Newty82 Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Ricko, with all respect (though that's fading), I'm on here to talk Everton. I've no interest in going backwards and forwards with someone about City. Especially someone who can't grasp what is actually being said. markjazzbassist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Loopholes are often not really loopholes they exist for a reason think of tax loopholes which exist to increase investment and savings etc. The reason being that the rules/laws are inadequately written in the first place. Look at the dictionary definition; the'ye not there to increase anything, they are mistakes that can be used as justification to circumvent what the rule/law intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Loopholes are often not really loopholes they exist for a reason think of tax loopholes which exist to increase investment and savings etc. What loopholes are you saying actually exist ? Why should these loopholes not exist ? I have dealt with how there is no loophole regarding related party inflated sponsorship or contracting out services to parent companies Loopholes don't exist by design friend. They exist because in an ever-changing world, rules that you may put in by design can be out thought when a bullion minds are put together...hence the loophole. Rules,laws etc change constantly due to this and always will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Perhaps you could explain further what I have not grasped ? And answer my previous questions and reply in the previous two posts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 its good business practice rather than a loophole to set up different companies as they do different things for different companies/ Clubs in different parts of the world its common practice in every field bar football by the looks of it. Its spreads costs. City could employ all there own scouts, coaches, marketing or they could employ even more through a parent company which could also work for sister clubs, other clubs with which city have a relationship National FAs companies etc and all these groups including City could be charged a fee depending on the amount of time spent on the particular project. Non related parties as Etihad and the two other companies in question in the media are proven to be by independent auditors UEFA and probably also our own government and law enforcement can hardly over pay on purposes for a sponsorship deal they can only get ripped off as Chev have with United since what would they gain from over paying on purpose? Like I said lots of loopholes exist for a reason I gave examples earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Your missing the point the point though. They DONT exist for a reason, they are a mistake. Don't forget were talking about Football too. Football is travelling too far from being a sport and too close to being a business these says.....for good or bad? My opinion is that it's bad. So yes the loopholes are there, but to take advantage of them is like taking advantage of the drunken girl that said yes not knowing what she's really talking about. Legal...but you know it's wrong. MikeO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) This has got to be the most boring fucking thread ive ever seen. I know you came in peace and all that shit ricko but ffs you could turm a glass eye to sleep. In short Man City are a club just like Chelsea with a pretty poor extended history. City in fairness have a better following than chelsea. But please cut the shit, Man City have won the lottery with their owners, end of story. You cant correct history stretching back over 100 years with a few years of arabian moolar. Edited January 29, 2016 by Hafnia markjazzbassist and MikeO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Look all City fans know we got lucky. We just object to other fans making stuff up or saying its all down to the owners and not also being well run. I still do not think you have said what the loopholes are its not self sponsorship or related party as that was closed from the get go. Is clearly defined by UEFA HMRC/ UK Government/ The EU/The law/ whatever. Regarding transferring costs Its common practice in the business world It makes business sense it make logical sense, I am sure there are rules about it City got charged by the parent companies for these services so again whats the loophole or gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Your giving your opinion based on false understanding and its just your opinion. People want clubs to be self sustainable and have good players yet complain when they act like business. Seems contradictory. They should also not forget there own history of moolar injection even if it on lower scale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Look all City fans know we got lucky. We just object to other fans making stuff up or saying its all down to the owners and not also being well run. I still do not think you have said what the loopholes are its not self sponsorship or related party as that was closed from the get go. Is clearly defined by UEFA HMRC/ UK Government/ The EU/The law/ whatever. Regarding transferring costs Its common practice in the business world It makes business sense it make logical sense, I am sure there are rules about it City got charged by the parent companies for these services so again whats the loophole or gain. Truth hurts then? I'm sure they are running it well, no argument there, doing a lot of good; but fundamentally the bit in bold is why you are where you are. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 Well run??? Jo £18m Robinho £32.5m Adebuyor £25m Santa cruz £17.5m Ballotelli £24m Jotevic £22m They are strikers alone! Shall we move on to midfielders? Then defenders? Javi garcia £16m Mangala £32m Nasri £24m Lescott £24m Rodwell £15m Laughable that you can say "well run"... like throwing darts at a board. Very expensive darts. Louis and markjazzbassist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted January 29, 2016 Report Share Posted January 29, 2016 You object to other fans saying it's all down to the owners??? Ricko, Sheikh Mansour has put in £1.15 BILLION, yet City have no debt? But it's not all down to the owners?!! See Chelsea have very little debt, but the holding company that 'owns' Chelsea owes Abramovic something like £7-800 million in interest free loans. Interesting. Nothing funny about the Emirates deal. Nothing at all. I mean, what would be funny about an airline owned by the Government, with Mansour being Vice President, signing a huge sponsorship deal at a time when the 'project' was in its infancy? And at the time, City's commercial income was not anything significant? And nothing funny about 2 years ago, £28 million going from the salary costs, then last year £11 million...which just so happened to bring the club in line with FFP rules?! The new company was formed at a time when UEFA was sniffing around you. No jobs have been lost in the area, the people still work there. I mean, how much are these office people getting paid?!! I need to relocate I think. There is absolutely no point in going into the loopholes as you have no understanding of the concept. You seem to believe that they deliberately exist. They don't. The worst part of all this is that I have never begrudged proper City fans for what has happened there. Most clubs would want the same...so enjoy it. And I think the things that the owners have done for the area off the pitch, with regeneration, jobs, facilities, ticket prices etc is to be admired. And now that City have that platform, with an expanded stadium, European football, star players, top class facilities, they will now pull in enough money to cover it. But let's not kid ourselves that City have got to this point without Sheikh Mansour and Co being very clever, and unsurprisingly, very business like (which means limited transparency), with how it has all been financed to start with. Just go and enjoy it Ricko. You've no need to go posting on other forums. (Out of curiosity Ricko...where do you live and how did you come to supporting City?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Look I am loving it I accept we got lucky and that our own has spent a bucket load of money but he and or his advisers also have better vision and business model than anyone else. Thats partly down to money( or luck if you prefer) allowing it but its also partly down to be being better business people. This vision actually started under Cook and Thaksin (who was not that rich by comparison) Look the loopholes you say exist do not exist and I have explained it before I am now going over the same stuff again so please reread this thread. Self sponsorship is covered by related party part of FFP regulations. PSG got there sponsorship reduced through this method. City had nothing done to the Etihad deal its not related party according to EU law not just FFP. It was a good deal at the time but its now probably under values City. Its 35 million a year for Shir,t Stadium, Training Facility, Campus (200 acres of Manchester) (which will according to more than rumours be a leisure attraction will be of international significance) United get 45 million for there Shirt 20 million for training facility and did get money for there training kit Looks cheap now. Arsenals deal for shirt and stadium is about the same price. No training deal no campus. The wage stuff is good business, common sense, logic, and not a loophole all the wages reductions are turned into fees City are charged by the companies these people now work for ie City Football Marketing (CFM) City Football Services (CFS) This allows the cost of buildings and staff to be spread over all the companies clubs FAs these people work for eg Manchester City men and women, Yokohama, New York City FC, Melbourne City FC men and women, whatever is going on in China, probably the clubs we have partnerships with and maybe even a few FAs. We work with the Ghana FA. You mentioned a reduction of 11 million in wages thats exactly the same amount as City put in there account under something like other expenses ie the reduction in wages was turned into a charger by the other companies. In the previous year the reductions came as a result of new contracts reducing basic pay increasing bonuses no sackings and lower amortization due to the new deals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Im really not sure what you are trying to achieve here? City are owned by a mega rich bloke and that money has been used to buy players.... Emd of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Where did I say otherwise If people are going divert a friendly thread into a thread to accuse my club of being cheats then I am going to defend by club. Remember you where the millionaires once to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Virtually everyone buys the league. City, Blackburn Chelsea all did. Arsenal cheated into the top flight in 1900s. There manager is the best paid around, they pay there lesser players more than most other club and have started to splash the cash on the likes of Ozil and Sanchez. United bought the league in the 1990 or whatever then someone how got the best load of youth and just tinkered with the squad only buying one or two big names paying high wages all round. Then when Fergie was about to leave they really started to spend and now ey really are trying to buy the leave and failing terribly. Both Merseyside bought the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Oh ffs. Listen, blackburn didnt waste gazillions on players and managers and treat them like cattle. Easy come easy go. You and Chelsea do it year in year out. Arsenal and Man united the two standout clubs from 90's till now did it the right way. They dont blow 20m on a player and think notjing of it. They try and work with them. The reason you are making post after post is that you are desperate to be seen as a big club who are where tgey deserve to be. Sorry, rich yes, big? No, Not like the two i memtioned above. Edited January 30, 2016 by Hafnia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Look I never said Blackburn wasted gazillions whatever that is. But they where bankroled. Lets ignore Arsenal for the sake of arguments sake. Look at United with Di Maria, Berbatove, Nani, Anderson, Bebe, Mata, Martial, Veron, Van Persie. Even the good deals like Rooney and Ferdinand where insane prices at the time. There team was more expensive than ours in some recent games. Any sensible fan would say that City are a big club rich and self sustaining also the biggest or one of the biggest no. We have 55000 at games. We won stuff before some more successful clubs and are still one of the more successful clubs despite years of being rubbish, we are improving our trophie count most years and improving everything else also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Cup Final 1933. Everton 3 Manchester City 0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Both Merseyside bought the league Yeah. Southall from Bury £150,000 Stevens through the ranks Bailey from Blackburn £300,000 Van Den Hauwe from Birmingham £100,000 Ratcliffe through the ranks Mountfield from Tranmere £30,000 Reid from Bolton (Can't find the fee but it wasn't much) Steven from Burnley £300,000 Heath from Stoke £750,000 Sharp from Dumbarton £120,000 Gray from Wolves £250,000 Richardson through the ranks Harper from Liverpool £100,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Yeah. Southall from Bury £150,000 Stevens through the ranks Bailey from Blackburn £300,000 Van Den Hauwe from Birmingham £100,000 Ratcliffe through the ranks Mountfield from Tranmere £30,000 Reid from Bolton (Can't find the fee but it wasn't much) Steven from Burnley £300,000 Heath from Stoke £750,000 Sharp from Dumbarton £120,000 Gray from Wolves £250,000 Richardson through the ranks Harper from Liverpool £100,000 It kinda reminds me of a bloke who wins the lottery on holiday in 7 star hotel in dubai. One night hes in the bar talking to a bunch of self made millionaires and they start talking about how they built up their fortune from nothing... all of a sudden this lottery winner starts talking about his investments... it all goes well till one of the millionaires say "so what did you do to get this money in the first place?" This is all this is. Ricko just save the energy, we are all aware that without mansour you would be a club scratching round with players like John Mackem, Darius Vassel, Richard Dunne, having had to sell you wright-phillips in the same way we had to sell out better players up till now. Edited January 30, 2016 by Hafnia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Yeah. Southall from Bury £150,000 Stevens through the ranks Bailey from Blackburn £300,000 Van Den Hauwe from Birmingham £100,000 Ratcliffe through the ranks Mountfield from Tranmere £30,000 Reid from Bolton (Can't find the fee but it wasn't much) Steven from Burnley £300,000 Heath from Stoke £750,000 Sharp from Dumbarton £120,000 Gray from Wolves £250,000 Richardson through the ranks Harper from Liverpool £100,000 You'll need to put this into simple context for the lad, MikeO. In 81 Man United paid a £1.5m for Bryan Robson. Fees were generally around £500k - £1m. £2.1mill spent on that Everton team. Hardly 'buying the league'. What exactly are you looking for Ricko? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Look the relative peanuts to do prices does not change the fact that You where called the Mersyside millionairs for a reason. That it looks like you needed a massive cash inejection to get your ground in the beginning. I am struggling to find the same ash injection for Liverpool but know fellow city fans feal they also got injections of cash back in the past and we all no there was time under Rafa when they where spending more than United and not winning out . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Your making out like I am denying your spending when I am not I just stating facts football has always had benefactors the difference now is the size and the fact they are not local. though with FFP rightly or wrongly maybe this will stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Look the relative peanuts to do prices does not change the fact that You where called the Mersyside millionairs for a reason. We stopped being called that when Sir John Moores stood down as chairman in 1973. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 (edited) Oh my goodness, what is it we can do for you??? You arent going to convince us to think thqt your status is anything like us having a wealthy chairman. Mersey millionaires? Our owner was the man behind the pools. Did we break transfer record after transfer record??? No. We carefully selected players and relied on local talent. Seriously, you sound like you are struggling with this whole wealth thing like a kid who has entered a cheat code into a computer game and after finishing it is trying to say "well i really enjoyed it as much as i would if i spent hours mastering it" Can i ask, when did you start watching City? Edited January 30, 2016 by Hafnia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rickson Posted January 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Right but you where called it and it was for a reason yes. why does the timing matter ? Your going to be going on about the sheik even now we are self sustainable, and even after he has gone if your still around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Why are you all responding this this kid? It's pretty obvious he is a wind up merchants and is recently let if nappies....FACT he just doesn't get it, he's way to young. He's not a football fan but a name fan. Come on guys your better than this. Ignore this fool and let thos thread die, he will get bored soon enough and move on to someone's else he can wind up. One of his first points was that loopholes were there for a reason...Surely at that point most people lost all respect.....how can you give anyone credit after that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Right but you where called it and it was for a reason yes. why does the timing matter ? Your going to be going on about the sheik even now we are self sustainable, and even after he has gone if your still around. Can we get a translator in? That makes no sense at all. Why are you all responding this this kid? It's pretty obvious he is a wind up merchants and is recently let if nappies....FACT he just doesn't get it, he's way to young. He's not a football fan but a name fan. Come on guys your better than this. Ignore this fool and let thos thread die, he will get bored soon enough and move on to someone's else he can wind up. One of his first points was that loopholes were there for a reason...Surely at that point most people lost all respect.....how can you give anyone credit after that? You're right, I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newty82 Posted January 30, 2016 Report Share Posted January 30, 2016 Why are you all responding this this kid? It's pretty obvious he is a wind up merchants and is recently let if nappies....FACT he just doesn't get it, he's way to young. He's not a football fan but a name fan. Come on guys your better than this. Ignore this fool and let thos thread die, he will get bored soon enough and move on to someone's else he can wind up. One of his first points was that loopholes were there for a reason...Surely at that point most people lost all respect.....how can you give anyone credit after that? Yep. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts