PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I don't think the Premier League really appreciate who they're taking on here.

As we have so often been called a 'state owned club' - on that premise, they're taking on one of the most powerful states on the planet!

If they're not careful, they're going to end up letting go of the wrong end of the catapult.
 
Jack Hackett said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why are City’s sponsors inflated? We hear it a lot but you tell me which is above market value & why?

I know you are supportive but it’s part of the myth. Has anyone considered that Etihad is lower than market value?
 
Plain Speaking said:
Unfortunately I cannot get around the fact the PL didn't have to actually start this action. The club has effectively been accused of deliberate false accounting for a period of 9 years. A whistle blower like Gary Cook, (or another disgruntled former employee), could put the club in a very tricky situation.

The PL must feel we won't be able to defend the evidence. Unlike the UEFA charges, illegally obtained evidence will be admissible, like the hacked emails, and there will be no time bar on any action, plus the burden of proof will be less than in a criminal case.

Personally I am not optimistic and am psychology preparing myself for relegation and hoping we'll be able to bounce back like Saracens did in the rugby top division!
Click to expand...
Think about it logically, no past employee be it staff or player is going to openly admit to tax fraud themselves. To grass city up they need to grass themselves up and that isn’t happening.
Also think about the backlash of relegating City, other relegated clubs we have beaten, clubs who went out of cups or lost finals etc would kick up a fuss. It’s more of a ballache to relegate us and deal with the aftermath than to heavily fine us and deduct points.
Then think logically about the charges…. If and I mean IF they had evidence to prove tax fraud then it would of legally of had to of been handed to the police and HMRC by now and they would of raided all our offices and work spaces, looked at players accounts etc too.
If City are saying they have the proof to quash this then we have to have faith in the club they have exactly that and will beat it. A lot of what you are reading is click bait at best and wishful thinking rather than fact based.
 
Last edited:
I think d
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you work in finance and accounting Colin? Do you know how long BDO have been our auditors and is it of any surprise that we don’t use one of the “Big 4” as our auditors? Which of course used to be a “Big 5” with Arthur Andersen (pre Emron)?
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
The other clubs don't have a smoking gun set of stolen emails, sadly.
Click to expand...
Is there not a general legal precedent around what is 'admisable' as evidence.

Stolen emails would not be admissible. Documents provided via disclosure would be. If incriminating emails turn up in a basic search then we have a case to answer. But then why are the club so confident - they know what was handed over.
 
cheekybids said:
Why are City’s sponsors inflated? We hear it a lot but you tell me which is above market value & why?

I know you are supportive but it’s part of the myth. Has anyone considered that Etihad is lower than market value?
Click to expand...
"but but they can't fill their stadium... has to be"

Edit:
Just to vent some of my frustrations because I like to remind myself of this too.

It's a feedbackloop that will never end because nobody really looks into what they're saying. That probably includes people who aren't City haters sadly. People tend to go with popular opinion on things that they don't want to invest much time into. To be fair, we can't expect everyone to care as much as we do on the details. Except for the ones who act like they know better than every City fan and UEFA themselves, who never argued what they're saying at CAS.

As City fans, we know City do fill their stadium(higher avg fill rate than most), they have a season ticket waiting list and have done for years etc. That's also just matchday revenue and City's isn't anywhere near the highest in the big six anyway, so that's not where to look for a swindle.

The shirt makers seem to think City are worth a hefty wedge, which says a lot about the growing global fanbase. They know their market better than any of the journos, rival club reps and bitter rival fans.

The broadcasters know City are one of the most widely watched teams too(even the ones who don't want to admit it because of their allegiances). How many are City fans is not important to them. Same goes for sponsors to an extent. That's why not all of UEFA's approved auditor firms were in agreement. Specifically with the Etihad one, there was a powerpoint slide doing the rounds on twitter at the time(2014), that many giddy City haters took at face value.

If one firm was saying it was overvalued, another said it was about right and another said it was under what they were potentially worth at that time. Is it not more logical/fair to say: Anything between the lowest and highest valuation is fair and proper? Rather than cherry picking the lowest one and pretending that's all there was, as some tried to do... Even after the increase to £67m, it was still under the highest valuation(FMV range of £40m-£77m, as per the CAS verdict report). City have undeniably grown a lot since 2014.

The smaller deals, nobody really cared about. UEFA felt they were slightly overvalued(FMV range of £4m-£11m for Etisalat, as per the CAS report) and also suspected they were related party(without proving it), City didn't agree with them. However, both sides agreed(signed agreement) not to pursue it any further, if City kept it at that level for the next 3 years. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone knows better.
 
Last edited:
supercity88 said:
At least they've said "if" we are guilty.

The wider footballing audience already felt we were guilty before this, now we definitely are. They can't understand how a club that has thousands of empty seats each game, has never won the CL and was in the third tier 24 years ago can earn more revenue than Real Madrid or the rags. Because a few more people in the ground and prize money for the CL obviously is such a vast sum. And revenues over 12 months obviously are impacted by what our situation was 24 years ago.

It's another one where the damage is already done regardless of what happens. IF we do successfully fight off all of the allegations, it will be on a technicality again I'm sure.
Click to expand...
The answer to hit them with is Tesla. If history and ‘number of fans’ are the be all and end all, why is Tesla worth $578 Billion compared to the history boys of Ford ($52Billion) and General Motors ($57Billion)?
 
Jack Hackett said:
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?
Click to expand...

A follow up for you: why has it been deemed that straight up owner investment - I own this business, I have this money, I will put this money into this business - is somehow worse than everything you mention?
 
Gaudion M said:
Is there not a general legal precedent around what is 'admisable' as evidence.

Stolen emails would not be admissible. Documents provided via disclosure would be. If incriminating emails turn up in a basic search then we have a case to answer. But then why are the club so confident - they know what was handed over.
Click to expand...

Stolen/illegally obtained evidence is admissable in UK civil law cases. The precedent comes from XXX vs YYY [2004]. A nanny wanted to use an illegal recording in an employment tribunal and the court decided the most important thing is that evidence is relevant, not it's providence.
 
Last edited:
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
The answer to hit them with is Tesla. If history and ‘number of fans’ are the be all and end all, why is Tesla worth $578 Billion compared to the history boys of Ford ($52Billion) and General Motors ($57Billion)?
Click to expand...
aside from the fact we have got a rich history, it's a good analogy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top