The Official Manchester City (World Club Champions)Thread

[cliffe_mafia]

Adam. said:

Posted this on here a while ago, but it was ignored by the 3 of you


https://x.com/adamjoseph/status/1622889676855197697?s=46

CAS dismissed them - as they should if what is stated in a bunch of leaked (doctored?) emails doesn't match what actually happened in the accounts signed off by the directors and audited by several top accountancy firms.

[TEKNOPUG]

bigpriest said:

Didn't 'sports-washing' used to be called investing in and improving a club?

No, it used to be called "propaganda".

Wiki said:

Sportswashing is a term used to describe the practice of nations, individuals, groups, corporations, or governments using sports to improve reputations tarnished by wrongdoing. A form of propaganda, sportswashing can be accomplished through hosting sporting events, purchasing, or sponsoring sporting teams, or participating in a sport.[1]

At the international level, it is believed that sportswashing has been used to direct attention away from poor human rights records and corruption scandals.[2] At the individual and corporate levels, it is believed that sportswashing has been used to cover up vices, crimes, and scandals. Sportswashing is an example of reputation laundering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswashing

[cliffe_mafia]

Chris Stott said:

tamore said:

so in your mind, the club who have 5 pots on show have overinflated sponsorship deals. oooooooo kaaaaaayyy….

just because city don't have a load of clingon fans around the world as a legacy of once-upon-a-time dominance (all as a result of financial doping i might add), they aren't as marketable?

If City have such a massive marketing pull, how come most of their major sponsors are are part of the same parent group?

That is such a daft question. "So Etihad why do you want your name plastered everywhere across Champions League/World Club/FA Cup finals"

[Fast Bug]

cliffe_mafia said:

Chris Stott said:

tamore said:

so in your mind, the club who have 5 pots on show have overinflated sponsorship deals. oooooooo kaaaaaayyy….

just because city don't have a load of clingon fans around the world as a legacy of once-upon-a-time dominance (all as a result of financial doping i might add), they aren't as marketable?

If City have such a massive marketing pull, how come most of their major sponsors are are part of the same parent group?

That is such a daft question. "So Etihad why do you want your name plastered everywhere across Champions League/World Club/FA Cup finals"

On a stadium that you can't fill.

[LF5335]

cliffe_mafia said:

That is such a daft question. "So Etihad why do you want your name plastered everywhere across Champions League/World Club/FA Cup finals"

Of course! City were such a powerhouse in all those competitions when Etihad were looking for somewhere to spend their (not in anny way massively inflated) sponsorship money.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/m...

[TEKNOPUG]

cliffe_mafia said:

That is such a daft question. "So Etihad why do you want your name plastered everywhere across Champions League/World Club/FA Cup finals"

That misses the point though. It's clearly not operating as a free market if all the commercial deals are with the same group. No other club operates that way. It smacks of collusion at the very least.

[cliffe_mafia]

LF5335 said:

Of course! City were such a powerhouse in all those competitions when Etihad were looking for somewhere to spend their (not in anny way massively inflated) sponsorship money.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/m...

We won the Premier league in 2011/12 when that article was written - would you say that's a bit "powerhousey"?

Averaged over 10 years Etihad have had fair value, so in what way was it inflated?

[cliffe_mafia]

TEKNOPUG said:

cliffe_mafia said:

That is such a daft question. "So Etihad why do you want your name plastered everywhere across Champions League/World Club/FA Cup finals"

That misses the point though. It's clearly not operating as a free market if all the commercial deals are with the same group. No other club operates that way. It smacks of collusion at the very least.

No other clubs? Newcastle and Sports Direct, RB Leipzig, Adidas part own/sponsor Bayern Munich, it's not unheard of.

We don't seem to struggle to get sponsors but I missed when Sheik Mansour bought all of these:

https://www.mancity.com/club/partners

[LF5335]

cliffe_mafia said:

LF5335 said:

Of course! City were such a powerhouse in all those competitions when Etihad were looking for somewhere to spend their (not in anny way massively inflated) sponsorship money.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/m...

We won the Premier league in 2011/12 when that article was written - would you say that's a bit "powerhousey"?

Averaged over 10 years Etihad have had fair value, so in what way was it inflated?

The article was written in July 2011, which is the conclusion of the 2010/11 season and you definitely didn’t win the PL that year, nor any prior year. So not powerhouses at all. But a good attempt at manipulating numbers to try to alter the truth. Seems like it’s infectious and spreading from boardroom to the terraces. Even if you’d won one title at that stage it wouldn’t make you a powerhouse, see Leicester or Blackburn at that point.

Averaged over 10 years it’s still very big money. It’s £40m a year. That’s massively out of sync with the market. More attempt at number manipulation, but not a very good attempt this time. Feel free to show me any PL club that has agreed a deal since that is at anywhere near those numbers. Before you mention shirt sponsorship being part of that number, it’s not. Also somehow you’re now worth more to companies wanting to advertise on shirts than United and Liverpool by a significant margin. Yeah right.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/254513/value-o...

[TEKNOPUG]

Do you honestly believe that Manchester City have been able to spend €1.5bn on players since Pep took over, all whilst complying with FFP rules?

[Chris Stott]

cliffe_mafia said:

No other clubs? Newcastle and Sports Direct, RB Leipzig, Adidas part own/sponsor Bayern Munich, it's not unheard of.

We don't seem to struggle to get sponsors but I missed when Sheik Mansour bought all of these:

https://www.mancity.com/club/partners

Etihad
Etisalat
e&
Experience Abu Dhabi
Emirates Palace
Aldar
First Abu Dhabi Bank

Not even the slightest bit suspicious

[cliffe_mafia]

TEKNOPUG said:

Do you honestly believe that Manchester City have been able to spend €1.5bn on players since Pep took over, all whilst complying with FFP rules?

I think we broke the rules in the early years (and got some punishments) but that was more because the rules were constantly getting rewritten to trip us up. Since then (with Pep) I think we've been squeaky clean, which is why I can't wait to see what new evidence the FA have. We're on record as saying that our early investment had to be sped up. We're lucky we just got in before the drawbridge slammed shut and we got in the castle with the 3 red shirt clubs.

The FA need to prove conspiracy, false accounting and perjury - if we are guilty it's not just relegation for the club, our directors would be looking at prison; accountancy firms such as Deloitte and Ernst & Young would be implicated too. It just seems too big of a hurdle to be proven.

At least now fans of other clubs are starting to see how FFP is designed to keep things cosy at the top. What a farce having millions to invest in your business but not being able to spend it. But it's ok for Man U to be a billion in debt .

[LF5335]

We didn’t do anything wrong

Well we did but we got in before the rules changed

Ok we didn’t manage to do that, but we’ve been punished already

Oooo look squirrel.

[cliffe_mafia]

LF5335 said:

cliffe_mafia said:

LF5335 said:

Of course! City were such a powerhouse in all those competitions when Etihad were looking for somewhere to spend their (not in anny way massively inflated) sponsorship money.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/jul/08/m...

We won the Premier league in 2011/12 when that article was written - would you say that's a bit "powerhousey"?

Averaged over 10 years Etihad have had fair value, so in what way was it inflated?

The article was written in July 2011, which is the conclusion of the 2010/11 season and you definitely didn’t win the PL that year, nor any prior year. So not powerhouses at all. But a good attempt at manipulating numbers to try to alter the truth. Seems like it’s infectious and spreading from boardroom to the terraces. Even if you’d won one title at that stage it wouldn’t make you a powerhouse, see Leicester or Blackburn at that point.

Averaged over 10 years it’s still very big money. It’s £40m a year. That’s massively out of sync with the market. More attempt at number manipulation, but not a very good attempt this time. Feel free to show me any PL club that has agreed a deal since that is at anywhere near those numbers. Before you mention shirt sponsorship being part of that number, it’s not. Also somehow you’re now worth more to companies wanting to advertise on shirts than United and Liverpool by a significant margin. Yeah right.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/254513/value-o...

Here's part of the conclusion of the CAS ruling - note the "fair value" part -

[Adam.]

LF5335 said:

We didn’t do anything wrong

Well we did but we got in before the rules changed

Ok we didn’t manage to do that, but we’ve been punished already

Oooo look squirrel.

[TEKNOPUG]

LF5335 said:

We didn’t do anything wrong

Well we did but we got in before the rules changed

Ok we didn’t manage to do that, but we’ve been punished already

Oooo look squirrel.

It's a conspiracy I tell yer!

A conspiracy by all 20+ Prem clubs who voted for FFP.....

We don't agree with the rules, they are unfair, so we are going to do everything to circumvent them as part of our moral crusade....the fact that all the other clubs are trying to comply with the rules and therefore that gives us a massive competitive advantage can in no way be construed as "cheating" As long as our highly paid lawyers can get us off on legal technicalities, it's all fine.

[mylesmcd]

cliffe_mafia said:

TEKNOPUG said:

mylesmcd said:

I am an Arsenal fan.

I dont care either at this stage tbh (think most Arsenal fans are the same too), its not MCFCs fault really, it is the owners of the club. And if it wasnt MCFC it would be another club. (if there even was anything to be found guilty of, innocent till proven and all that!)

I am just happy we are/were back in the running after a terrible decade of dross.

You probably wouldn't have had 10 years of dross if Citeh weren't buying up all the best players.....

We don't buy the best players. Pep makes them the best players.

Its all meh at this stage. we were barrelling players to Chelsea and Man Utd before City showed up. We ARE capable of messing this up on our own thank you very much..

[bigpriest]

TEKNOPUG said:

bigpriest said:

Didn't 'sports-washing' used to be called investing in and improving a club?

No, it used to be called "propaganda".

Wiki said:

Sportswashing is a term used to describe the practice of nations, individuals, groups, corporations, or governments using sports to improve reputations tarnished by wrongdoing. A form of propaganda, sportswashing can be accomplished through hosting sporting events, purchasing, or sponsoring sporting teams, or participating in a sport.[1]

At the international level, it is believed that sportswashing has been used to direct attention away from poor human rights records and corruption scandals.[2] At the individual and corporate levels, it is believed that sportswashing has been used to cover up vices, crimes, and scandals. Sportswashing is an example of reputation laundering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportswashing

Must be some terribly tarnished reputations to hide in Madrid

[mylesmcd]

Do your players have Relegation Clauses in their contracts?

[TEKNOPUG]

bigpriest said:

Must be some terribly tarnished reputations to hide in Madrid

You mean Franco's club?