It’s not hard to work out that I was replying to you. You knew that, because you replied to that post of mine.

I don’t care for the faux psychological and immature attempts to try and wind up a person that you are trying to do here.

You’re only making those comments because you have no real retort to the points I’m making.

£200m over 10 years for both shirt and stadium sponsorship.

£200m for the new acadamy that will bear the Etihad name in perpetuity.

Etihad even have a tram stop named after them, seems like a good deal to me..

Oh Ripley's off on one again.. do keep up.

Was there a losing bid or did Etihad arbitrarily just stump up 400m without negotiation or counter bids?

It is a useful measure against what an unaffiliated company with the Abu Dhabi emirate would have offered.

I’ll ask again. What does the Etihad deal have to do with this thread?

Why have you brought that up?

It is a rap that has been ratified and accepted. No problem with the Etihad deal.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedTitle (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
£200m over 10 years for both shirt and stadium sponsorship.

£200m for the new acadamy that will bear the Etihad name in perpetuity.

Etihad even have a tram stop named after them, seems like a good deal to me..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
was there a losing bid or did Etihad arbitrarily just stump up 400m without negotiation or counter bids?

It is a useful measure against what an unaffiliated company with the Abu Dhabi emirate would have offered.

It does seem as though Red has shirked my bet!!!
Bet (excuse the pun) he asks what the bet is for again

It’s entirely irrelevant though, it got passed as at fair value by Uefa themselves. The allegations aren’t anything to do with the value of the Etihad deal, why bring it up?

There wasn't a bidding process, just an offer that was accepted.

Happens in business everyday, in every country.

That’s what I’ve been asking him Melton.

Why has he brought it up?

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedTitle (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
There wasn't a bidding process, just an offer that was accepted.

Happens in business everyday, in every country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


So it was one arbitrary offer of 400m, and city didnt see if it could be bettered, they just accepted it as being the best they could get.. ok.

From Etihad that is a state owned corporation. The state for which whom Man City owner Mansour holds political power in.

A sponsorship deal which it was claimed in a leaked document that ADUG (Abu dhabi united group) the owners of man city claimed they would pay over £50m of the sponsorship themselves!

And these city fans dont think its dodgy nor that UEFA should take them to task for it.

Well they have..

Dodgy as fack

Hence the value of man city being overstated if the owners have to pay for the sponsorship themselves. No wonder not even the man city fans know if there were any other sponsorship offers.



So starved of glory they turn a blind eye to wherever it's coming from.

Desperate.

City fans haven’t said that on this thread either though, why are you making up what people are saying now?

Red is creating his own narrative here.

Anyway. Let’s get back to where this all started.

Red, prove your (that’s your) premise that city’s valuation back in 2015 was false

They , you, dont know melts.. unless you do then do tell us.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 seconds ago
Red is creating his own narrative here.

Anyway. Let’s get back to where this all started.

Red, prove your (that’s your) premise that city’s valuation back in 2015 was false
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply, if adug had to pay over 50m of Etihads sponsorship themselves then the value of the sponsorship was inflated which reflects on the clubs marketability and with it the value of the club.

Now your turn, what was the losing bid v etihads 400m offer?

comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 8 minutes ago
They , you, dont know melts.. unless you do then do tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don’t know what?

That’s a diffferent discussion though red.

You started your comment with “if”

Again. That deal was ratified and accepted as being of fair market value.

That deal had nothing to do with this discussion.

There is nothing wrong with that deal.

So I’ll ask again. You’re premise is that the 2015 valuation of City was false. Explain why you think this.

No, it doesn’t prove the value was inflated at all. The market value test that Uefa applies says whether it was inflated or not. They deemed that the Etihad deal wasn’t.

The allegation around that one is that Etihad didn’t pay it, not that it was overvalued.

One of the other allegations is around a sponsorship that they allege was overpaid (might have been Aabar, but it’s been a while since I read the emails so I’d have to check again). We’re not talking about a significant amount or anything that would significantly impact the valuation, if true though it is a clear breach of the rules.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 minutes ago
No, it doesn’t prove the value was inflated at all. The market value test that Uefa applies says whether it was inflated or not. They deemed that the Etihad deal wasn’t.

The allegation around that one is that Etihad didn’t pay it, not that it was overvalued.

One of the other allegations is around a sponsorship that they allege was overpaid (might have been Aabar, but it’s been a while since I read the emails so I’d have to check again). We’re not talking about a significant amount or anything that would significantly impact the valuation, if true though it is a clear breach of the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously its inflated if ADUG had to pay £50m+ of it themselves.

Do Liverpool have any plans to establish an acadamy or will you continue to spend big and rely on Southampton?

No, it doesn’t show that at all, that’s a non sequitur.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
Do Liverpool have any plans to establish an acadamy or will you continue to spend big and rely on Southampton?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Facking hell, like man city have regular starters from their BS academy.

Man City fans see nothing dodgy in their sponsorship by Etihad nor leaks that ADUG had to pay over £50m of the sponsorship themselves..

My I am shocked

Why won’t you answer my question?

I’ve asked it several times now.

Why do you think the 2015 valuation of City was false? Why is that your premise?

"No, it doesn’t prove the value was inflated at all. The market value test that Uefa applies says whether it was inflated or not. They deemed that the Etihad deal wasn’t."

So what we're saying is that UEFA rulings in city's favour are legitimate and should be respected, but UEFA rulings against city show they're a bunch of crooks.

Ok then.