be determined on City’s part is laughable: “uhh dunno Richard Masters resigns or somet lol”
I love that we have someone like Stefan doing the hard miles in this but now I’ve had enough of it all. I’m just tuned out now.
The PL is going to come out of this looking incredibly stupid.
The odds that City are going to be found guilty of the most serious charges are already low.
Regardless of whether people believe that City “bought their way out,” whether City are actually innocent, or whether there simply wasn’t enough evidence, the optics are going to be that the PL can’t enforce their own rules.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – whether a club is spending beyond their means should be outside of the league’s purview (and the FA’s, and UEFA’s, etc).
The Premier League is not an auditing firm, and they aren’t HM Revenue and Customs. They’re a football league.
City have already shown anyone with a brain that, surprise, there’s more than one way to run a club sustainably.
FFP and PSR were harebrained schemes. Both how long this is dragging out, as well as what the likely outcome of this is going to be, further that point.
If this gets posted in the other subs please link me the thread. Im not brave enough to post it myself but it would be a good read and i can have a little chuckle about all the triggered “teams with history” fans
r/soccer is a cess pool when it comes to City and im banned from r/premierleague.
It was/is a Rick Parry project. Look this clown up.
He was the original CEO of the Premier League – all the big money TV deals were his creation, CEO of Liverpool went after West Ham because Liverpool lost out on Mascherano, then investigated City as head of FFP for UEFA and now is the head of the EFL. He’s a money grubbing weasel and when he can’t win on the pitch, tries to grab more cash by going after his ‘enemies’.
I mean for the longest time (I’m sure they cracked down on the rules more lately after Newcastle takeover) being sponsored by a company your owner also owns wasn’t a problem. Leicester and King Power, Mike Ashley at Newcastle with Sports Direct etc etc.
So the accusation isn’t that we’ve been sponsored by a company HHSM owns or is part of, but that the sponsorship was inflated, an inflation supposedly funded by HHSM. CAS found no evidence of that to be true but people won’t care about that, because the people in question here are City and Etihad officials who they will all expect to be lying anyway.
But wasn’t there also a conclusion that the sponsorship amounts City got from Etihad & Etisalat etc actual fair market value? didn’t they evaluate that and found actually they were pretty much in line with other sponsorship deals?
So if there is no problem with an owner’s company sponsoring a team, and the market value of the sponsorship we got after evaluation actually being fine, what actually is the accusation?
I know there is other stuff such as paying Mancini from elsewhere etc. But 90% of the noise seems to be Etihad/Etisalat sponsorship inflation.
Edit: Reading more of the posts a lot of this is saying HHSM has nothing to do with Etihad at all. So is there, or was there, issues with ownership having links to their sponsors? and if so, how is it possible King power and Sports Direct, and Reb Bull etc all get to sponsor the teams they own?
English is not my first language here, so they say the funds are illegal…? If you trace back the history of England and its colony…what is purely legal?