15:49, Mon 11 Oct
Hi Dan - interesting.

So have I got this right...

If Cornella sells a player -- Nama Sports gets half the income.
Blues can buy any Cornella player they like.
And if they do buy someone off Cornella, Nama gets half the income.
Ma Dong is cofounder of Nama and also president of Cornella.
So if Blues buy a player from Cornella, then Ma Dong is quids in?

Ren also?
15:50, Mon 11 Oct
Whilst the situation is I would agree, murky I can't see where it has been to the detriment of Blues.

Any funding appears to have come from BSH and not BCFC and provided we haven't paid over the odds for any player or service from Cornella then we don't appear to have lost out.

Whether BSH can say the same I don't know.
16:01, Mon 11 Oct
Yeah, Blues don't seem to nave benefited and the only detriment I can see is being lumbered with a couple of players (hence taking up places in the 25? man named squad that better players could have had) that were never going to make the grade.
16:52, Mon 11 Oct
In October 2017, it was reported that Birmingham City had entered into a strategic partnership deal with Unio Esportiva Cornella, a team playing in the Spanish third tier. In this first article of a series looking back at the way the current regime have run Blues, Ive taken a look at what that partn

[almajir.net]

As you know, on a lot of your articles i can usually give an alternative narrative and a view on how things COULD be interpreted another way if viewed from a neutral position (ie from someone who hasn't got a pre-conceived negative view of our ownership) ............ on this, having read the documents several times, i can't. The fact that it hasn't been shown in our accounts or the segmented accounts is plainly wrong and can't be brushed off as "an oversight".
17:29, Mon 11 Oct
By "our accounts" do you mean BCFC or BSH?

The latter appears to be the one with the financial responsibility for the relationship with Cornella.

Does the "partnership" have any financial consequences for BCFC?
17:50, Mon 11 Oct
By "our accounts" do you mean BCFC or BSH?

The latter appears to be the one with the financial responsibility for the relationship with Cornella.

Does the "partnership" have any financial consequences for BCFC?



"our accounts
" in this instance = BSH ... and don't believe that one can ignore and separate the BSH accounts into something that would be "none of our concern"
19:17, Mon 11 Oct
Rags
By "our accounts" do you mean BCFC or BSH?

The latter appears to be the one with the financial responsibility for the relationship with Cornella.

Does the "partnership" have any financial consequences for BCFC?



"our accounts
" in this instance = BSH ... and don't believe that one can ignore and separate the BSH accounts into something that would be "none of our concern"

I agree, it is obviously concerning if the man who was, at the time, our CEO was engaged in nefarious activities.

Similarly it is of concern if activities that should have been reported within the accounts of a listed company are not.

However, it does, at least, appear that the Club has not been financially affected by this.

If correct then that's something for which we can be thankful.
19:41, Mon 11 Oct
absolutely pig sick of the whole stinking affairs

comes to something desperate when the only way out of this sorry mess seems to be whatever it takes to put the club into Administration and be rid of these charlatans once and for all
19:45, Mon 11 Oct
Quokkasskip
This is good work.

Look after yourself Dan… getting further into a murky world again

Seconded
Blue since 67 - Will be there at the end of the road, whenever that may be!
20:05, Mon 11 Oct
derbyblue
absolutely pig sick of the whole stinking affairs

comes to something desperate when the only way out of this sorry mess seems to be whatever it takes to put the club into Administration and be rid of these charlatans once and for all

Only the owners can put the Club into administration and as has been said many times before they aren't likely to be doing that in the foreseeable future.
21:48, Mon 11 Oct
Be interesting to see how much we bought the 3 Spanish players for?

3m for Medina anyone?
23:15, Mon 11 Oct
Still struggling with understanding this, but:

If Ma Dong is a proxy for the elusive Mr King

Then Blues could buy a player from Cornella for a fee.

Ma Dong will get 50% of it and so effectively Mr King does.


It is open to abuse if Blues bought players for inflated fees, but Mr King would pay for that anyway, he would be just effectively washing money.

I'm struggling to see where people have made money from it but could see how money could be laundered through it.

But if Ma is a proxy for King they had ownership of Cornella anyway so no agreement would be needed, blues could just buy directly.


I'm thoroughly confused and hope someone can explain the murky aspects hinted at, please?. I do understand the huge eff up in not declaring the purchase to the HKSE, but that is all.
23:40, Mon 11 Oct
Dirty Bertie
derbyblue
absolutely pig sick of the whole stinking affairs

comes to something desperate when the only way out of this sorry mess seems to be whatever it takes to put the club into Administration and be rid of these charlatans once and for all

Only the owners can put the Club into administration and as has been said many times before they aren't likely to be doing that in the foreseeable future.

Ideally no they wouldn’t….. what worries me is what they might have to do that to ensure that doesn’t happen

The whole Evergrande thing in China worries me a little…. I don’t have Dan’s knowledge but articles I’ve read of late say contagion could well spread to Cambodia real estate, which if I remember rightly our erstwhile overlords are quite extensively involved in.

If that does happen then 🤷‍♂️
23:46, Mon 11 Oct
barnieeee
Still struggling with understanding this, but:

If Ma Dong is a proxy for the elusive Mr King

Then Blues could buy a player from Cornella for a fee.

Ma Dong will get 50% of it and so effectively Mr King does.


It is open to abuse if Blues bought players for inflated fees, but Mr King would pay for that anyway, he would be just effectively washing money.

I'm struggling to see where people have made money from it but could see how money could be laundered through it.

But if Ma is a proxy for King they had ownership of Cornella anyway so no agreement would be needed, blues could just buy directly.


I'm thoroughly confused and hope someone can explain the murky aspects hinted at, please?. I do understand the huge eff up in not declaring the purchase to the HKSE, but that is all.

You're overcomplicating it

Nothing to do with King, all to do with Ren Xuandong.
07:55, Tue 12 Oct
Is MA Dong a relation to Ren or are they one in the same