Man City capitalism exposed

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#1
Since its purchase by the sheikh of Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has managed to cheat its way into the top echelon of European football and create a global, immensely profitable football empire, ignoring rules along the way. The club's newfound glory is rooted in lies.

"We will have a shortfall of 9.9m pounds in order to comply with UEFA FFP this season," Man City's Chief Financial Officer Jorge Chumillas wrote in an internal email. "The deficit is due to RM (eds: a reference to Roberto Mancini) termination. I think that the only solution left would be an additional amount of AD (eds: Abu Dhabi) sponsorship revenues that covers this gap."

But Manchester City is no normal club. Costs and debt? None of that matters. And should a shortfall emerge, sponsors from the owner's home country simply send more money over. Penalties are only for those who get caught. To dodge UEFA sanctions, Man City management came up with a few creative proposals. "We could do a backdated deal for the next two years (...) paid up front," suggested club executive Simon Pearce. CEO Ferran Soriano, meanwhile, suggested having sponsors pay the team the contractually obligated bonus for winning the FA cup -- even though Man City hadn't won.
..
The club and its sponsors were manipulating their contracts. When CFO asked his colleague Simon Pearce if they could change the date of payment for the sponsors from Abu Dhabi, Pearce answered in the spirit of Manchester City's executives: "Of course, we can do what we want."

"The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness." With just a single sentence, Pearce confirmed the accusations that his club had repeatedly, indignantly rejected: Namely, that His Highness, Sheikh Mansour, paid a portion of the sponsoring money himself!
That is of vital importance when it comes to UEFA's Financial Fair Play rules. If the club goes on a shopping spree with the sheikh's money, those expenditures must be declared, which quickly puts the balance sheet in the red. If, however, that money can be disguised as sponsoring money, it looks like revenues and Man City can afford larger expenditures without fear of UEFA sanctions.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html
 
Last edited:
Likes: takbetak
Apr 27, 2006
437
166
#2

Manchester City fans display a banner to their owner at the Etihad Stadium after winning their second Premier League title in 2014. Photograph: Matt West/BPI/Rex/Shutterstock


Manchester derby has been skewed by a decade of Abu Dhabi investment

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/nov/09/manchester-derby-city-united-abu-dhabi-investment

City were light years behind United when their Emirati owners contested their first derby back in 2008 but their huge – and possibly dubious – investment has turned the tables

Barney Ronay
@barneyronay
Fri 9 Nov 2018 16.00 EST

Oh, what happened to me, whatever happened to you? What became of Robinho – and Benjani? If the rise of Manchester City is anything to go by, all it takes to create an era of generational club football dominance is £2bn, the greatest manager of the modern age and the fevered dreams of an oil-rich Gulf state. It is a 10-year plan that has come into sharper focus this week, in a way that draws the eye back as well as forwards.

Read more here
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#4
^ I see...I'll forward ur note to the author. his/her boss would be glad to take ur note into consideration. LOL.

from the article; The club owners from Abu Dhabi have introduced a new era of Manchester Capitalism.

I see Hooshi douchie is having a ball too.
 

A8K

Ball Boy
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#5
Both Man City and PSG can be in trouble due to ignoring FFP, FIFA reopening PSG's investigation case as PSG has appealed with CAS.

Der Spiegel and MediaPart, in conjunction with Football Leaks as part of the European Investigative Collaborations network, has alleged that both Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain have broken a number of rules in a bid to circumvent UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations.
City have released one statement in light of the claims, insisting "the attempt to damage the club's reputation is organised and clear," while PSG stress they have "always complied strictly with the laws and regulations in force and strongly denies the allegations."
Since the revelations were made, fans of all clubs have wondered how likely it is that sanctions will be meted out, and speculated about anything from transfer bans to stripped titles.

Court of arbitration, CAS overturned a Uefa decision to bar Milan from this season’s Europa League.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/nov/05/psg-appeal-uefa-ffp-re-open-investigation
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEPOXuY8ayCidXaAhXvW1epYqGQgEKhAIACoHCAow49mFCzDQ-YIDMPfWjAY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en
 
Apr 27, 2006
437
166
#6
UEFA pledges new investigations if clubs abuse FFP following reports

http://www.espn.com/soccer/manchest...igations-if-clubs-abuse-ffp-following-reports

UEFA has warned it is ready to re-investigate clubs who may have "abused" its Financial Fair Play regulations following claims by Der Spiegel, the German publication, that Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain circumvented the rules to avoid strict penalties for non-compliance.

Der Spiegel released a number of stories earlier this month based on so-called Football Leaks data alleging that Premier League champions City and Ligue 1 winners PSG had avoided UEFA's FFP regulations.

Read more here
 
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#8
I don't get it allegation is that they spent more than what they earn and breaking FFP and balance the books by pumping illegal dough..that's the point of it. Capitalism really means being in charge of your own money at any level... it's not that difficult to understand the connection .
 
#9
I don't get it allegation is that they spent more than what they earn and breaking FFP and balance the books by pumping illegal dough..that's the point of it. Capitalism really means being in charge of your own money at any level... it's not that difficult to understand the connection .
Well for one thing there doesn't seem to be any profit involved. The essense of capitalism is profit making. If you tell me that City owners are making a profit from their ManCity operations then I will burst my sides laughing.

What's happened with City is that the owner has poured in millions of money from other sources to cover the costs of the club under the guise of 'donation' or whatever you want to call it.

The problem for City is that they are not big enough and popular enough to generate the same amount of revenue that the biggest clubs in Europe can generate by themselves. So they have to look to a sugar daddy. Maybe one day they will be but for now they are light years away.
 
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#10
If you look up definition of capitalism, it doesn't have to be profitable, it simply means being in charge of ur own capital. and make decisions for it; Under capitalism you may run ur business into bankruptcy and it's totally a reality side of it, are you still laughing ? no charge for that lesson.

Man City even if neutral or red is maintaining a label for its owner and the country, even if it don't make a dime, to them is prestigious , it's a form of advertising, the value is going up for sure they longer they stay at this game.

That donation crap is total nonsense... they are not stupid and eventually they will come ahead.. either on paper or off the paper; let's say it's even a hobby the rich prince is willing to pay for but he's playing it unfair by putting more $ than allowed. But for now fixing the books they're showing profit.

You also didn't address the fair play, the law these teams are supposed to run by.. I guess that's just wasted ink and paperl


Well for one thing there doesn't seem to be any profit involved. The essense of capitalism is profit making. If you tell me that City owners are making a profit from their ManCity operations then I will burst my sides laughing.

What's happened with City is that the owner has poured in millions of money from other sources to cover the costs of the club under the guise of 'donation' or whatever you want to call it.

The problem for City is that they are not big enough and popular enough to generate the same amount of revenue that the biggest clubs in Europe can generate by themselves. So they have to look to a sugar daddy. Maybe one day they will be but for now they are light years away.
 

Mahdi

News Team, ISP Managers Team
Jan 1, 1970
6,936
401
Mjunik
#11
Well for one thing there doesn't seem to be any profit involved. The essense of capitalism is profit making. If you tell me that City owners are making a profit from their ManCity operations then I will burst my sides laughing.

What's happened with City is that the owner has poured in millions of money from other sources to cover the costs of the club under the guise of 'donation' or whatever you want to call it.

The problem for City is that they are not big enough and popular enough to generate the same amount of revenue that the biggest clubs in Europe can generate by themselves. So they have to look to a sugar daddy. Maybe one day they will be but for now they are light years away.
The revenue goes other ways as in publicity and exposure for Abu Dhabi. At least that's the idea. Back in the days they would have opened up a museum or supported an artist. Now you buy a football club for publicity reasons. Abu Dhabi does it at least better than Qatar.
 
#12
If you look up definition of capitalism, it doesn't have to be profitable, it simply means being in charge of ur own capital. and make decisions for it; Under capitalism you may run ur business into bankruptcy and it's totally a reality side of it, are you still laughing ? no charge for that lesson.
Lesson? Lol. The only lesson here is that you don't understand some basic concepts.

"In charge of your own capital"? The basic issue you don't seem to grasp is that this is NOT City's "own capital" as the capital was not generated by them. It was pumped in from other means of production. I understand the subtlety may be overwhelming to you but at least try!
 
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#13
You're fixated with the fact that they dont generate capital to sustain which is already presented and you seem to use that argument to negate the capitalism definition presented . You seem to think they should produce a lot of money to be regarded as capitalist.

Definition of capitalism ; an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

So based on that, they use their capital although pumped illegally, freely to advance their goals. So they're acting as a club or business using own capital.

Man city as a privately owned entity is in charge own capital, which makes it a typical privately owned for profit company..although maybe a dream in their case. I hope you're learning a bit here.

I am worried that you still come back and yek gher kamar digeh bedi in vasat.. looking forward it.. lmfao.
 
Last edited:
#14
ghere kamar is what you are doing giving a definition related to running a country to a football club.

In any case, as I said, the difference is subtle and you need to have a deeper (rather than superficial) understanding of various concepts to be able to differentiate accurately between them. Taking a general quote from Wikipedia is evidence enough that you don't quite understand the wider issues that are involved.

Anyway, we will be going in circles, which is what often happens on forums like this.
 
Oct 22, 2016
1,928
326
#15
^ U really need to go see ur optometrist, "a country's trade and industry" refers to private sector not the government or running a government. I think you're caught with ur non-sense and I let others be the judge.

LOL you've done some legwork on the source, but still fall short to accept logic over. So if it's wiki then it's just rumors????? I know someone on these forums who plays excellent tonbak, I got to refer u to him for a gher kamar session... I hope you have a come back here, coz the more you say they more you entertain.

profit motiv, no government intervention and competition all define MC being capitalist;; guess what you and ten bux in ur pocket qualify as well under that definiton. Just giving an example.