₦airaland Forum

To be honest, with Ijaw names, all of the above could be his names.

He is someone who has been named after a phrase, plus he has middle names. Most times the phrase is shortened, but sometimes you use the full phrase. On top of that, as a child you may not be able to spell your full Ijaw name, neither may your parents if they're unlettered, resulting in different name registrations in.different schools.

For example, my daughter's birth certificate says Achusi but the full form of the name we have her is Achusitamunopirime.

Sugabelly dancing gbe body right now

Unlimited22:
Our jand guys, what do you think about this new points-based immigration system in Her Majesty's country?

Cc Nihilistjnr Ibime Chic2pimp lexusgs430 and anyone else in the UK or otherwise who wishes to contribute...

A good development for the country.

How does in work out for you in Opthalmics field?

Kimbeast:
Ok I still don't get your point. In a nut shell are you saying it's a bad deal because we are losing a quality player or the amount we are getting for him is not good enough?

The amount is not good enough for the quality he is said to have.

I have not seen him this season, but I have him down as a £25m player who has been dïcked around by unserious clubs looking for cheap loans (Milan, Monaco) and who could be rated a lot more highly than £12-15m if he was in a serious environment.

Kimbeast:
It was obvious we never rated him good enough for the club long term plans so we just wanted to get profit out from him. 12million plus all the loan fees over the years for a player with 0 app for the club is pretty good business.

Not if you rate the player as a good player.

I did say when we signed Bakayoko that this guy was benching Bakayoko at Monaco the year prior so I don't see why we should honour another (false) prophet over our own.

Kimbeast:
Cc chic2pimp

I saw this question on Twitter and remembered AC Milan once lined up with CAFU -STAM -NESTA -MAlDINI With GATTUSO AND SEEDORF Protecting them. What a mad set up.

More like Ambrosini instead of Seedorf. Seedorf played slightly to the left in the famous diamond or Christmas tree while Gatusso played to the right but helping Ambrosini more

Kimbeast:
Pasalic has been superb this season. The loan agreement with Atalanta had a 12M buy out option so their is nothing Chelsea can do. It's actually good business from Marina.

How?

Last seasons loan agreement had a buyback of 15m. At the end of the loan, Atalanta started claiming poverty. We then agreed another loan with buyback. That was opportunity to take him back if we thought he was that good.

nihilistjnr:
My struggle is clearly not your struggle, so of course you will perceive me as the sick bastard.

Fam leave this place and go and find a pënis to suck or something

Are you saying Neymar1095 na homo?

See my guy topics

Homosexuality is not part of the scorecard to join ApariSports. They will soon disown him.

A40:
I've not seen a team that has been to back to back Finals and compete and dominate the last two seasons in one of the top two leagues in Europe get absolutely no respect.

Raumdeuter come and see!

If EPL is one of the top two leagues in Europe which is the other?

LaLiga or Bundesliga?

A40:
All 4 EPL teams came out of their groups in the CL, All 3 EPL Europa League teams also got out of their groups.

7 of the remaining 48 teams in Europe are English. So I disagree with una argument in Large Fonts

If the other leagues had their teams thriving in Europe as well then no one of sound mind will ridicule their achievements.

Liverpool's point tally reflects their quality. They would lead any other league in Europe as we speak

20 points for you on Citadel scorecard

lordfalcao:
I don’t know why am seeing tears all over this place about bad officiating..

Una don forget karma is a bitch, when una dy laugh Man U and man city when officials go against them nko.

Now is our turn to feel the pain, abeg mk una no disturb us about officiating here

Are you no longer a Chelsea fan?

Your use of language referring to us as una is disturbing

Donjazet started well but is now on the ropes from Airmark and Nihilist tag-team.

Don't let people push you into a fight if they will not back the fight when it gets hot. ApariSports and Manure members need to come to his aid.

Oasis007:


Damn it..... The End of Citadel, perhaps, is Today. You are indeed a Don. We are following with relaxed Mind.

It's not everyday you fight. Sometimes the battle ground is not in your favour.

This thread is crawling with Manure fans today ready to support Donjazet wholeheartedly, meanwhile Citadel boys are in hiding.

There can only be one winner.

airmark:
When Lampard was doing well and others were calling you out, i remember you were here trying to defend yourself, no matter how ludicrous it was and i kept mute. Now you are here to attack me, you are showing your true colour, later in the evening i will have your time. You simpleton that always think with his anus.

Na Fenibeso go kill you today.

We Chelsea fans need a fight to exorcise our pent up frustration from yesterday.

You and Donjazet should not disappoint, but no family pictures please!

A40:
Lmaoooo you go bet on Villa ni?

No no be bet.

My FPL opponent just beat me with that last Don goal, plus Spurs are now 1 point behind Chelsea as a result of that goal

Son done kill me in FPL and in real life.

Stupid Villa!

Never mess with a slow and calculating nigga.

Churchill waited all this time, gathering evidence, and felt that with all the stain on Tonto's name from her Dubai arrest, now is the perfect time to strike.

Tonto will be making noise on social media while Churchill will be gathering admissible evidence before a court of law. He knew this was his intention all the while but has been civil and gentlemanly in public. This would create a stark contrast in the eyes of the judge as to who is responsible between them.

Eruditor:
Sheikh did not continue doing so. City had fixed their books since

City did not fix their books. Their books remain the same. You cannot declare a certain amount in a contract and change it in your books later on the basis of deception. That would invite criminal authorities in UK and also deflate their revenue to where they fail FFP.

The only party that could fix their books to clean the matter is Etihad Airways. Their books may have been saying they pay City £100m whereas City books say it's £400m. Meanwhile Sheikh funds the £300m balance. The problem is that Etihad is not under UEFA or any countries' jurisdiction except Sheikh himself. They may still be carrying £100m in their books as the figure till today sef, and are not compelled to reveal it to anyone, not even in the UAE which is a monarchy, and Sheikh is the law there.

UEFA is trying to navigate outside the ambit of the law here cos the only authorities that can can compel Etihad to prove their case transactionally are UAE authorities. All they have is emails which tell a different story to what City present in their accounts. Only Etihad has the real paper trail in their books, which is the amount they recognised as liability to City for those contracts. That is the golden gun.

You can only investigate a financial crime in the UK if the injured party agrees that it has been injured. Financial injury to a party is actually the threshold for fraud. According to City directors emails, Etihad would be the injured party in this case because the email trail says they agreed a lower amount while City's books say it's a higher amount.

Eruditor:
I have been telling you that City had been suspected like PSG etc and already settled their issue with UEFA in 2014 by paying a fine then and proving that their books have been good after that. The issue then was that City spent more than they could account for (not that the Sheikh intentionally gave them more money than he was allowed to). When those leaks came out in 2015, it appeared that City may have deceived UEFA in 2014 so they asked City for more information and City did not cooperate. So UEFA set out to teach them a lesson.

I don't know why you keep talking about restating an account. FFP was trying to limit the amount rich owners could invest in their clubs. A rich owner made one of his companies sponsor his team. No fraud. The suspected breach is that he lied about how much his company actually sponsored his team with. He understated it. He did so in that window so he could help his team buy and pay certain players that the team would not have been able to buy and pay with their revenue at the time.

Sheikh did not continue doing so. City had fixed their books since.

The issue in breach is UEFA rules. You are right. In the commercial world, if a contract is signed for certain amount and cash is paid for that amount from the contracting party, the revenue is valid under any accounting rules.

The problem here is UEFA pulled up emails that show that Etihad only paid a fraction of those amounts while Sheikh passed the remaining balance from his personal funds through Etihad to City.

UEFA can pull issue with that and ask them to restate their accounts for FFP purposes to see if they passed the threshold. Na the Koko be that.

One thing is sure is that this could be a criminal matter (which it can be if British Govt cares enough), but all authorities know that Etihad/Abu Dhabi would not cooperate and British Govt would not risk tense relationship with a UAE Royal investing in their country, beside there is no negative tax implication to Her Majesty's Revenue from the transaction. There is however precedent for this in BAE Systems payments in the Middle East. All the payments were contractual and seem above board on paper, however British Govt intercepted some communications to find out the true intent of these payments, and fined them heavily for it.

City will be hiding under paper contracts while UEFA has rumbled the true cash movements that took place.

Eruditor:
When Chevron fires their staff for joining unions which they forbid. The aggrieved member of staff always go outside of Chevron - the court of arbitration for labour in Nigeria (industrial court). Because they know they will never get a fair hearing with chevron. Many times the industrial court (acts like the supreme court) by overriding any decisions that Chevron may have made. You even see judgements where Chevron is asked to pay said staff huge emoluments to go with a reinstatement to their jobs.

That's what CAS is for. However, that does not preclude UEFA from investigating and making judgements on its own rules, which is why I can't understand City statement that UEFA investigated and adjudicated on the matter. That is their right to do so. All City talk and your talk is just rabble rousing.

Eruditor:
An independent and impartial body.

The body who sets the rules is the one who adjudicates on it. Who do you expect to investigate and apply UEFA rules if not UEFA?

If you are unsatisfied with their verdict, you can take it to arbitration.

If you break Chevron HR rules as an employee, would you expect Total or Shell to be the ones to come and do your disciplinary? If you have a problem with Chevron's decision, you take your appeal to the courts, simple.

Eruditor:
City are making more than enough revenues especially when juxtaposed with how much they spent in said years.

UEFA did not need any period. They relied on the emails that leaked. Simple. Only thing City did was not cooperate during the investigations.

You can argue till you are blue in the face. Anyone who knows accounts will know they would fall foul if forced to restate accounts. They are barely compliant now so any reduction in revenue (just for current accounting period only) will take them below FFP threshold.

And if you want to get technical, if they were found to overstate revenue in the past, IAS8 rules would require them to correct prior period misstatements in 2020 to cover incorrect revenue recognition from 2012 to 2019 which would hit their Other Comprehensive Income line in their P&L for hundreds of millions of pounds and knock them out of FFP compliance once and for all.



On another point, City are in a serious bind. It is in their interest to accept EPL points deduction this year since they cannot win the league and may be banned from UCL next year. However that will constitute admission of guilt in the eyes of CAS and hamper their case there.

On the other hand, they could challenge Premier League sanction this year and risk taking the hit next year which will knock them out of league contention for 20/21 season while also getting hammered by UEFA.


ELruditor, would you advise that they take their L this year or next?

BlueAngel444:
not likely, I thought the same when Chelsea was facing a similar issue and thought heck the transfer ban would be treated like those of the Spanish teams but that didn't occur, worse was how City's own was even treated self.


Looking at that Milan case you will notice the difference in the cases. City is also to be investigated by the league because what they are being accused of is financial fraud, inflation of revenue and not them not balancing the books.

City neither have the time to actually get any favorable hearing, also note that Chelsea stated the partiality of treatment they received in their previous case.

Looking at how the case progressed City haven't been at the front foot at at all in any area unlike with ac milan.

Starting from

Below is a timeline of events:
5 November, 2018: German publication Der Spiegel claims Manchester City and their sponsors manipulated contracts to circumvent Uefa's Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. The German news magazine says the club allegedly misled Uefa by not revealing they had directed money to the club from Abu Dhabi owner Sheikh Mansour via sponsors linked to him, and artificially inflated the value of their commercial income to help meet FFP rules requiring clubs to break even. City say they will not be commenting on the claims.
March 2019: Uefa begins investigating the club for potential breaches of its FFP regulations. It says: "The investigation will focus on several alleged violations of FFP that were recently made public in various media outlets."


calling this an execution will be justified.

City case is the same as Milan in UEFAs eyes which is breach of FFP limits.

Premier League have their own rules on FFP and treat it more seriously than Serie A so it will be a double-whammy for City, both domestically and Internationally.

Milan may have escaped domestic censure because Serie A don't pay much attention to those things. This is the main difference between them.

As far as UEFA is concerned, Milan and City are the same except Milan will have more goodwill in sentencing as they declared their losses while City hid theirs. UEFA is not police though, so that is a moot point. UEFA is only concerned with FFP compliance.

I doubt tax or criminal authorities will be interested in picking up City's case as inflating Revenues does not reduce your tax liability.

Eruditor:
.
They are.

No they are not.

UEFA cannot ask them to restate their books and cannot punish them twice for the same crime. UEFA only need to find a rolling five year period where they would have breached FFP rules to nail them. 2012 to 2016 will do. You take your punishment for that period, and don't need to do a complicated unwinding of your accounts which has effect on other jurisdictions (tax authorities etc). If UEFA ask them to unwind their 2012 to 2016 commercial agreements which are still accruing revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, you will see they are not making enough revenue in 2017, 2018, 2019, but no need to punish them twice for the same crime.

Eruditor:
Lies. FFP rules made it difficult for a fledgling club like City at the time to raise enough revenue to make purchases. So the owners provided the money for it through sponsorship. That is all.



City have been making enough revenue since 2017.

Take 10 year Etihad naming rights of £400m in 2011 which was double any other naming right. The fraudulent effect of that contract continues till 2021. Unless they restate those contracts to their true value, then their revenue is still overstated till date. A simple accounting principle - if you sign a 10 year deal, you will book 1/10th of the present value of that deal each year to Revenue under deferred Revenue principles. So Pep is still benefiting from all those frauds. That's why he can buy without selling like other clubs.

No, they are not making enough revenue since 2017. Let them restate their fraudulent deals to true value first. Most of their commercial revenue is still Abu-Dhabi related and likely inflated. The only issue is burden of proof. Same as with PSG.

Eruditor:
1. They can prove that other big clubs did same thereby nullifying the "FairPlay" spirit of the rule.
.

They can only allude to suspicions about PSG et al. They can't prove it in court. If there's any public info about PSG, UEFA will charge them sooner or later. The only one caught red-handed for now is City.

Eruditor:
2. They can prove that the punishment was not commensurate with the crime

CAS will treat City based on AC Milan precedent which was one year deferment of ban, followed by one year ban.

Eruditor:
Of course, this is a lie. But you will go about your day knowing all you needed to say is "I tell these lies in the name of being a Chelsea fan" and the lemmings will chorus "Amen"!

UEFA did not select any time frame to check anything. This case hovered over Man City the season before Pep signed.

Yes, Man City inflated contracts because the company sponsoring the team is owned by the owners of Man City.

But contract inflation by big clubs is something they are all guilty of. City knew this and rested partly on the fact that Real Madrid, Barca, Juventus and PSG are guilty of the same - and UEFA can prove it.

So UEFA are to ban all 4 teams as well, but can't because their revenues will suffer.

This judgement is just a statement to more like ruffle City a little because they were uncooperative during the investigations.

As if you don't know that the court of sports arbitration will more than likely overturn the ban and perhaps leave City with a fine, something the Sheikh will pay with one of his son's per annum.

You are the one spinning lies.

UEFA and every sensible person suspected that City were doping financially ever since they announced the Etihad naming rights.

The problem they had is burden of proof.

Football leaks hacked their emails catching them red-handed, allowing UEFA to commence investigations in December 2018, not 2016 as you claim.

Emails from their execs exposed by football leaks showed that they were asking Sheikh to inflate naming rights and other commercial deals.

These are multi-year deals so the contract inflation is still giving them inflated revenues to this day.

They were doping then, and they are doping now, allowing Pep unlimited funds to buy players without selling. Football leaks just allowed UEFA to nail them for that specific period without shadow of doubt because the hacked emails were from that period.

This is a case of everyday for the thief, one day for the owner.

All they can do now is challenge UEFAs jurisdiction to put them on trial, not that they can clear themselves of the crime.

Fraudiola access to fraudulent funds is over. Na to jump ship remain.

Eruditor:
Keep pandering to your fanbase.

You know the case is about something that other clubs do and had nothing to do with Pep. It was between 2012-2016.

It is everything to do with Pep. The inflated revenue from stadium naming rights continues to this day and the fraudulent contracts contribute greatly to the money he is spending now.

UEFA only need to prove that in a certain time window without these inflated revenues, you would have breached FFP caps.

UEFA have them dead to rights with their own Executive emails from that period showing they inflated revenue, all UEFA needs to do is show they would have breached FFP without those inflated contracts. No point investigating any other period where they don't have email trail, before a clever accountant or lawyer come and do magomago.

To send a serial killer to jail, you only have to prove one murder.

Greatihex:
is that how it will be?

Yes, according to the rules

Eruditor:
Everybody knew UEFA will do this. City knew and wanted to appeal to the Court of Sports Arbitration but they were told to wait till UEFA made a decision.

How can you be Judge, Jury and Executioner of the same case? That is what UEFA have been in the whole saga.

My friend everybody knows City have been inflating revenue and even hiding salary payments off the books.

When they announced Etihad naming rights with their own company for inflated figure, everyone knew they were cooking books. It's only been a matter of proving it, and football leaks intercepted their emails proving it.

Net spend doesn't matter, net spend doesn't matter.

Other clubs are selling to buy, you are just buying and buying and buying

Now UEFA don ban you

Chelsea, Spurs and Manure fans after hearing that 5th place now qualifies you for UCL


[img]https://media./images/a1a9560e87fca898eac66f41c9551f95/tenor.gif[/img]

After the tikitaka, play the blues/ (the blues, the blues)
We been dey laugh as Pep dey lose/ (dey lose, dey lose)
When he win, we no confuse/ (confuse, confuse)
Na Sheikh money him been dey use/ (dey use, dey use)

Wetin we talk don comfam/ (confam, comfam)
Without money, Pep na scam/ (na scam, na scam)
Sheikh overspend to please the man/ (the man, the man)
Now UEFA don give am ban/ (am ban, am ban)