Oil Money in Football | New City expose

[Bastian]

"We are acknowledging that how we are handling this project is telling a lot to the world about how we are,". "The UAE is different from other Arab countries. People think the Arab world is one, but it is not. This is showing the world the true essence of who Abu Dhabi is and what Abu Dhabi is about. That is something new, something we didn't really plan for."

Khaldoon Al-Mubarak 2009

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/sep/18/manchester-city-abu-dhabi-mubarak

City are you nothing more than a propaganda machine for a corrupt and brutal regime.

That's it in a nutshell. It's a re-branding effort on an enormous scale.

Guarantee Sky and BT would not broadcast it.

It's embarrassing how City fans are happy to overlook this sort of stuff.

I'd be finished with United if the Saudis took over.

It would be interesting to see. I think it would be reported on. The more they'd try to censor it, the likelier it would be to get hyped.

And to think Balague gets a job at the BBC with his Pep or money stance...

 

[roonster09]

 

[AlexUTD]

Hard to see $ity og P$G getting any penalties even after more reveals since they pay off so many people who can penalize them.

 

[B20]

Gone now

 

[roonster09]

 

[The Irish Connection]

Ok, genuine question here on legalities and technicalities. If UEFA found irregularities and banned them from European competition for say 5 years ( not holding my breath), would the FA be obliged to act, even though no Premiership rules have been broken, but they are still representatives of English football in European competition?

I read an article the other day about the premier league opening an investigation. Apparently their own ffp forbids losses of 105 million over 3 seasons, which city look well in breach of, especially when taking out the sponsor subsidies paid by the sheiks holding company.

 

[stevoc]

Thats ones been known for years hasn't it, i think they paid somewhere between £46-50m+ for Tevez. He was never signing for United once City were bought, not with them willing to pay double the £25m United had agreed to pay.

 

[roonster09]

Thats ones been known for years hasn't it, i think they paid somewhere between £46-50m+ for Tevez. He was never signing for United once City were bought, not with them willing to pay double the £25m United had agreed to pay.

And at that time they paid base salary of 230k per week. It was never on.

 

[stevoc]

And at that time they paid base salary of 230k per week. It was never on.

Yeah compared to something like £120k pw we were offering. And some still believe it was the Clubs fault he didn't sign permanently.

Personally i think he agreed the City move early into the 2008-09 season.

 

[Handré1990]

I’ve avoided this thread, because deep down I, and I think most of you, know what the reaction to these ‘shocking’ leaks will be...

The Arabs will shrug their shoulders, send a couple of fresh envelopes to the right people in UEFA, and maybe pay a symbolic fine officially, which will probably be used to hire lip readers after we fall short vs Young Boys and Mourinho commits the mortal sin of cursing into the air.

 

[Amir]

Yeah compared to something like £120k pw we were offering. And some still believe it was the Clubs fault he didn't sign permanently.

If we wanted him so badly we should have sealed the deal during or at the end of his first loan season, during which we said we would. Make no mistake about it, his agent is a greedy snake, but United could have acted differently.

 

[Offsideagain]

I thought the PL and our useless FA had rules about ‘Third party ownership’? I have mentioned before about the Panorama programme that exposed The Sheik and his dodgy dealing with Barclays. They interviewed City fans outside the Emptyhad and they either didn’t know or thought it was a lie but they ALL DIDN’T GIVE A MONKEYS.

We also have Councillors that know about the mistreatment of workers in Abu Dhabi but also don’t give a toss. John Leech is a Lib Deb councillor formerly an MP that was canvassing wearing his City shirt during the election and lost ha ha. Not a word from him on the alleged corruption at his favourite club. I think that’s called hypocrisy.

 

[The Irish Connection]

I thought the PL and our useless FA had rules about ‘Third party ownership’? I have mentioned before about the Panorama programme that exposed The Sheik and his dodgy dealing with Barclays. They interviewed City fans outside the Emptyhad and they either didn’t know or thought it was a lie but they ALL DIDN’T GIVE A MONKEYS.

We also have Councillors that know about the mistreatment of workers in Abu Dhabi but also don’t give a toss. John Leech is a Lib Deb councillor formerly an MP that was canvassing wearing his City shirt during the election and lost ha ha. Not a word from him on the alleged corruption at his favourite club. I think that’s called hypocrisy.

I hope they get punished properly, it would be good for the game, and if not, another reason to have a sour taste in your mouth when watching the sport.
It feels like every year there’s something else crap about it.

 

[Andrew Wolf]

I thought the PL and our useless FA had rules about ‘Third party ownership’? I have mentioned before about the Panorama programme that exposed The Sheik and his dodgy dealing with Barclays. They interviewed City fans outside the Emptyhad and they either didn’t know or thought it was a lie but they ALL DIDN’T GIVE A MONKEYS.

We also have Councillors that know about the mistreatment of workers in Abu Dhabi but also don’t give a toss. John Leech is a Lib Deb councillor formerly an MP that was canvassing wearing his City shirt during the election and lost ha ha. Not a word from him on the alleged corruption at his favourite club. I think that’s called hypocrisy.

Of all the things to lose your head about.....

It clearly states that City bought him out of his 3rd party ownership and declared it to the FA. Certainly no wrongdoing on this one.

 

[jontheblue]

I thought the PL and our useless FA had rules about ‘Third party ownership’? I have mentioned before about the Panorama programme that exposed The Sheik and his dodgy dealing with Barclays. They interviewed City fans outside the Emptyhad and they either didn’t know or thought it was a lie but they ALL DIDN’T GIVE A MONKEYS.

We also have Councillors that know about the mistreatment of workers in Abu Dhabi but also don’t give a toss. John Leech is a Lib Deb councillor formerly an MP that was canvassing wearing his City shirt during the election and lost ha ha. Not a word from him on the alleged corruption at his favourite club. I think that’s called hypocrisy.

Be careful what you wish for

After all, the post you've linked says there was only one club that employed tevez whilst he had a third party owner and to give you a clue, it wasn't City.

 

[Offsideagain]

Be careful what you wish for

After all, the post you've linked says there was only one club that employed tevez whilst he had a third party owner and to give you a clue, it wasn't City.

Ooh, so which club paid 51.25 m Euro to a ‘ Dubious company in a tax haven’ then? Where does it clearly mention Citeh bought him out of his third party agreement? Who else has paid their manager two salaries allegedly, one as a Manager at the club and one at a club he never visited?

I suppose that City are completely innocent as usual in this affair. Never have players testing positive for drugs, oh wait a minute yes they do but it’s all a mistake of course. City can do no wrong, clean as a whistle, a moral leader, the President Trump of football.

It’s all fake news folks. Dear Spiegel made it all up.

 

[jontheblue]

Ooh, so which club paid 51.25 m Euro to a ‘ Dubious company in a tax haven’ then? Where does it clearly mention Citeh bought him out of his third party agreement? Who else has paid their manager two salaries allegedly, one as a Manager at the club and one at a club he never visited?

I suppose that City are completely innocent as usual in this affair. Never have players testing positive for drugs, oh wait a minute yes they do but it’s all a mistake of course. City can do no wrong, clean as a whistle, a moral leader, the President Trump of football.

It’s all fake news folks. Dear Spiegel made it all up.

Nobody can be that stupid. I'm not rising to the bait

 

[CA1]

Nobody can be that stupid. I'm not rising to the bait

Do you wear a City shirt when you go abroad?

 

[stevoc]

If we wanted him so badly we should have sealed the deal during or at the end of his first loan season, during which we said we would. Make no mistake about it, his agent is a greedy snake, but United could have acted differently.

Do you have a link for that mate? I could be wrong but as i remember the deal was always a two year loan with an option to buy at £25m and we would decide whether or not to activate that option to sign him at the end of the two years.

I don't think Ferguson wanted him badly in any case he wanted Berbatov in 2008. I don't think he was too fussed about Tevez leaving either. Easy to see why that might have been the case with his behaviour at City.

 

[Christie]

Ooh, so which club paid 51.25 m Euro to a ‘ Dubious company in a tax haven’ then? Where does it clearly mention Citeh bought him out of his third party agreement? Who else has paid their manager two salaries allegedly, one as a Manager at the club and one at a club he never visited?

I suppose that City are completely innocent as usual in this affair. Never have players testing positive for drugs, oh wait a minute yes they do but it’s all a mistake of course. City can do no wrong, clean as a whistle, a moral leader, the President Trump of football.

It’s all fake news folks. Dear Spiegel made it all up.

Do you wear a City shirt when you go abroad?

What is wrong with you people? The post clearly states we are as illegal as City are, just that we are too poor to keep up and go as far as City. If we could, we will be illegally enjoying title wins just like them as well.

The Glazers did us a favor taking out our money so we couldn't afford further illegal stuff.

 

[antihenry]

 

[Handsome Devil]

They "might" and then again they might not.

 

[jontheblue]

The post clearly states we are as illegal as City are

More so actually. Am surprised this hasn't been picked up by more people.

The article which so many people seem happy to take the contents of verbatim, states the same entity we bought tevez outright from on day one (Harlem Springs) is the entity united paid the loan fee to the previous year. The difference being that we made full disclosure to the FA at the time of purchase. So City did nothing illegal.

But what about United ? If West Ham behaved inappropriately with the loan from MSI who were Tevez's previous economic rights holders, then by definition, after MSI sold his rights to Harlem Springs, United were acting inappropriately paying Harlem Springs for the loan

Again, all I'm doing is repeating the clearly stated facts in the article everyone seems happy to take as being accurate

 

[DanClancy]

I've asked before and didn't get a reply.

It appears they haven't mentioned City's current commercial?
Looking at it 'logically' its almost like you'd think City are still at it!!
United' commercial revenue £270 approx
City £232
Liverpool 130m approx
Chelsea 130m approx

Its safe to assume City would be behind both Chelsea & Liverpool if all things were equal

 

[CA1]

I've asked before and didn't get a reply.

It appears they haven't mentioned City's current commercial?
Looking at it 'logically' its almost like you'd think City are still at it!!
United' commercial revenue £270 approx
City £232
Liverpool 130m approx
Chelsea 130m approx

Its safe to assume City would be behind both Chelsea & Liverpool if all things were equal

That's what I don't get when people say UEFA may not be able to go back on a case they already decided on. If they were bogus sponsorships in 2014, they're bogus sponsorships now and have been everytime they've assesed FFP for 2015, 16, 17, 18 etc.

 

[DanClancy]

That's what I don't get when people say UEFA may not be able to go back on a case they already decided on. If they were bogus sponsorships in 2014, they're bogus sponsorships now and have been everytime they've assesed FFP for 2015, 16, 17, 18 etc.

They've half the commercial sponsors United have and don't have a huge kit deal like United do or even like Liverpool or Chelsea.
Adidas pay United £70m
Nike pay City £12m

The more I think about it realistically City's commercial revenue is about £100m and even that be be pushing it when you consider 2 sponsors in AAbar % Ethiad were apparently only contributing £11m towards sponsorship worth £80.

United's owners don't care but Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs & Chelsea's won't put up with it.

 

[Spiersey]

I've asked before and didn't get a reply.

It appears they haven't mentioned City's current commercial?
Looking at it 'logically' its almost like you'd think City are still at it!!
United' commercial revenue £270 approx
City £232
Liverpool 130m approx
Chelsea 130m approx

Its safe to assume City would be behind both Chelsea & Liverpool if all things were equal

In fairness to City, they've managed to build a good worldwide brand now, their commercial revenue is probably around ours and Pools. Of course the numbers above are massively inflated though.

 

[rotherham_red]

In fairness to City, they've managed to build a good worldwide brand now, their commercial revenue is probably around ours and Pools. Of course the numbers above are massively inflated though.

Mate, I was at the game on Sunday. Pre-match they had an advert playing on the big screen of Aguero, KDB, and Otamendi selling some Taiwanese knock-off mobile phones... If you think they're a big deal commercially, even now with Saint Pep and his 11 disciples, you'd be sorely mistaken.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

 

[DanClancy]

In fairness to City, they've managed to build a good worldwide brand now, their commercial revenue is probably around ours and Pools. Of course the numbers above are massively inflated though.

Big difference between the £276m United make and the £130m Liverpool make though.

 

[pascell]

Now that UEFA have been 'rumbled' that they're showing less leniency in helping clubs get around FFP, which was one of their own creations, they'll now have to do a full circle and not only re-open the cases against City and PSG but will also have to make FFP much more strict.

Speaks volumes that the person who helped City and PSG around all of this is now the FIFA president.

 

[stevoc]

More so actually. Am surprised this hasn't been picked up by more people.

The article which so many people seem happy to take the contents of verbatim, states the same entity we bought tevez outright from on day one (Harlem Springs) is the entity united paid the loan fee to the previous year. The difference being that we made full disclosure to the FA at the time of purchase. So City did nothing illegal.

But what about United ? If West Ham behaved inappropriately with the loan from MSI who were Tevez's previous economic rights holders, then by definition, after MSI sold his rights to Harlem Springs, United were acting inappropriately paying Harlem Springs for the loan

Again, all I'm doing is repeating the clearly stated facts in the article everyone seems happy to take as being accurate

What exactly are you suggesting, that the FA and/or the Premier League somehow didn't know Tevez was owned by a 3rd party when United signed him?

 

[Spiersey]

Mate, I was at the game on Sunday. Pre-match they had an advert playing on the big screen of Aguero, KDB, and Otamendi selling some Taiwanese knock-off mobile phones... If you think they're a big deal commercially, even now with Saint Pep and his 11 disciples, you'd be sorely mistaken.

They are a big deal commercially, obviously not in United's league but they are still a well known global brand, which is only getting bigger.

 

[JPRouve]

Chelsea aren't an oil club per se but according to the latest leaks, after reading about the scheme Kanté refused to have his image rights paid in Jersey, he asked the club to simply give him a "normal" salary.

 

[onemanarmy]

They are a big deal commercially, obviously not in United's league but they are still a well known global brand, which is only getting bigger.

Try to count the City shirts when you are visiting Africa, South America or Asia. There hardly are any. Try the same with Utd, Arsenal or Liverpool... even Chelsea have more. Their fame hasn't caught up with their recent successes imo.

 

[fezzerUTD]

Now that UEFA have been 'rumbled' that they're showing less leniency in helping clubs get around FFP, which was one of their own creations, they'll now have to do a full circle and not only re-open the cases against City and PSG but will also have to make FFP much more strict.

Speaks volumes that the person who helped City and PSG around all of this is now the FIFA president.

I got told on another site that nothing would change when Blatter left.

 

[RoyH1]

Only a City fan (well perhaps a PSG one in solidarity) could honestly think that a club like City, with it's background and history, could in such a short span of time match the commercial revenue of big historic clubs with worldwide following like Arsenal or Liverpool, without massive continuous injections of cash coming from oil money.

 

[Kapardin]

Try to count the City shirts when you are visiting Africa, South America or Asia. There hardly are any. Try the same with Utd, Arsenal or Liverpool... even Chelsea have more. Their fame hasn't caught up with their recent successes imo.

There are some extraneous factors to that. When Chelsea struck gold with Abramovich, social media and marketing wasn't as developed as it is now. By the time we arrived in the digital age, so to speak, Chelsea were viewed as an established big club and thus gained a global fanbase.

With City, their rise has been only after all the traditional big clubs and Chelsea. Furthermore, everything about them has spread by way of social media, which means many kept tabs on how they made their way to the top. I believe many fans abroad just prefer to associate themselves with a truly historical club as opposed to one that became a big club under their very eyes.

Perhaps two generations on, City will at least be equal with Chelsea in terms of fanbase.

 

[tomaldinho1]

In fairness to City, they've managed to build a good worldwide brand now, their commercial revenue is probably around ours and Pools. Of course the numbers above are massively inflated though.

With or without the made up sponsorship numbers?

 

[Ish]

I’m really a tad confused over this entire “revelation”. I mean in all honesty, who the feck didn’t think that there were FFP irregularities/breaches by City and PSG?

City’s commercial income sky rocketed since the takeover, but lo and behold, most of those increases iirc, were deals signed with (what we in accounting refer to as) “related parties” to their owners. And the terms were definitely not at arms length or in line with City’s support and stature within the game.

I mean, that was pretty clear all along, wasn’t it? How they managed to pass FFP regulations - I don’t know enough about the topic, but I just thought uefa or whoever didn’t have the balls or clout to judge against these so called “related party” dealings.

So what else is new....has derSpiegel (excuse the sp?) discovered more payments to players funneled through different avenues? Sorry again, I didn’t read the OP