Feed
Football Manager 2020 is available to Pre Order Now! Get early access and FM Touch Free. Get these essential add ons to enhance Football Manager 2019 Want updated squads for FM19? We have the worlds biggest FM2019 Data Update. 1 hour ago
Armagedon_55 commented on: USA - USL Championship SS'2019 New! (19/06/19)
1 hour ago
Armagedon_55 commented on: USA - USL Championship SS'2019 New! (19/06/19)
1 hour ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227479 changes from 731 contributors.
2 hours ago
kingrobbo commented on: Big downloads keep failing
3 hours ago
kingrobbo commented on: Real Fixtures for 19/20 season (for use with live update 2018 start date)
3 hours ago
fumuj commented on: Facepacks Release thread - NO REQUESTS
3 hours ago
fumuj added a download: 1.FC Schweinfurt 05 Teampack
3 hours ago
kingrobbo commented on: Real Fixtures for 19/20 season (for use with live update 2018 start date)
4 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227472 changes from 731 contributors.
6 hours ago
Madman99 commented on: USA - USL Championship SS'2019 New! (19/06/19)
6 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227460 changes from 731 contributors.
6 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227460 changes from 731 contributors.
6 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227453 changes from 731 contributors.
7 hours ago
Jackpot94 commented on: 3D Official Kits Thread
7 hours ago
rabcp commented on: FM19 Adboard Patch - V1.1 Out Now
7 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227410 changes from 730 contributors.
8 hours ago
mons commented on: Megapack Technical Support thread - all other threads will be locked
8 hours ago
craigyork80 commented on: Megapack Technical Support thread - all other threads will be locked
10 hours ago
RoCCo_42 commented on: [FM19] Found an error in our database?
10 hours ago
hammer9 commented on: Standard Fantasy/Request Logo only (NO PACKS) Thread
10 hours ago
ScottKipp commented on: Sunderland Kits Issue - Red Shorts!?
10 hours ago
hammer9 commented on: Standard Fantasy/Request Logo only (NO PACKS) Thread
10 hours ago
hammer9 commented on: Standard Fantasy/Request Logo only (NO PACKS) Thread
10 hours ago
hammer9 commented on: Standard Fantasy/Request Logo only (NO PACKS) Thread
10 hours ago
Andrea S.S. LAZIO commented on: 3D Official Kits Thread
10 hours ago
hammer9 commented on: USA - USL Championship SS'2019 New! (19/06/19)
10 hours ago
hammer9 commented on: Some kits not working? SSKCC19.3.5 v0.1 for SS'2019/20 kits on FM19 only (21/08/19) New!
10 hours ago
kingrobbo commented on: fm 17 no data updates
11 hours ago
SirTAVARES commented on: Data Tweaks by SirTAVARES [FM19]
11 hours ago
A new version of our data update was released with 227295 changes from 730 contributors.
Discussion
There is nothing wrong with the Etihad deal, and comparing it to PSG's deal is just ludicrous
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
But you, of course, know exactly.

No, I don't know exactly, it's generally reported as being between £40 and 50m a year which was I referred to it as £40m p/a. Even if it was a related party transaction (it's not) then considering the breadth of the deal, City could still make a compelling argument that it is 'fair value' especially so when you consider some of the ridiculous sponsorship deals that have been signed recently and are being mooted for the near future.
With the wage cap and PSG's 60mil transfer ban or whatever it is, aren't there simple loopholes such as performance bonuses etc or are they cracking down on that?
With the wage cap and PSG's 60mil transfer ban or whatever it is, aren't there simple loopholes such as performance bonuses etc or are they cracking down on that?

Good question and one I have absolutely no idea about.
No, I don't know exactly, it's generally reported as being between £40 and 50m a year which was I referred to it as £40m p/a. Even if it was a related party transaction (it's not) then considering the breadth of the deal, City could still make a compelling argument that it is 'fair value' especially so when you consider some of the ridiculous sponsorship deals that have been signed recently and are being mooted for the near future.


And yet the balance of probility indicates that despite your insistances (and I'm not sure talking about deals signed in the future is at all a convincing rebuttal to the argument that it wasn't vastly inflated in the past) is that Uefa are giving it short thrift.
With the wage cap and PSG's 60mil transfer ban or whatever it is, aren't there simple loopholes such as performance bonuses etc or are they cracking down on that?


I would imagine that that would be closed down on, but I'm not sure there's ever a way to close loopholes completely.
And yet the balance of probility indicates that despite your insistances (and I'm not sure talking about deals signed in the future is at all a convincing rebuttal to the argument that it wasn't vastly inflated in the past) is that Uefa are giving it short thrift.


Yes, UEFA are not arguing with it at all, glad you agree
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Yes, UEFA are not arguing with it at all, glad you agree


What on earth are you talking about?
You said UEFA will take no notice of the Etihad deal.

I honestly don't know why you're arguing this, UEFA investigated it over 2 years ago and deemed it ok. And the amount being paid is not over the top at all compared to other deals
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
You said UEFA will take no notice of the Etihad deal.

I honestly don't know why you're arguing this, UEFA investigated it over 2 years ago and deemed it ok. And the amount being paid is not over the top at all compared to other deals


What I meant was clearly that they have little time for it.

Source for your second point? Doesn't agree with anything being written since January at least.

Anyway, this site seems to have it pretty much spot on and is exactly what I'm saying. http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk
What I meant was clearly that they have little time for it.

Source for your second point? Doesn't agree with anything being written since January at least.

Anyway, this site seems to have it pretty much spot on and is exactly what I'm saying. http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk


They don't "clearly" do anything.

My source is that they started investigating it basically as soon as it was done and not a peep had been made since.

Lots has been written about the Etihad deal and we don't yet know if the deal has been adjusted downwards. However readers should ask themselves this simple question: at the time the deal was struck, could Etihad could have got the same deal for less if they had really wanted? A suspicion remains that the company deliberately and knowingly paid over the odds for the deal. In the absence of a whistle-blower or a 'smoking gun' it would be almost impossible to prove - however just because it is a hard point to prove, wouldn't avoid the immorality of any deception.


How is that "spot on" and exactly what you're saying?

could Etihad could have got the same deal for less if they had really wanted?


I'd say no. That post just appears to be speculation for the most part, doesn't even acknowledge the notion that City won't accept the "plea-bargain"

«This comment has been edited»
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
And yet the balance of probility indicates that despite your insistances (and I'm not sure talking about deals signed in the future is at all a convincing rebuttal to the argument that it wasn't vastly inflated in the past) is that Uefa are giving it short thrift.

No the balance of probability is that UEFA have an issue with some part of our figures. The balance of speculation is that they have a problem with the Etihad deal.

True to a degree but UEFA are going to be trying to work out whether it has been 'vastly inflated' and they aren't just going to do that by looking at other deals signed in mid-2011. If they have any sense whatsoever they'll also be looking at deals signed since then but covering the same sort of period - e.g. United's £22.5m p/a training kit and training ground deal (via Telegraph) or Liverpool's £25m p/a deal with Warrior (via Guardian) or Chelsea's £30m p/a deal with Adidas (Daily Mail) - after that I don't think it's a massive jump to assume that they would try and establish what the sort of figures major companies (the likes of Nike, Adidas etc) would be willing to pay at the moment for a large sponsorship deal for a recent title-winner. After doing that, all but the most blinkered would have to agree that a figure of around £40-50m is not really 'vastly inflated' for a deal that covers kit, stadium and training ground.
Anyway, this site seems to have it pretty much spot on and is exactly what I'm saying. http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk

Ed Thompson, the bloke who runs that site, is a complete idiot. There was a long and surprisingly informative (and admittedly vitriolic) thread on Bluemoon a while back about the different ways he failed to understand FFP, not least with what constitutes a related party transaction. IIRC the bloke from Swiss Ramble even made an appearance.
They don't "clearly" do anything.

My source is that they started investigating it basically as soon as it was done and not a peep had been made since.

How is that "spot on" and exactly what you're saying?

I'd say no. That site just appears to be speculation for the most part


I didn't say they did try reading it again.

Of course it's speculation, everything is speculation because we have no intimate knowledge of what's actually going on, my problem is with you arguing as if you are an authority on the matter (baring in mind the last time you did that was to tell us all that City would be absolutely fine and it was all media hype, something which, clearly, is not true).

This is the first time FFP has come into force so investigation into matters are for the first time actually becoming relevant. 'Not hearing otherwise' is a shoddy basis for which to base an argument that it's been accepted.

Factually all I've said is that it's being reported that this deal is an important factor in why City have failed, you and then blue moon are then coming in and saying definitively that it's not. My point is simply that you can't, and don't know that but you are responding as if I'm saying something else.
(baring in mind the last time you did that was to tell us all that City would be absolutely fine and it was all media hype, something which, clearly, is not true)


I'll think you find I always said City were going to fail initially, then use the appeals process to take advantage of the June '10 write-offs

«This comment has been edited»
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Apparently City have used 21 players in each of their last two Champions League campaigns. So that 21 man squad limit wont be doing too much damage then.
Apparently City have used 21 players in each of their last two Champions League campaigns. So that 21 man squad limit wont be doing too much damage then.


A clear example of when statistics can be misleading.
Pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek.

We've also used the least amount of players in the league (I think)
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Pretty sure that was tongue-in-cheek.

We've also used the least amount of players in the league (I think)


Yeah you'll be ok with it I reckon. Richard Wright probably doubled his pants at the thought he'll be second choice in Europe.

Edit: spunked his pants. Autocorrects a bitch.

«This comment has been edited»
Yeah you'll be ok with it I reckon. Richard Wright probably doubled his pants at the thought he'll be second choice in Europe.


It's more the Home Grown stuff we're worried about.

Might lead to hanging on to Richards for another season
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
It's more the Home Grown stuff we're worried about.

Might lead to hanging on to Richards for another season


Yeah, Richards, Barry and Lescott have done well out of today.

Could see you selling some though with the wage restrictions though and replacing them with cheaper options going forward so you can actually improve the quality of the first team.
Yeah, seems like Lopes, Guidetti and Huws will replace those 3, maybe Boyata as well.

Added to Hart, Milner, Clichy, Rodwell, Wright with possibly Sinclair or Richards
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Fernandinho is in the Brazil squad \o/
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Rightly so, I think hes one of your best players
Just recently?
I've never really noticed him at all until recently. Don't keep track of journo's
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
If Manchester City Football Club took human form, it would be Edin Dzeko. So consistently inconsistent yet always pops up with an important goal. Definitely a 'Typical City' player
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
City's problem on the other hand comes from the sale of some intellectual property to a third party the tune of around £26m. City absolutely point blank refuse to publicly name what this is and who that third party is as they said it would compromise an upcoming deal and they have a right to secrecy until this is concluded (i.e. not now). There are rumours that this is something to do with UFC because people have seen that Garry Cook works for them now, have seen this shirt Sheikh Mansour was snapped in and put two and two together. That badge and branding would represent intellectual property and we have a curiously large patch of land that has been groundworked next to our stadium for reasons that nobody knows. Just some informed speculation though, nobody knows what it is.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdV0BBQCcAA94rL.jpg

Yaya to UFC confirmed
http://i.imgur.com/nSg30EZ.gif
Login to post a comment

Login Register
FM2020 SALE

FM2020 is currently on sale for $47.44 until 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 ×