PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Not sure if I’m missing something, but why would that be relevant to this?

You’re right, it isn’t.

But the more Arab club owners, especially of the Red Shirt clubs, the better it is for us.

I appreciate it’s not the perfect mix, the UAE, Saudi and Qatari, but they would rather work with each other than work with the Jewish owned (red shirt) clubs, who lets be honest, have been working together trying destroy City from the day they got together. Only Spurs are missing from that picture, but they signed the Arsenal headed letter to the PL.

1675809904707.jpeg

1675810041744.jpeg
 
As I said, the Mancini stuff is small beer so not worried about that in the slightest. The other accounting stuff may well hinge on how we dealt with image rights payments and whether that was OK. We sold those image rights to Fordham for around £25m back in 2013. We needed that money to (as we thought) avoid FFP sanctions but that was rendered redundant by UEFA moving the goalposts.

But I'm pretty sure UEFA would have known about this at the time they were investigating, as it was part of the Der Spiegel stories that triggered their investigation and charges. You have to wonder why they didn't go after us on that score as it potentially inflated our profits, by reducing our wage costs. Possibly they were advised it wasn't illegal or thr sums involved wouldn't have made a difference to our FFP results. It was also happening up to 2018, so well within any limitation period, should one be imposed by the courts or independent commission.

Assuming we had good legal and accounting advice before doing that, and our auditors were aware of it and weren't unhappy, then there's a decent chance that we'll be OK. If we weren't on firm ground with that, if we deceived the auditors and UEFA, then we've got problems.
Wasn't Fordham owned by City? So their argument is we were paying players through Fordham but keeping it off the books. Is that correct?
 
I'm still fighting on social media channels.

This one seemed to get some pretty good traction! :

The first rule of The Condescending Club is kind of complex, and I don't think you people on here lapping up City would understand even if I explained it to you..


After a tough start, I'm rather enjoying it now."Spartans!"
 
You’re right, it isn’t.

But the more Arab club owners, especially of the Red Shirt clubs, the better it is for us.

I appreciate it’s not the perfect mix, the UAE, Saudi and Qatari, but they would rather work with each other than work with the Jewish owned (red shirt) clubs, who lets be honest, have been working together trying destroy City from the day they got together. Only Spurs are missing from that picture, but they signed the Arsenal headed letter to the PL.

View attachment 68439

View attachment 68441
Qatari relations with Saudi and the UAE/Abu Dhabi are at an all time low so a Qatari owned MUFC would still want us in the mud I assure you. Our only ally is Newcastle in this league.
 
Just a point.... do you think that we sat around waiting for the PL to charge us then make a few calls to appoint a KC, let alone one of the best... these guys are not sat in their office wondering if they have work for the next few years, they are booked solid!

Our legal team were booked a long time ago and put on retainer ready to go into battle when needed!
It’s an embarrassing mistake but not sure it’s as bad as you’re making out.

Some intern has gotten the years that the rule book changed wrong. In 2012 the laws moved around so the old rule C became rule E

E11 in 2011/12 is entering the Fa cup and in 2012/13 onwards its submitting accounts and they’ve mislabelled it.

The 12/13 book even has a little column telling you what the old rule was - I bet they never realised how important that would be!

Not sure it will get us off, but I do think it will impact how the more diligent journalists like Kieran Maguire view the competency of the PL legal team.

Could it be deliberate? We do get off but with a technicality & forever tarnished.

Personally I think like yourself they have a right to correct any errors & will. I’d imagine the headlines will be additional charges added.
 
Not sure I want that.

Will get pelters for this but I want the club to accept wrongdoing, make some changes to the hierarchy and commit to running the club honestly from here on out. Take the punishment on the chin so long as it's not stripping us of past titles. We can't keep doing this every few years.

End of the day, I'd rather a club I can feel proud to support.
I've been aching to add more people to my ignore list. Thanks mate
 

I can see he understands it but I'm not sure like how he's phrased it because it causes confusion.

"Artificially inflating the income" sounds too much like "artificially inflated sponsorships".

If an owner is paying part of a sponsors income and doesn't disclose it, that would be disguised equity funding, if I remember the terminology right.

One breach relates to Fair Market Value and the maximum a related party sponsor can pay and one breach is dishonesty in accounting information from the ownership. I thought the latter was a far more serious breach because if a related party sponsorship was outside of FMV, then the remainder can be deducted from the break even calculations. So a club could potentially still fall within the break even limit in the case of an artificially inflated sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
Qatari relations with Saudi and the UAE/Abu Dhabi are at an all time low so a Qatari owned MUFC would still want us in the mud I assure you. Our only ally is Newcastle in this league.

I doubt very much they’d work with the owners of Arsenal and Spurs. As for Liverpool, depends who the owners will be and where they’re from. But I accept your point.
 
Qatari relations with Saudi and the UAE/Abu Dhabi are at an all time low so a Qatari owned MUFC would still want us in the mud I assure you. Our only ally is Newcastle in this league.
Remember when we used to discuss football? Fatty Foulkes didn’t have to put up with this shit.
 
displaying-the-manchester-city-club-crest-on-the-first-team-home-shirt-on-march-7-2021-in.jpg
 
I can see he understands it but I'm not sure like how he's phrased it because it causes confusion.

"Artificially inflating the income" sounds too much like "artificially inflated sponsorships".

If an owner is paying part of a sponsors income and doesn't disclose it, that would be disguised equity funding, if I remember the terminology right.

One relates to Fair Market Value and the maximum a related party sponsor can pay and one is dishonesty in accounting information from the ownership. I thought the latter was a far more serious breach because if a related party sponsorship was outside of FMV, then the remainder can be deducted from the break even calculations. So a club could potentially still fall within the break even limit.

He’s explaining it in basic terms so even the most biased and uneducated Rag, Scouser, and Cockney can get their heads around it.
 
I can see he understands it but I'm not sure like how he's phrased it because it causes confusion.

"Artificially inflating the income" sounds too much like "artificially inflated sponsorships".

If an owner is paying part of a sponsors income and doesn't disclose it, that would be disguised equity funding, if I remember the terminology right.

One relates to Fair Market Value and the maximum a related party sponsor can pay and one is dishonesty in accounting information from the ownership. I thought the latter was a far more serious breach because if a related party sponsorship was outside of FMV, then the remainder can be deducted from the break even calculations. So a club could potentially still fall within the break even limit.

He seems to give a fair assessment of what we’re up against.

Could maybe have doubled down on City deny all of this, but only a very small clip.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top