• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Emirates Marketing Project

jts1882 said:
PSG had a bigger FFP deficit than City, and this before they signed Neymar and Mbappe. PSG came to some agreement with UEFA and Infantino, which means they are protected from reopening the case. City were more aggressive and the case was reopened when the hacked e-mails were published.
Click to expand...
City are also accused of falsifying evidence aren't they? That has to be a far greater crime with a heavier punishment than just overspending.
 
That seems to be the crux of the case. But in real terms does it matter who is paying? We all know the City sponsorship deals are only as high as they are because they all have common owners, the Abu Dhabi royal family. Does it really matter where the cheques comes from? A cheque directly from the owner is the same doping as a cheque from Emirates that is reimbursed by the owner.
 
jts1882 said:
That seems to be the crux of the case. But in real terms does it matter who is paying? We all know the City sponsorship deals are only as high as they are because they all have common owners, the Abu Dhabi royal family. Does it really matter where the cheques comes from? A cheque directly from the owner is the same doping as a cheque from Emirates that is reimbursed by the owner.
Click to expand...

Cheques directly from the owners also fall foul of FFP, that's why City falsified sponsorship deals and lied to cover it up.
 
Wash interesting is if City did have a real plan and built the foundations first the would have been fine

their make believe turnover isn’t that much greater than ours in reality and we have ours from actual foundations without silverware

they could have done the investment in infrastructure and been more sympathetic in their team build (they had great youngsters never used) and got away with the odd cash injection

now the run the risk of it all falling down if they don’t get the ban reduced
 
Wilheldiva said:
i dont think this is a great move by uefa long term. city will either win the appeal, or surely it'll just expedite the creation of the super league
Click to expand...
But the BIG clubs don’t want City in the super league
They hate city but weirdly like PSG as I guess they need a French side
 
greatwhitenorf said:
Rodgers and City are made for one another. Like a Toad In The Hole.
Click to expand...
Though didn't the club state that Rodgers was their number one choice to replace Poch , but seen as ungettable due to his circumstaces so went for Mourinho instead, him being unattached to a club and available.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Wash interesting is if City did have a real plan and built the foundations first the would have been fine

their make believe turnover isn’t that much greater than ours in reality and we have ours from actual foundations without silverware

they could have done the investment in infrastructure and been more sympathetic in their team build (they had great youngsters never used) and got away with the odd cash injection

now the run the risk of it all falling down if they don’t get the ban reduced
Click to expand...
Part of our turnover comes from having a history as an actual football club though.

City would have to wait 20-30 years for that.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I suppose it could be argued that technically they will qualify for CL, but will (as of now) be barred from participating. As a player he’s done his part, it’s the fault of the club that they can’t compete. So due his bonuses?
Click to expand...

Yeah they would probably still pay him regardless, just to keep him happy.
 
elyid said:
Yeah they would probably still pay him regardless, just to keep him happy.
Click to expand...
But then their spending more than their earning again don’t forget

if the ban happens City have a viscous spiral as they lose out on £100m of revenue at least per season, plus sponsorship money from legit sponsors

that’s a BIG chunk of the wage bill that their already faking

they will have to sell players to become compliant or they won’t get back into CL
 
They won't get a ban mark my words, the game is all lip service. Thats why Qatar can still host a WC, why racists and drink drivers are still playing in the game. THe more commercially valuable the item the less that will happen. Its why fans will get banned for life for racism and players get a second chance.
 
Grays_1890 said:
They won't get a ban mark my words, the game is all lip service. Thats why Qatar can still host a WC, why racists and drink drivers are still playing in the game. THe more commercially valuable the item the less that will happen. Its why fans will get banned for life for racism and players get a second chance.
Click to expand...
The thing is though.....
City are not commercially valuable, hence why they faked their commercials
They have one legit sponsorship deal with a tyre company
They may have some small ones for tractors or shampoo but ultimately their not sponsored or attractive to legit commercial organisations
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back