Manchester City 1-0 Newcastle United (19/08/23)

[Bimpy474]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Not a bad assessment from.com. Very telling that once upon time, they'd have absolute pumped us without getting out of second gear. Last night they gave us a lot of respect and were relatively content to shut the game down in the second half. It almost felt like we went there as equals, despite their obvious superiority.

 

That's how i saw it, we didn't play well and yet i came away annoyed we lost. We've come so far in such a short period, it's not that we forget that, we just have more expectation that we haven't had for so long.

[Maineblue]

3 minutes ago, STM said:

 

I don't understand the irony.

 

Manchester United were the most successful club in the country, both from a footballing perspective and a commercial perspective. They were launched on the back of an incredible commercial campaign when the PL first formed. Same with Arsenal to an extent.

 

Man City, let's be frank we average as fuck and possibly going out of business until Abu Dhabi saved you. They spent money without rule on whoever they wanted. Newcastle United simply can't do that. We have to build out revenue streams from scratch, thankfully we can invest whatever we want into that side of the club.

 

I'm aware we are both oil clubs, but in terms of what we are allowed to do, the two situations aren't comparable.

City have to adhere to FFP rules we must sell to spend, I don’t know where you think we’re different to Newcastle.

 

Dont make the mistake of roping City in with Chelsea, we’ve never spent £900m in 3 transfer windows.

 

Let me just say this, United and Liverpool have used dirty tricks in the past without them being exposed by the written press, so they make there own money, all squeaky clean and above board.

[madras]

1 minute ago, Maineblue said:

City have to adhere to FFP rules we must sell to spend, I don’t know where you think we’re different to Newcastle.

 

Dont make the mistake of roping City in with Chelsea, we’ve never spent £900m in 3 transfer windows.

 

Let me just say this, United and Liverpool have used dirty tricks in the past without them being exposed by the written press, so they make there own money, all squeaky clean and above board.

We'll see if Man City did adhere to those rules and they were only in that position due to unfettered spending pre FFP.

[Manxst]

1 minute ago, Maineblue said:

City have to adhere to FFP rules we must sell to spend, I don’t know where you think we’re different to Newcastle.

 

Dont make the mistake of roping City in with Chelsea, we’ve never spent £900m in 3 transfer windows.

 

Let me just say this, United and Liverpool have used dirty tricks in the past without them being exposed by the written press, so they make there own money, all squeaky clean and above board.

But your ability to spend is also driven by your sponsorship income which has been alleged to be super inflated due to association, and has also been installed in parts prior to ffp. Hence your current five charges of breaches linked to UEFA financial regulations, and 25 profitability and sustainability breach charges. 

[Maineblue]

3 minutes ago, Manxst said:

But your ability to spend is also driven by your sponsorship income which has been alleged to be super inflated due to association, and has also been installed in parts prior to ffp. Hence your current five charges of breaches linked to UEFA financial regulations, and 25 profitability and sustainability breach charges. 

City ability to spend has nothing to do with sponsorship deals, it has been governed by FFP like every other club, we have to sell before we can spend.

 

The club are dealing with the allegations of FFP so I have faith in the board.

[Manxst]

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11679/12912312/man-city-uefa-probe-ruled-30m-payment-from-owners-was-disguised-as-sponsorship
 

“Man City: UEFA probe ruled £30m payment from owners was disguised as sponsorship.

UEFA's decision to suspend Man City from European competition for two years in 2020 was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, meaning report was never published, but it has been obtained by YouTube filmmakers and seen by The Times newspaper.

 

UEFA's investigation into Manchester City concluded that two £15m payments from a broker was funding from the club's owners disguised as sponsorship revenue.

The report by the adjudicatory committee of UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is effectively the written reasons behind the decision announced in February 2020 to suspend City from European competition for two years.

 

The report was never published because the club appealed against the decision and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) later overturned the CFCB verdict, but it has been obtained by the makers of a YouTube film released on Thursday, and has also been seen by The Times.

 

The report said City's lawyers had told a UEFA disciplinary hearing that two £15m sponsorship payments from telecommunications firm Etisalat in 2012 and 2013 were made by a man called Jaber Mohammed, who was described as a broker, and that Etisalat repaid the money to City's owners in 2015.

 

The Times reports that the adjudicatory committee of the CFCB concluded: "Arrangements were made under which payments were made or caused to be made by ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity fund controlled by City owner Sheikh Mansour) but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of equity funding, and those arrangements were carried into effect by the payments made by Jaber Mohamed totalling £30million.

 

"The management of the club was well aware that the payments totalling £30million made by Jaber Mohamed were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.”

 

CAS overturned the two-year suspension in July 2020, and in its judgement it said UEFA should not have dealt with the charges related to Etisalat because they had passed the five-year time limit.

 

In the same judgement, the CAS panel also stated it was "not comfortably satisfied" that City had disguised equity funding from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from the Etihad airline.

 

It said in relation to the Etihad sponsorship: "There is not sufficient evidence on file to establish that arrangements were actually made between MCFC and HHSM (Sheikh Mansour) and/or ADUG, or between HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad, or that HHSM and/or ADUG funded part of Etihad's sponsorship obligations directly.

"In the absence of a link being proven...the majority of the panel finds that UEFA's theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated."

 

 

But, you know…we’re all playing by the same rules here… “I don’t know where you think we’re different to Newcastle”.

 

 

[Hot Since 1882]

Watched since 80mins. First time I've watched women's football; standard is horrific. 

 

They play like non league level 10 non league side - and lose? 

 

Men or women, we are losers - the FA are losers. 

 

Soutgate  is a loser from the WC. 

[Manxst]

1 minute ago, Maineblue said:

City ability to spend has nothing to do with sponsorship deals, it has been governed by FFP like every other club, we have to sell before we can spend.

 

The club are dealing with the allegations of FFP so I have faith in the board.

Selling players is a part of having money to spend under ffp, yes. But so is sponsorship. By a huge amount. You get £55m from your shirt sponsorship and £18m

for a sleeve sponsor. That’s huge money. 

[Maineblue]

Just now, Manxst said:

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11679/12912312/man-city-uefa-probe-ruled-30m-payment-from-owners-was-disguised-as-sponsorship
 

“Man City: UEFA probe ruled £30m payment from owners was disguised as sponsorship.

UEFA's decision to suspend Man City from European competition for two years in 2020 was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, meaning report was never published, but it has been obtained by YouTube filmmakers and seen by The Times newspaper.

 

UEFA's investigation into Manchester City concluded that two £15m payments from a broker was funding from the club's owners disguised as sponsorship revenue.

The report by the adjudicatory committee of UEFA's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) is effectively the written reasons behind the decision announced in February 2020 to suspend City from European competition for two years.

 

The report was never published because the club appealed against the decision and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) later overturned the CFCB verdict, but it has been obtained by the makers of a YouTube film released on Thursday, and has also been seen by The Times.

 

The report said City's lawyers had told a UEFA disciplinary hearing that two £15m sponsorship payments from telecommunications firm Etisalat in 2012 and 2013 were made by a man called Jaber Mohammed, who was described as a broker, and that Etisalat repaid the money to City's owners in 2015.

 

The Times reports that the adjudicatory committee of the CFCB concluded: "Arrangements were made under which payments were made or caused to be made by ADUG (Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity fund controlled by City owner Sheikh Mansour) but attributed to the sponsorship obligations of Etisalat so as to disguise the true purpose of equity funding, and those arrangements were carried into effect by the payments made by Jaber Mohamed totalling £30million.

 

"The management of the club was well aware that the payments totalling £30million made by Jaber Mohamed were made as equity funding, not as payments for the sponsor on account of genuine sponsorship liabilities.”

 

CAS overturned the two-year suspension in July 2020, and in its judgement it said UEFA should not have dealt with the charges related to Etisalat because they had passed the five-year time limit.

 

In the same judgement, the CAS panel also stated it was "not comfortably satisfied" that City had disguised equity funding from Sheikh Mansour or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from the Etihad airline.

 

It said in relation to the Etihad sponsorship: "There is not sufficient evidence on file to establish that arrangements were actually made between MCFC and HHSM (Sheikh Mansour) and/or ADUG, or between HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad, or that HHSM and/or ADUG funded part of Etihad's sponsorship obligations directly.

"In the absence of a link being proven...the majority of the panel finds that UEFA's theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated."

 

 

But, you know…we’re all playing by the same rules here… “I don’t know where you think we’re different to Newcastle”.

 

 

You’re making the classic mistake of believing what you read.

 

It will all come out and I have every confidence in our board that we’ve done nothing wrong.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Htt Since 1882 said:

Watched since 80mins. First time I've watched women's football; standard is horrific. 

 

They play like non league level 10 non league side - and lose? 

 

Men or women, we are losers - the FA are losers. 

 

Soutgate  is a loser from the WC. 

Are you OK? 

[Kid Icarus]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

Honestly don’t get hate for Man City as much as other people.

I grew up hating Man Utd and other teams like Liverpool because they were obviously bent with the referees and had decades of buying everyone so no one else could compete.

As much as we know the top 6 is established now, it’s only has been for about 15 years. If you are old enough to know the pre-Ashley years, then you are old enough to know that Man City were just another club that had no hope of competing. They had hard times in what is now League 1. They had Man Utd on their doorstep, the most successful club at the time, and down the road they had Liverpool, at the time the most successful club in England.

Anyone supporting them could have had an argument for supporting either of the other clubs instead. Yet they had to go to school and work with the other kids who were running it in, day in day out.

They got pretty good crowds as well.

You can’t help but feel for those fans, it’s well deserved. Yeah ok the new fans are just another in the line of glory hunters in a different colour, but the fans from before that, let them have their success.

 

Honestly, I couldn’t give a flying fuck if they broke 115 FFP rules. Every single one of them is designed to stop clubs from Man City completing, made by the clubs who were the ones who grabbed the money by creating the Premier League, and in recent years tried to go further with operation big picture, and the ESL.

On top of this, it’s not like most Man City fans want to pull the ladder up either. When news of our takeover first broke during lockdown, it was Man City fans who were wishing for it to happen, wishing our fans luck, telling us to watch out for certain journalists trying to paint us the bad guys for supporting our club, and even invited Greg on from NUST to one of their podcasters to have a discussion about it all.

 

Aye I want us to be beating them to titles and trophies, but I’ve not begrudged them a single one they have gained so far.

If you don't get it, read the bits in bold again and ask if it has applied to Man City for the last 15 or so years. There's your answer.

 

Man City also did themselves try to go to the ESL don't forget. Some fans might have been sound about our takeover but that wasn't unique or anything, in fact on a Liverpool podcast they were talking about how some Man City fans were kicking off about the takeover and highlighting their double standards. 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[Manxst]

Just now, Maineblue said:

You’re making the classic mistake of believing what you read.

 

It will all come out and I have every confidence in our board that we’ve done nothing wrong.

And you’re making the classic mistake of having unwavering confidence in your club to be above board in everything. We’ll agree to disagree and await the outcome (in years to

come probably because Man City will use their unlimited wealth to throw every obstruction they can at the investigation). 

[Maineblue]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

Selling players is a part of having money to spend under ffp, yes. But so is sponsorship. By a huge amount. You get £55m from your shirt sponsorship and £18m

for a sleeve sponsor. That’s huge money. 

Don’t think there is anything wrong with that Manxst.

 

 

[UncleBingo]

4 minutes ago, Htt Since 1882 said:

Watched since 80mins. First time I've watched women's football; standard is horrific. 

 

They play like non league level 10 non league side - and lose? 

 

Men or women, we are losers - the FA are losers. 

 

Soutgate  is a loser from the WC. 

🤣🤣🤣

[Manxst]

Just now, Maineblue said:

Don’t think there is anything wrong with that Manxst.

 

 

There’s nothing wrong per se, except you stated “city ability to spend is nothing to do with sponsorship deals”. It is. And not only is it, but you’ve allegedly over inflated deals and put money into the club in order to spend via nefarious and illegal means. 

 

[Kid Icarus]

Don't believe everything you read...but do believe everything the club you support says.

[Shak]

5 minutes ago, Htt Since 1882 said:

Watched since 80mins. First time I've watched women's football; standard is horrific. 

 

They play like non league level 10 non league side - and lose? 

 

Men or women, we are losers - the FA are losers. 

 

Soutgate  is a loser from the WC. 

 

Careful now, you'll have all the woke brigade on you for posts like this.

 

Go woke, go broke. That's what I say. More like go woke, lose the final lol

[madras]

12 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Selling players is a part of having money to spend under ffp, yes. But so is sponsorship. By a huge amount. You get £55m from your shirt sponsorship and £18m

for a sleeve sponsor. That’s huge money. 

And partly built on unfettered spending pre FFP.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by madras

[Maineblue]

5 minutes ago, Manxst said:

There’s nothing wrong per se, except you stated “city ability to spend is nothing to do with sponsorship deals”. It is. And not only is it, but you’ve allegedly over inflated deals and put money into the club in order to spend via nefarious and illegal means. 

 

No you and others were saying “we can spend what we want”. I pointed out we can’t because we need to sell before we can spend like Newcastle.

 

Were going round in circles here, all the best for the new season.

 

Im off for a pint .

[Manxst]

4 minutes ago, madras said:

And built on unfettered spending pre FFP.

But we all play by the same rules. The rules we helped introduce once we’d spent a shit load of money and wanted to remain at the top of the money tree along with the other (at the time) perceived ‘big’ clubs. Then, when we decided we actually wanted to have even GREATER income and spending ability, we did illegal things to manufacture it. Oh, and wanted to be in both the PL AND the ESL, again, to coin the cash in. But yeah, the same rules. 

[Manxst]

14 minutes ago, Maineblue said:

No you and others were saying “we can spend what we want”. I pointed out we can’t because we need to sell before we can spend like Newcastle.

 

Were going round in circles here, all the best for the new season.

 

Im off for a pint .

Aye, best wishes to you. As I said, I appreciate your club and playing style. Just don’t agree with your financial irregularities. 
 

Take away any selling/spending from any club, and you’re left with sponsorship which plays a huge part in being able to buy. Sponsorship AND selling allows you to simply buy MORE. Some clubs are unable to sell players or rely on selling, so their major income and spending ability is based on sponsorship. Your club has allegedly illegally inflated and added to your sponsorship in order for you to help buy. Which is NOT the same as Newcastle. It’s not difficult to understand. 
 

but yeah, lets leave it there. Enjoy the pint 🍻 👍

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Manxst

[Hot Since 1882]

16 minutes ago, Shak said:

 

Careful now, you'll have all the woke brigade on you for posts like this.

 

Go woke, go broke. That's what I say. More like go woke, lose the final lol

 

Am I deleted from the world?  What's woke? Are you broke if not broke?

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Htt Since 1882

[bobbydazzla]

26 minutes ago, Htt Since 1882 said:

Watched since 80mins. First time I've watched women's football; standard is horrific. 

 

They play like non league level 10 non league side - and lose? 

 

Men or women, we are losers - the FA are losers. 

 

Soutgate  is a loser from the WC. 

U WOT M8 

[Pancrate1892]

I'm not sure if the point has been raised but at this very early stage in the season its very possible that city's midweek game had them on their toes rather than fatigued. I know pep wasn't happy but it would explain their dominance in game we expected to maybe show a bit more. Class is permanent of course. 

[LV]

2 hours ago, Hot Since 1882 said:

Watched since 80mins. First time I've watched women's football; standard is horrific. 

 

They play like non league level 10 non league side - and lose? 

 

Men or women, we are losers - the FA are losers. 

 

Soutgate  is a loser from the WC. 

Hot takes since 1882