Yes if that's true absolutely. Like I said though, etihad have said they are solely liable so just got to wait til CAS.
None of it is clear at all, that's the problem with talking much about it yet.
Why? I helped my sister pay her mortgage when she was having financial troubles
His nicknane is Thickinthehead, should tell you something
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Yes if that's true absolutely. Like I said though, etihad have said they are solely liable so just got to wait til CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying solely whilst the entire Abu Dhabi emirate apparatus is linked is somewhat weird.
The £59m was paid by the owner which in some way found its way to Man City.
What did Man City record it as if it went direct to Man City?
What did Etihad record it as if it went through Etihad?
Those are questions with regard to fiscal malfeasance.
As far as FFP is concerned, it is the owners money that went to Man City in whichever way it came. Ie it was money that wasn’t earned by the club yet it was spent. Now if it is recorded as a loan from the owner to the club, that is possible.
But then why the cloak and dagger about Etihad and the £400m sponsorship deal?
It’s obvious that the sponsorship deal was to show FFP is being complied with.
The £59m demonstrates that City had no qualms in going around it.
Really doesn’t look good for City’s owners. Incredibly shady.
A 2 year ban really isn’t very much at all, reckon City should just take it on the chin.
You should just take it up the arrse
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 6 seconds ago
You should just take it up the arrse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris speaking from experience.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Yes if that's true absolutely. Like I said though, etihad have said they are solely liable so just got to wait til CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying solely whilst the entire Abu Dhabi emirate apparatus is linked is somewhat weird.
The £59m was paid by the owner which in some way found its way to Man City.
What did Man City record it as if it went direct to Man City?
What did Etihad record it as if it went through Etihad?
Those are questions with regard to fiscal malfeasance.
As far as FFP is concerned, it is the owners money that went to Man City in whichever way it came. Ie it was money that wasn’t earned by the club yet it was spent. Now if it is recorded as a loan from the owner to the club, that is possible.
But then why the cloak and dagger about Etihad and the £400m sponsorship deal?
It’s obvious that the sponsorship deal was to show FFP is being complied with.
The £59m demonstrates that City had no qualms in going around it.
Really doesn’t look good for City’s owners. Incredibly shady.
A 2 year ban really isn’t very much at all, reckon City should just take it on the chin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t necessarily show any of that though. No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t make it true.
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship. In terms of a loan from the owner, then that makes no sense at all, as the loan would be to Etihad, not City, from Adug. If they paid it direct then you’d have to check ADUGs accounts to see if it was recouped.
You have no idea why the cloak and dagger, neither do
I None of us has enough information to jump to any conclusion fully, so stop doing it.
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
People like him jump to the conclusions they want to.
Thank fek Capital Punishment was abolished several decades ago.
Have you read this Melton?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.html
I know you actually do study stuff before you comment.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
People like him jump to the conclusions they want to.
Thank fek Capital Punishment was abolished several decades ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wtf "people like him"
You dont know me yet are jumping to categorise me.. what a facking knobhead you are gimpson
I don't have to know you.
You're comments tell me everything I need to know.
It wouldn't surprise me if you'd served in the North Korean Government as Minister of Justice.
He even said City could be done for money laundering
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
Depends on where the owner of City got the money from.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 9 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely.
Wtf look at other companies accounts? Already said if proven its come from the sheikh...
Of course the sponsorship is then a complete sham
Do you suspect RB Leipzig's owners of putting monry into their club?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 13 seconds ago
Do you suspect RB Leipzig's owners of putting monry into their club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes .. start a new thread as otherwise the Leipzig talk might derail this thread. Wouldnt want that.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 13 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, no it isn’t if it also shows on Etihads books. You cannot know that only looking at one companies accounts.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 13 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, no it isn’t if it also shows on Etihads books. You cannot know that only looking at one companies accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said they’d only be looking at one set of books?
If the paper trail shows to be Sheikh > Etihad > Man City, it absolutely underlines it to be a sham of a sponsorship deal.
Will effectively be null and void.
That plus the champions league ban and Man City will have to either cut their cloth, or go and play in a league that doesn’t care about FFP..
If the paper trail says that then it still doesn’t show anything unless you also look to see if there’s anything going the other way, that’s what I mean by looking at the other accounts.
Uefa can’t look at Etihads or ADUGs books to the extent they can at City’s. Quite rightly too, neither of them are football clubs and Uefa have no jurisdiction whatsoever to do so.
What id be interested in is the “irrefutable proof” that we keep on saying as I assume that is access to the books to show it anyway.
If that did happen and it was proven though, then absolutely, we should be punished.
I wouldn’t mind league one, I quite liked it when we were in it last time. No VAR to spoil the match day experience yet either
Have Standard Chartered been using laundered money to sponsor Liverpool?
Not beyond the realms of possibility but do you think CS would let UEFA audit their books?
Sign in if you want to comment
The Sheiks Extended family finances
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 17/2/20
Yes if that's true absolutely. Like I said though, etihad have said they are solely liable so just got to wait til CAS.
posted on 17/2/20
None of it is clear at all, that's the problem with talking much about it yet.
posted on 17/2/20
Why? I helped my sister pay her mortgage when she was having financial troubles
posted on 17/2/20
His nicknane is Thickinthehead, should tell you something
posted on 17/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Yes if that's true absolutely. Like I said though, etihad have said they are solely liable so just got to wait til CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying solely whilst the entire Abu Dhabi emirate apparatus is linked is somewhat weird.
The £59m was paid by the owner which in some way found its way to Man City.
What did Man City record it as if it went direct to Man City?
What did Etihad record it as if it went through Etihad?
Those are questions with regard to fiscal malfeasance.
As far as FFP is concerned, it is the owners money that went to Man City in whichever way it came. Ie it was money that wasn’t earned by the club yet it was spent. Now if it is recorded as a loan from the owner to the club, that is possible.
But then why the cloak and dagger about Etihad and the £400m sponsorship deal?
It’s obvious that the sponsorship deal was to show FFP is being complied with.
The £59m demonstrates that City had no qualms in going around it.
Really doesn’t look good for City’s owners. Incredibly shady.
A 2 year ban really isn’t very much at all, reckon City should just take it on the chin.
posted on 17/2/20
You should just take it up the arrse
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 6 seconds ago
You should just take it up the arrse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris speaking from experience.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Yes if that's true absolutely. Like I said though, etihad have said they are solely liable so just got to wait til CAS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying solely whilst the entire Abu Dhabi emirate apparatus is linked is somewhat weird.
The £59m was paid by the owner which in some way found its way to Man City.
What did Man City record it as if it went direct to Man City?
What did Etihad record it as if it went through Etihad?
Those are questions with regard to fiscal malfeasance.
As far as FFP is concerned, it is the owners money that went to Man City in whichever way it came. Ie it was money that wasn’t earned by the club yet it was spent. Now if it is recorded as a loan from the owner to the club, that is possible.
But then why the cloak and dagger about Etihad and the £400m sponsorship deal?
It’s obvious that the sponsorship deal was to show FFP is being complied with.
The £59m demonstrates that City had no qualms in going around it.
Really doesn’t look good for City’s owners. Incredibly shady.
A 2 year ban really isn’t very much at all, reckon City should just take it on the chin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn’t necessarily show any of that though. No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn’t make it true.
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship. In terms of a loan from the owner, then that makes no sense at all, as the loan would be to Etihad, not City, from Adug. If they paid it direct then you’d have to check ADUGs accounts to see if it was recouped.
You have no idea why the cloak and dagger, neither do
I None of us has enough information to jump to any conclusion fully, so stop doing it.
posted on 17/2/20
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
posted on 17/2/20
People like him jump to the conclusions they want to.
Thank fek Capital Punishment was abolished several decades ago.
posted on 17/2/20
Have you read this Melton?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/sports/psg-uefa-ffp.html
I know you actually do study stuff before you comment.
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 25 minutes ago
People like him jump to the conclusions they want to.
Thank fek Capital Punishment was abolished several decades ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wtf "people like him"
You dont know me yet are jumping to categorise me.. what a facking knobhead you are gimpson
posted on 17/2/20
I don't have to know you.
You're comments tell me everything I need to know.
It wouldn't surprise me if you'd served in the North Korean Government as Minister of Justice.
posted on 17/2/20
He even said City could be done for money laundering
posted on 17/2/20
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
posted on 20/2/20
Depends on where the owner of City got the money from.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 9 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely.
Wtf look at other companies accounts? Already said if proven its come from the sheikh...
Of course the sponsorship is then a complete sham
posted on 20/2/20
Do you suspect RB Leipzig's owners of putting monry into their club?
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson #TaintedUEFA (U5901)
posted 13 seconds ago
Do you suspect RB Leipzig's owners of putting monry into their club?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes .. start a new thread as otherwise the Leipzig talk might derail this thread. Wouldnt want that.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 13 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, no it isn’t if it also shows on Etihads books. You cannot know that only looking at one companies accounts.
posted on 20/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 13 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 9 hours ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
City would have just recorded it as money to cover the Etihad sponsorship.
-----------
If they did, and evidence proves it came from the owner of city it means the whole sponsorship is a complete sham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it doesn’t. You have to look at the other companies accounts too to prove that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it can be proven the no ey cane from the sheikh then it's a complete sham saan. No need for denial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, no it isn’t if it also shows on Etihads books. You cannot know that only looking at one companies accounts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said they’d only be looking at one set of books?
If the paper trail shows to be Sheikh > Etihad > Man City, it absolutely underlines it to be a sham of a sponsorship deal.
Will effectively be null and void.
That plus the champions league ban and Man City will have to either cut their cloth, or go and play in a league that doesn’t care about FFP..
posted on 20/2/20
If the paper trail says that then it still doesn’t show anything unless you also look to see if there’s anything going the other way, that’s what I mean by looking at the other accounts.
Uefa can’t look at Etihads or ADUGs books to the extent they can at City’s. Quite rightly too, neither of them are football clubs and Uefa have no jurisdiction whatsoever to do so.
What id be interested in is the “irrefutable proof” that we keep on saying as I assume that is access to the books to show it anyway.
posted on 20/2/20
If that did happen and it was proven though, then absolutely, we should be punished.
I wouldn’t mind league one, I quite liked it when we were in it last time. No VAR to spoil the match day experience yet either
posted on 20/2/20
Have Standard Chartered been using laundered money to sponsor Liverpool?
Not beyond the realms of possibility but do you think CS would let UEFA audit their books?
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10