Man City & The FA Cup

[MarkA333]

Yes but every sane person on the planet just had to look at the players in the squad and know that it meant a billion pounds of investment, which in fact was provided albeit by the Abu Dhabi government it seems. In any case, everyone knew it was an Abu Dhabi backed project, in may ways, I feel it’s a semantic issue potentially. Even though a detrimental outcome for Man City might propagate Palace in some way. I mean, would it have mattered if they had just openly declared it was the Abu Dhabi government that were the main sponsors? Bearing in mind that that government officials were amongst the owners.

 

[Username]

It’s not semantics.

It’s rules.

 

[MarkA333]

It’s not semantics.

It’s rules.

Fair enough. They did break the rules by stating that it was sponsorships. However they could and should have just declared that Man City were being backed by the Abu Dhabi government, if in fact that is the case. Then there would be no problem. And it’s no different to Abramovic openly transforming Chelsea as a benefactor/owner etc.

 

[MrRobbo]

On SSN yesterday it was reported that one of the premier team's chairman has come out and said that it would be a financial liability to kick Man City out of the prem...
Oh, Boo Hoo, we might loose a couple of million to kick out a team who has been cheating every other team, along with their supporters, for years.

Yeah I saw that. I understand the gist, but I'm not having it.

City, despite their winning, dont have the global appeal of Utd and Liverpool etc.

I get that ppl tune in to watch Haaland etc, but lets be honest, its hardly the Galácticos. If they get relegated a couple of divisions, all their mob will leave and a bunch will end up in different prem teams. Some will go to Spain, but thats happening anyway.

 

[MrRobbo]

Yes but every sane person on the planet just had to look at the players in the squad and know that it meant a billion pounds of investment, which in fact was provided albeit by the Abu Dhabi government it seems. In any case, everyone knew it was an Abu Dhabi backed project, in may ways, I feel it’s a semantic issue potentially. Even though a detrimental outcome for Man City might propagate Palace in some way. I mean, would it have mattered if they had just openly declared it was the Abu Dhabi government that were the main sponsors? Bearing in mind that that government officials were amongst the owners.

I cant be arsed to look it up to be exact, but there is a rule around sponsorship needing to be inline with market value. e.g. they cant get 900m for a shirt sponsorship when Utd are only getting 10m.

Unfortuently those rules obviously dont apply to selling your women's team etc.

 

[MarkA333]

• 
  
• 
  
• • Artificially Inflating Income: The commission found that Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with commercial partners to disguise direct financial funding from its owner, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), as legitimate sponsorship revenue. This boosted the club's reported income by more than £830 million.
  • Concealing Costs and Expenses: The club's accounts omitted significant financial obligations—such as payments to managers and players—which were instead paid directly by ADUG to understate the club's true expenses.
  • Filing Misstated Accounts: By misrepresenting their revenues and hiding their costs, Manchester City filed false accounts to auditors and football regulators to appear compliant with Premier League and UEFA spending limits.
  • Lack of Cooperation: During the extensive investigation, the club failed to cooperate and act in good faith toward the Premier League. [1, 2, 3]
  They were very much lacking in probity. And clearly misled authorities but somehow I still feel that they, in the end, paid for a premium addition to the Premier League and should have been transparent in their actions.
  This is a difficult one. The players were paid. The infrastructure for Manchester was paid for. Etc ..other teams could have bought Haaland.

 

[Username]

• 
  
• 
  
• • Artificially Inflating Income: The commission found that Manchester City arranged "sham" contracts with commercial partners to disguise direct financial funding from its owner, Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), as legitimate sponsorship revenue. This boosted the club's reported income by more than £830 million.
  • Concealing Costs and Expenses: The club's accounts omitted significant financial obligations—such as payments to managers and players—which were instead paid directly by ADUG to understate the club's true expenses.
  • Filing Misstated Accounts: By misrepresenting their revenues and hiding their costs, Manchester City filed false accounts to auditors and football regulators to appear compliant with Premier League and UEFA spending limits.
  • Lack of Cooperation: During the extensive investigation, the club failed to cooperate and act in good faith toward the Premier League. [1, 2, 3]
  They were very much lacking in probity. And clearly misled authorities but somehow I still feel that they, in the end, paid for a premium addition to the Premier League and should have been transparent in their actions.
  This is a difficult one. The players were paid. The infrastructure for Manchester was paid for. Etc ..other teams could have bought Haaland.

You’re interpretation of this seems completely bizarre to me.

It’s anything but difficult. It is an open and shut case that they cheated.

 

[MarkA333]

I see that they cheated. I guess my point is, the whole Premiership is set up to bias the top teams anyway. So, they just cheated more to gain an even bigger and unfair advantage than the Premier League gives the other big teams.