They normally put plots up for open auction then assess bids. Probably won’t surprise you they held a closed auction for these plots.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
What, giving land away at a fraction of the price on unusually long leases and also giving up control to companies registered in tax havens?
Can you give a single example of this happening before? (If its normal youll be able to find hundreds of examples).
Land is given free. They invest building materials and construction costs then own substantial wealth and influence over council. Offshore entity so not paying tax in the UK for public land gifted for free.
That's not what I replied to, but councils usually sell for lower than market values though. No idea how much under market value this is though.
That's the point. There's no transparency. The fact it's registered in an offshore financial centre indicates that the opaque nature of the dealings is probably deliberate.
Abu Dhabi have no actual interest in gentrifying Manchester or property development. It is merely about intertwining their tentacles into as many areas of the City as possible, so as to make removing them post 115 charges as difficult as possible without leaving egg on the face of as many public institutions as possible.
Yea things have to be fully transparent, needs to be law.
We need to give the benefit of the doubt to posters like Sakura.
They do not understand the FFP rules exist so clubs are on a level playing field.
If SJR poured a couple of billion into the squad ignoring FFP rules most of us would not be happy if we won the title that way.
Arsenal are the true title winners.
The real problem with the charges and whatever punishment the Premier league hands out to City, the owners are likely to get away with little or no punishment by the FA.
They do not understand the FFP rules exist so clubs are on a level playing field.
If SJR poured a couple of billion into the squad ignoring FFP rules most of us would not be happy if we won the title that way.
Arsenal are the true title winners.
The real problem with the charges and whatever punishment the Premier league hands out to City, the owners are likely to get away with little or no punishment by the FA.
Think it was more they had an issue understanding the concept of time, a difficult thing to overcome.
Wtf have I just read?City shouldn't have signed up to the FFP rules of they were not going to follow them.
Who’s this wet wipe ?
It's like who cares if the Cali and Medellin cartels did something in the 70s and 80s, what's that go to do with today?
He could be a City fan?
No they don’t. There’s an expectation on them (and any local government entity) to get the best sales price/rental possible
Oh gosh, you are right. Phew, great you got here in time to put us right.
I think you are the only one doing some mental gymnastics on here pal.
Go read the leaked Der Spiegel documents or try out your fake gambling sponsors.
Surely this isn’t a serious post
I don't think it is serious either. The last charge is of 2018 and they probably only stopped there because that is what they were investigating at the time when they found all these issues. It doesn't mean they stopped cheating and are likely still continuing still thumbing their noses at regulations.
But more importantly, they built their foundations upon lies, so yes everything they have done since should be considered as profiting from cheating. Nothing they have achieved shouldn't be viewed as legitimate at this point.
Oh no, he was serious
This is actually sickening to read. How could anyone be a fan of this "club"?
They haven't asked for records from 2019 onwards if I remember correctly, and I imagine if they were asked they would refuse and therefore have more recent charges too. The alleged shenanigans around Haaland's transfer are relatively new aren't they? My guess is they have never stopped and just became better at hiding what they were doing.
The fact that it's not so easy to throw the book at them means that these 115 charges and many more which are not exposed yet were being carefully planned many years ago with a team of top lawyers.
To me City is worse than Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong was caught and punished. For City's case, everyone know they cheat to the max but no one can do anything about it because there are loopholes in the law.
For club with proper integrity like Everton and etc, they admitted to their mistakes, cooperated with PL and accepted punishment swiftly. Everyone can move on and maintain the integrity of the club and league.
To me City is worse than Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong was caught and punished. For City's case, everyone know they cheat to the max but no one can do anything about it because there are loopholes in the law.
For club with proper integrity like Everton and etc, they admitted to their mistakes, cooperated with PL and accepted punishment swiftly. Everyone can move on and maintain the integrity of the club and league.
Yes, I think they just stopped looking because the problem was already too massive to handle. If you notice how quiet the Man City transfers are, I think we can get an idea just from that there might be an issue. They never seem to be involved in a long transfer saga with clubs outwardly holding out for more.
Haaland transfer was very cheap on record....no other club was interested? This is a guy who eas knocking in almost a goal a game over there at Dortmund.
Chelsea tried to sign Haaland twelve months before City. They agreed a fee with Dortmund but wouldn't meet the demands of the player and his dad and agent. The demands were something like £30 million to his dad, £40 million to the agent and a contract of £39 million a year for Haaland! yet we're expected to believe that now he's 'only' earning 15 to 16 million a year.!
If they are let off, could we see the other clubs voting to ban them from the league?
Also, if they are found guilty, wouldn't every club that played them and lost out on something(League title/relegation/cup run/CL spot etc) have a case to sue them for loss of income? Perhaps in a class action law suit?
Also, if they are found guilty, wouldn't every club that played them and lost out on something(League title/relegation/cup run/CL spot etc) have a case to sue them for loss of income? Perhaps in a class action law suit?
Ridiculous, isn't it? And on the transfer end, it is at a time where we are getting quotes of 150 mil for established strikers...nobody else wanted Haaland to get him for 50 mil? Clubs are paying 65-75 mil for Mudryk, Havertz and Anthony. Herr you got a guy who his goal ratio is probably .9 per game and It is 50 odd mil. That's just not believable.
I can't recall them agreeing a fee.
I can easily imagine Dortmund being willing to accept offers, given how the deal was structured, but for Haaland&Co it was always about getting as much as possible, and having a smaller transfer fee they could demand more in wages and compensation, which always meant waiting and essentially allowing the bidding process to begin.
While I've no doubts there were massive fees paid to the agent and daddy, and possibly a nice bonus to Haaland, I've read his contract with Dortmund had a release clause. United weren't willing to insert a release clause a few years back, supposedly, so he went to Dortmund who did insert a clause.
Chelsea made a hefty bid for him the previous year. Why would a 50 mil bid not have sufficed at that time? Not like Chelsea doesn't overpay their players either! These release clauses are cloak and dagger stuff. You never know if they are actually in there. It's going to be a new way of concealing actual values.
I've just looked it up and they were prepared to pay somewhere between £150 to £170 million.
Chelsea are 'confident' they can agree a fee for £170m Erling Haaland, reveals Jan Aage Fjortoft | Daily Mail Online
I suppose they didn't ever actually agree a fee because they couldn't meet the financial terms with the player, so never got that far with Dortmund.
Why would Dortmund accept to lose him a year earlier for the same fee they'd get on the basis of keeping him for one more season?
Dortmund accepted a deal where Haaland had a small release clause and where the majority of the fee would go to daddy and Raiola. Their reason for accepting such a deal was that they'd get a goalscoring machine and if, which is a big if, someone agreed a deal before the release clause then obviously Dortmund would get the entire transfer fee rather than £50 something mill.
Essentially, as long as Haaland kept performing:
- It'd be in Dortmunds best interest to sell him for a high transfer fee
- It'd be in Haalands best interest to wait until the release clause can be activated and then let the biggest clubs bid.
Essentially, any club wanting to buy him would've had to:
1: Bid high enough to make it financially interesting for Dortmund
2: still have to pay the agent and daddy-fee
3: make it financially interesting for Haaland
= Utterly insanely expensive
If there was a release clause it wouldn't matter what Dortmund wants would it? They have to accept it. And if there was a release clause that was known, why were there not 10+ bids on him? Something doesn't flow here.
The release clause was only activated the summer he left for City, and you can be fecking assured that a lot of clubs were in direct contact with Raiola about his terms.
City and PSG have completely bloated wages and transfer fees, so that other teams can’t compete.
I heard Mbappe has taken a wage reduction to go to Real?
Imagine what these City players will be asking if/when City are relegated!
I heard Mbappe has taken a wage reduction to go to Real?
Imagine what these City players will be asking if/when City are relegated!
If that is the case why would Dortmund not have entertained a much larger bid from Chelsea the year before? Who the heck would let 50 mil+ go? It's a guaranteed loss.
We never heard of another accepted bid, at least I don't recall one. Seems to me this release clause got magically inserted at the last minute. There was a deal made I suspect before the Chelsea inquiry came in. Id have to look back at how City's FFP situation was that year to speculate as to why.
Why didnt Dortmund not try to restructure his contract over the time he was there to at least increase his release clause?
You can bet your bottom dollar a lot of clubs would have paid the release clause but, if they are speaking to Haaland senior and he's saying 'these are our contract expectations and fees', no club will bother if it's out of their range and the reported agent fee (not even going into salary) was astronomical.
There were no bids because a bid would be the guaranteed 50 mill to dortmund + extra to make it interesting for dortmund to sell a year early, on top of the extreme fees to raiola and Haaland sr.
how do you expect dortmund to restructure against the wishes of Haaland?
the Haaland deal was insanely expensive, its just that the largest pieces of the pie went to Haaland sr and raiola, as they always intended.
this was well known when he first signed for dortmund.
Apparently their were offers from Real Mardid and Bayern Munich as well but pressumably they wernt will to pay the 40m agents fee and Alfies fee along with his huge wages and bonusses as I cant think of any reason why he would choose little City over those 2 giants.
https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/football/news/how-much-erling-haaland-cost-man-city-transfer-fee-price/mjyslju2nkccl4zkkc1uvvia#
They had a very key sponsor at the council - https://www.mancity.com/news/club/manchester-city-sir-richard-leese-honorary-president-63819060