BRING IT ON!!!!

Is anyone surprised that this "leak" has suddenly been reported just after we have won a back to back title and 4 days before we have a cup final?
UEFA are as corrupt as FIFa and have the hypocrisy to point the finger at City for alleged offences? The club trusted them to keep the wraps on this while it was under investigation, this shows the level of their own corruption, disgusting organisation, they are mere puppets on a string being manipulated by certain major European clubs and we all know who they are!

And PSG who were totally guilty got away with it because UEFA didn't file the papers in time.

I'm really not arsed, I hope they ban us and we absolutely tear them a new arsehole in the courts just for the crack.

Exactly mate , hence my comment “ bring it on”  I would love to see those wankers trying to justify banning us in a court of law.
Incidentally, for those unaware,the New York Times is the second biggest shareholder of Liverpool F.C.!

Incidentally, for those unaware, the owners of the NYT sold their shares several years ago 

I may be very naïve here but I keep having this nagging question which I have yet to see answered.  Everywhere I read it states City had an over inflated sponsorship deal with Etihad claiming Stadium naming rights and shirt sponsorship amongst other things.


My Question is: What then is the accurate figure for these said lines of sponsorship?  is there a guideline which says you can only sponsor for x amount rather like a retail price index guide ? 

 If it does exist then my next question is: Who then sets this figure if it exists?

So, how long before the dippers start clambering for us to have our titles written off as we have supposedly not been as wholesome as their sainted club; and any team that finished as runners up to us were handed our trophies?
They really are that desperate.

skyblueoz wrote:I may be very naïve here but I keep having this nagging question which I have yet to see answered.  Everywhere I read it states City had an over inflated sponsorship deal with Etihad claiming Stadium naming rights and shirt sponsorship amongst other things.


My Question is: What then is the accurate figure for these said lines of sponsorship?  is there a guideline which says you can only sponsor for x amount rather like a retail price index guide ? 

 If it does exist then my next question is: Who then sets this figure if it exists?

The sponsorship wasn't over inflated at all. It was a new type of sponsorship which included naming rights, academy development and shirt sponsorship. I think naming rights were worth £5M a season and shirt sponsorship £25M. You could argue they were at the high end (given where City were coming from) but they would have been more or less at market value. Incidentally, they were below market value by the time we won our first PL title.

I believe the issue that you are referring to is who actually paid the money for these sponsorship deals. The claim is that our owner paid most of the money to Etihad and they then paid the money to City. Once UEFA were satisfied that the figures were at MV and that Etihad and Man City weren't related parties, I don't believe it actually matters that Sheikh Mansour may have paid the bulk of the money himself.

I've seen a response from the club in regard to the article in the NYT.  They don't sound overly happy and are suggesting that either UEFA have breached their promise to not discuss the review before they reach a conclusion and/or that they are not as impartial as they should be.  I tried to post it earlier, but it kept failing and now I can't be bothered...

Apparently the NYT have retracted the statement about the source being "close to the investigation", but I've not seen that yet.

The NYT changed their story ever so slightly after City put out their statement saying wither UEFA leaked the story or the reporter made up the story or a bit of both.

Really positive language coming out of the club on this, I expect City to come out on top even if they have to go to appeal to get there. Much more likely to be punished for breaching financial rules on the signing of young players - a 1 or 2 transfer window ban on new signings which won’t be in time to affect the current window.

(1) There have clearly been leaks to the press & that demonstrates the investigations lack of impartiality.
(2) The investigation has not even been concluded & the only reason it is being referred now is that is nearing the 5 year deadline that has previously been established.
Hope MCFC take it all the way & not only defend this charge, but counter sue.

2. above SB absolutely, they are such amateurs it would seem.   Our legal team will have fun then.

the BBC reports on it today are still reading along the lines of "this is what will happen to City"..
they seem to really try and stay away from the part where it could either be all made up, going over old ground, or shoddy investigations/bent officials going against us...

.. so basically trying to stick the boot in whilst they can.

If you wish to know more about it:

had a flick through about 15 mins of this whilst kids in the bath last night, very insightful.. good stuff mate.

Finally able to watch it all the way through. Interesting stuff, I think the last possibility is likely CAS through out the case due to lack of due process & UEFA just throws up its hands and says “well we tried lads”

The BBC love to post articles showing City in a bad light, they stuck the Allez Allez Allez story front and centre on their football page when it emerged, no proper investigation to check the authenticity of the allegations by dipper fans that it related to Hillsborough and/or the boy that died. Any City fan would have given a different version as to the story behind the song but either they weren’t asked or the BBC weren’t interested.