Aren’t de Bruyne, Silva and Ederson in the final year of their contracts?
115(+15) vs the world
- Thread starter MomoWASright
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I stopped being lazy and looked myself. De Bruyne is out of contract (so is Scott Carson!) with Gundogononoananana. Silva, Stones, Ederson and Walker able to leave for free at the end of the 25/26 season.
There is literally only so far they can take it - when those legal avenues have been exhausted then they are done.
The PL can't / won't have been bled dry because they have already done pretty much everything that needs to be done (hence why it's taken so long to get to this stage), they are well aware of what appeal avenues there are and how long it will take to exhaust them.
I'm not sure why some of those older players would stay. To see out their remaining 'prime' year/s in the Championship (or lower)? When they could still be playing for someone else in the CL? Or at least in a decent league on decent pitches and in a decent environment (Spain/Italy)!
I hear you, but, appeals take time and cost money - am I right in saying that lawyers for both sides are from Blackstone Chambers (I know City’s is) - if that’s true, then there’s the true winners in all of this, no matter what happens.
KDB in the championship? You’re mad 😂
Tasty
33 on stupid wages? He might ride it out for a year; especially if he gets another decent knock
Been flirting with Saudi recently hasn't he? I think he's perma broken now anyway
depends if you think guardiola will stay. I don't. In fact i wouldn't be surprised if in his renewal theres a relegation clause
If City went down I could see them selling the players who are on short contracts (because they’d be in a weak position to negotiate new deals) and allowing some of the ones on longer deals to go out somewhere on loan for a year (on the assumption they’d be back in the PL the following year). Seem to recall Middlesbrough did that with Juninho when they were relegated once. It would be a workable solution all round for players they really wanted to keep.
They’d rely on having enough to get promoted back, and not everyone would leave.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see loans to some of their affiliated clubs, especially if Girona are in the CL again.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, this could all be at least 18 months away, and if they lose the first case then there will be a lot of upheaval while the appeal goes ahead, with anyone not truly committed agitating for an exit in the meantime.
They’d rely on having enough to get promoted back, and not everyone would leave.
Wouldn’t be surprised to see loans to some of their affiliated clubs, especially if Girona are in the CL again.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, this could all be at least 18 months away, and if they lose the first case then there will be a lot of upheaval while the appeal goes ahead, with anyone not truly committed agitating for an exit in the meantime.
I get the feeling they are finally humbly admitting their own guilt and doing that for themselves
A little post script on the stuff I posted a few weeks back about City shuffling costs out of their results (still working on getting it published somewhere).
I've now discovered that back in May 2014, when City were sanctioned by UEFA for the first time, the published decision stated that "revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations".
To explain in layman's terms, this effectively confirms two things:
1. UEFA was aware City had created £22.5m of profit on transferring assets into side companies; and
2. Those profits were included in their FFP results (meaning that the side companies' results are not part of City's FFP reporting). This confirms the basic assumption of my previous comments - they've shifted costs outside the club.
They effectively "got away" with the first leg of the transaction by reaching the settlement with UEFA. However, that settlement included a fine of €60m, of which €40m was suspended. So they were sanctioned. They probably think they were "exonerated".
However, the decision makes no reference to the second leg of the scheme - the funnelling of costs into the side companies. Significantly, the settlement was agreed in May 2014. The side companies didn't prepare their first accounts until after that date, so it's entirely possible UEFA didn't know they were going to rack up losses. Furthermore, the settlement required that City deliver a maximum loss of €20m for 2014. Without funnelling costs into the side companies, I think they would have failed that requirement.
Unfortunately, UEFA doesn't publish the full details of their disciplinary hearings so it's impossible to know. The earlier years would be time-barred but they could still look into later years.
I've now discovered that back in May 2014, when City were sanctioned by UEFA for the first time, the published decision stated that "revenues from the sale of assets within their group structure will not be included in future break-even calculations".
To explain in layman's terms, this effectively confirms two things:
1. UEFA was aware City had created £22.5m of profit on transferring assets into side companies; and
2. Those profits were included in their FFP results (meaning that the side companies' results are not part of City's FFP reporting). This confirms the basic assumption of my previous comments - they've shifted costs outside the club.
They effectively "got away" with the first leg of the transaction by reaching the settlement with UEFA. However, that settlement included a fine of €60m, of which €40m was suspended. So they were sanctioned. They probably think they were "exonerated".
However, the decision makes no reference to the second leg of the scheme - the funnelling of costs into the side companies. Significantly, the settlement was agreed in May 2014. The side companies didn't prepare their first accounts until after that date, so it's entirely possible UEFA didn't know they were going to rack up losses. Furthermore, the settlement required that City deliver a maximum loss of €20m for 2014. Without funnelling costs into the side companies, I think they would have failed that requirement.
Unfortunately, UEFA doesn't publish the full details of their disciplinary hearings so it's impossible to know. The earlier years would be time-barred but they could still look into later years.
And a further point in relation to the "third party company" that was used to shelter player image rights costs.
That company was liquidated in entirely legitimate fashion in 2023.
But the position with its parent company is less clear.
Its directors removed the company by a process called a "voluntary strike-off". That's a process that is only available to solvent companies, and it is a criminal offence to use it for a company that is insolvent.
The company's last accounts showed it was insolvent to the tune of £11k. However, its accounts were wrong. It recorded the image rights company as having a value of £59m (plus £10m of debt being due from it), when in fact it was worth nothing (as proved by the outcome of the liquidation process, which repaid nothing to its shareholders).
Which means the parent company was insolvent to the tune of £69m when it was struck off.
So either the shareholders broke the law by using a voluntary strike-off process for a massively insolvent company, or else someone put £69m quid into it before it was liquidated.
And if it's the latter case, did that money come from ADUG as Der Spiegel has previously asserted?
Very murky.
That company was liquidated in entirely legitimate fashion in 2023.
But the position with its parent company is less clear.
Its directors removed the company by a process called a "voluntary strike-off". That's a process that is only available to solvent companies, and it is a criminal offence to use it for a company that is insolvent.
The company's last accounts showed it was insolvent to the tune of £11k. However, its accounts were wrong. It recorded the image rights company as having a value of £59m (plus £10m of debt being due from it), when in fact it was worth nothing (as proved by the outcome of the liquidation process, which repaid nothing to its shareholders).
Which means the parent company was insolvent to the tune of £69m when it was struck off.
So either the shareholders broke the law by using a voluntary strike-off process for a massively insolvent company, or else someone put £69m quid into it before it was liquidated.
And if it's the latter case, did that money come from ADUG as Der Spiegel has previously asserted?
Very murky.
I thought that's the whole joy of a transfer ban. Stop City rebuilding but also punish their players by getting them kicked repeatedly in the Championship for at least one season. The players joining that plastic club gained the most, especially the ones getting paid via secret offshore accounts, so they need to share the punishment.
Sad thing is that City have made a profit for each of the last ten years and have just announced record revenues, so they will be back and all set to dominate again. They must be magicians as no other club makes money, especially with an empty stadium. The 115 charges is just a temporary setback.
“Profit”
I'm worried that if @Beamrider uncovers any more info like this then he may also be the recipient of a "strike off"
Matron!
we’re going to have to crowd fund a witness protection setup for him, send him to the north pole too
Safer to hide out at the Etihad.
nice idea, the away fans might rat him out though
Still.. utterly shameless.
Its like King jung il claims at this point. How many holes in one?
There's a scm safehouse in Iqaluit
We also have a wardrobe with mystical powers.
Similar threads
- Locked
