PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BringBackSwales]

A question. When it comes to the financing of football clubs, other than commercial revenue, what is more acceptable, third party debt (like Man Utd) or quasi equity (like Chelsea)? If City have been funded by inflated sponsorship deals routed through Abu Dhabi backed companies, surely the effect is the same in terms of generating funds. Or am I being a bit thick?

Tell it to your board Jack. I appreciate you are a fair minded and decent poster, but your board have been leaders against us for the best part of a decade (and I am sure you will agree, Piers Morgan is a ****)

 

[domalino]

I'd say city feel they have cooperated as much as they need to and can. Its up to the league to prove we haven't. Again I'd say that it's all to do with these payments to players and managers from outside city. Something we would never cooperate with as it would show our guilt ( If true)

The Premier League proving City didn't cooperate is as simple as an email asking for some information and the club responding no (or not responding), it's incredibly easy.

Part of the PL rules is fully cooperating with any investigation, so the amount City needed to, was as much as the PL wanted.

Like I said, not cooperating means you've decided it's better to be (correctly) charged and punished for that offence rather than give them what they want.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I'm surprised we weren't charged by the Premier League for not declaring Yaya's birthday cake.

It could be there, takes time to get through the 100.

 

[BlueMoonRisin’]

Hey er, is anyone insterested in a 'Super League' concept...?

I'd rather see us get relegated to division 2 than be part of a European Super League.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Hey er, is anyone insterested in a 'Super League' concept...?

Nope I genuinely preferred the third division, or whatever it’s now called

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

My belief is this is pretty well about Fordham and Mancini's Al Jazira contract. The latter is immaterial and at the very worst, even assuming it's not time-barred, might result in a fine if the independent commission feel it's out of order.

Fordham is more difficult to call. They were originally Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) and a club subsidiary. The were incorporated in May 2012 and appear to have stopped trading in 2018. They're currently being liquidated. Our wage vill shot up in 2019, from £260m to £315m, which while not absolutely conclusive, suggests that we started paying image rights via Manchester City Football Club then. Or it could be related to bringing one of the other subsidiaries (Manchester City Football Services) back into the main accounts.

Whatever the legalities of Fordham, we must have taken expert advice and there was a clear trail from Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) to Fordham Sports Image Rights. Our auditors must have been aware of this and presumably would have asked the relevant questions. Assuming they did, had they not been happy they'd have walked away and/or qualified the accounts. They didn't so we must presume they were happy with the answers given.

Also, the Fordham situation was revealed by Der Spiegel iirc, or was publicised somewhere else, so it's hardly been a secret.

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

It won't be allowed to go quickly, that's the issue.

It's a win-win for the Premier League and the lobbying clubs.

It's a guilty verdict in the first instance, barring City having a strong set of recordings or emails showing this is a witch hunt and irrefutable.

At the very least, they and our rivals know we would appeal until which time we exhaust every avenue up to the High Court.

In the interim, it materially damages us both on and off the pitch. Players we are interested in might look elsewhere, players we have, might demand to move elsewhere.

Commercially, we would be off limits to pretty much everyone but our Abu Dhabi partners.

The timing also conveniently addresses the white paper delay and comes as we still battle for three trophies.

We win something, it is further smeared.

We don't win anything, it has also played its part.

It would be a transfer ban in all but name and clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal can crack on, while United and Liverpool become more attractive to investors because City's competitiveness is diminished.

Clear and orchestrated, which is why at the very least, it will be medium to short term pain until we clear our name.

We will lose the battle but win the war. Perhaps our rivals are more than comfortable with that.

Interesting post mate and likely to be very accurate.

It surely wouldn't be in the PL's own interest to have to strip titles and relegate us. That would be incredibly bad for their brand all ove the world. Serious questions would be asked about how it was allowed to go on for so long.

But a fine, suspended points deduction and or out of court settlement (assuming City would agree) would definitely suit them. As you say, in the meantime it destabilises City. Potentially unsettles Pep and you can't blame potential transfer targets for wanting to distance themselves until there is an outcome. If we do get hit with the harshest of penalties some of our players may well want to move away. Like you say, it's a transfer ban by default.

I was pretty disheartened yesterday, but the more I've read up on it the more I want the club to come out swinging and the statement yesterday implies they will.

 

[Jack Hackett]

Hey er, is anyone insterested in a 'Super League' concept...?

That bird, thank f**k, has flown

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

I think there is a level of inevitability about it. Does anyone one really see this PL appointed independent panel finding in our favour?

Are you sure the independent panel is going to be PL-appointed? Genuine question, not having a go. I can’t understand how our accusers could be allowed to hand pick those responsible for determining our fate?

 

[halfcenturyup]

the point seemed to be that FFP is fundamentally illegitimate and therefore effectively that there's nothing wrong with being accused of breaching it - which makes the reference to a hypothetical allegation of paedophilia extremely bizarre, like I said.

Analogy aside, if the OP's trying to make a more general claim that fans have an obligation not to discuss the possible implications of charges made against the club, then I'm afraid I disagree.

Fair enough. Apart from the analogy which I don't care about.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It won't be allowed to go quickly, that's the issue.

It's a win-win for the Premier League and the lobbying clubs.

It's a guilty verdict in the first instance, barring City having a strong set of recordings or emails showing this is a witch hunt and irrefutable.

At the very least, they and our rivals know we would appeal until which time we exhaust every avenue up to the High Court.

In the interim, it materially damages us both on and off the pitch. Players we are interested in might look elsewhere, players we have, might demand to move elsewhere.

Commercially, we would be off limits to pretty much everyone but our Abu Dhabi partners.

The timing also conveniently addresses the white paper delay and comes as we still battle for three trophies.

We win something, it is further smeared.

We don't win anything, it has also played its part.

It would be a transfer ban in all but name and clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal can crack on, while United and Liverpool become more attractive to investors because City's competitiveness is diminished.

Clear and orchestrated, which is why at the very least, it will be medium to short term pain until we clear our name.

We will lose the battle but win the war. Perhaps our rivals are more than comfortable with that.

Agree with all that but why would Richard Masters put his future career on the line just to smear City? I know he wants to keep LFC and MUFC happy for well documented reasons but he is risking his personal reputation with this case (unless he thinks they can win it with "smoking gun" evidence).

 

[Maly]

Waiting to see the club statement first.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I think there is truth in this. It is also the case that three of our Directors, including Khaldoon, were also involved in the £10bn external investment deal recently agreed between the UAE leadership and the UK government. It is not in the interests of the Government to put this relationship at risk.

Very important point here that the Premier league with what they are alleging with these charges are in essence branding the likes of Khaldoon and other high level directors in the club who also have political sway in Abu Dhabi, criminals.

Would the likes of Grant Shapps like to see £10 billion pounds of investment go down the pisser when the country is on it knees financially? The Premier league changed their stance on Newcastle being purchased once the government had a quiet word in their ear.

The fallout for both sides here will be huge depending on what verdict is reached. If and that’s a big if the major part of this allegation of City’s accounts have been falsified since 2009 is thrown out where does that leave the Premier League?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Didn't like the form of words used. As many have said on here it had a "fuck you" tone.

Ok, fair enough. Not sure it matters in the greater scheme personally.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

It won't be allowed to go quickly, that's the issue.

It's a win-win for the Premier League and the lobbying clubs.

It's a guilty verdict in the first instance, barring City having a strong set of recordings or emails showing this is a witch hunt and irrefutable.

At the very least, they and our rivals know we would appeal until which time we exhaust every avenue up to the High Court.

In the interim, it materially damages us both on and off the pitch. Players we are interested in might look elsewhere, players we have, might demand to move elsewhere.

Commercially, we would be off limits to pretty much everyone but our Abu Dhabi partners.

The timing also conveniently addresses the white paper delay and comes as we still battle for three trophies.

We win something, it is further smeared.

We don't win anything, it has also played its part.

It would be a transfer ban in all but name and clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal can crack on, while United and Liverpool become more attractive to investors because City's competitiveness is diminished.

Clear and orchestrated, which is why at the very least, it will be medium to short term pain until we clear our name.

We will lose the battle but win the war. Perhaps our rivals are more than comfortable with that.

Khaldoon says we will win the battle and the war and if we win trophies in the mean time that will not diminish our appeal.

SilverLake will have been fully briefed from the outset and are fully committed and our mates in the UAE are not going to withdraw sponsorship.

Chin up,shoulders back our greatest victory beckons !!

 

[Protein Junkie]

So the Premier League have procured the Sword of Damocles from UEFA, Sharpened both edges, given it some Brasso and delivered it our wonderful club again.

This is a double edge sword.

They are not only content to accuse City in the hope that some of it will lead to our demise but they will now sit back, smoke a cigar and watch the process attempt to devour us before any decisions are made.

A process that will allow Reputational Damage to eat away at our capabilities – instability amongst our players, confusion and concern amongst our transfer targets, reputational management by current and would-be sponsors.

I am sure that our owners will already have a strategy in place to counter the reputational damage and even get ahead of the game. I do hope it includes the facility to be proactive and not just defensive.

Whatever the outcome I have unconditional love for this Club.

 

[premierkissov]

As ever with these things, the supporters are completely overlooked in all of this. The timing, clearly has a huge impact on the club, Pep and the players, but what about our fans?

It's getting in to the business end of the season, with a lot to play for and hopefully City will at the least push Arsenal close and do well in the cup competitions. But with this hanging over us, potentially the outcomes of these games are irrelevant, if we are stripped of titles/docked points/relegated/banned for life etc.

Whether City have done something wrong is one thing, but the fans certainly haven't. But we're just collateral damage that isn't given a second thought. Football is an incredible sport, but the way it is run is a disgrace and has been for a long time.

Came on to say much the same thing but you beat me to it. We've heard a lot of talk in recent years - in relation to ESL, the new white paper etc - about how the fans are the most important people in football, how important clubs are to their communities and all that. The media seem to be completely overlooking that angle, rubbing their hands with glee at the potential punishments and not caring about the impact on the fans at all.

What is particularly cruel is that the punishments seem to be limitless and completely arbitrary, there are no guidelines whatsoever on what would be appropriate as far as I can see. Cue months if not years of misery as we await our Club's fate. Will the media care about the impact this will have on us? Not a bit of it.

In my view the punishment should fit the crime. If the offences (if proven) are financial in nature then so should be the punishment. That would seem like natural justice.

 

[John Wayne]

My belief is this is pretty well about Fordham and Mancini's Al Jazira contract. The latter is immaterial and at the very worst, even assuming it's not time-barred, might result in a fine if the independent commission feel it's out of order.

Fordham is more difficult to call. They were originally Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) and a club subsidiary. The were incorporated in May 2012 and appear to have stopped trading in 2018. They're currently being liquidated. Our wage vill shot up in 2019, from £260m to £315m, which while not absolutely conclusive, suggests that we started paying image rights via Manchester City Football Club then. Or it could be related to bringing one of the other subsidiaries (Manchester City Football Services) back into the main accounts.

Whatever the legalities of Fordham, we must have taken expert advice and there was a clear trail from Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) to Fordham Sports Image Rights. Our auditors must have been aware of this and presumably would have asked the relevant questions. Assuming they did, had they not been happy they'd have walked away and/or qualified the accounts. They didn't so we must presume they were happy with the answers given.

Also, the Fordham situation was revealed by Der Spiegel iirc, or was publicised somewhere else, so it's hardly been a secret.

Add to that the fact that UEFA did not use Fordham as part of their CAS submissions suggests that they were happy with the transparency of the arrangement.

 

[marco]

im looking forward to the challenge TBH,its been brewing for years and now the time is here to show the world what a bunch of corrupt twats are involved in football, from VAR to the top we need to collapse the house and bring them to there knees,football fans across the country know full well about the corruption but have no choice to just brush it aside, my guess is most of the clubs and fans out of the top six would back us with this

 

[Greenandblue]

Financial fair play should be pretty simple.

• Concerned about club solvency? Then clubs shouldn't be allowed incur huge debts, so punish the indebted clubs and restrict their spending (but that might not suit some of the elite). City don’t have any big debts.
• Concerned about future losses, and clubs committing to long term player contracts at huge salaries, without certainty about future funding? Then any clubs doing that need to show the sustainability of future revenue, maybe even assuming no champions league qualification. I’m not sure any elite club would accept that restriction. City could get the expenditure underwritten by Mansour I suppose, but if you’re genuinely worried about the solvency of clubs, that shouldn't be an issue, a good thing even?
• Lastly, if you’re genuinely concerned about "financial doping" and a level playing field, then salary caps and transfer spending limits are the obvious way to go. Can’t see Bayern Munich with their 9 consecutive titles or Juventus with 9 out of 10, or PSG with 8 of the last 9, would be too happy with the idea of any kind of domestic financial equality, or even a slight levelling of it. Madrid and Barca wouldn’t like being restricted in their ability to blow away the competition in Spain.

It’s somehow been deemed far more logical to impose a set of rules based on the existing revenue of the elite super clubs, the big earners are protected, because the upstarts can never invest enough to become as big and successful as them. The most vociferous proponents of these type of rules are supporters of those traditional big clubs, they are numerous and loud, and all over the media.

But City “signed up to the rules”, so they have to abide by them? What was our alternative? The competition is rigged, but you need to be in it.

I’ve no doubt we massively bent and probably even broke the rules, some of our sponsorship deals just don’t make commercial sense, I’ve no doubt owner-funded cash was poured in. But I don’t care, I hope we broke them, as often and as badly as we were able to get away with, otherwise the existing cartel would have succeed in keeping us down, mid-table at best, where we belonged. We don’t need lectures about financial probity from anybody at Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Chelsea or Manchester United.