PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[CC1]

Day by day? It was only announced on Monday, 48 hours ago, you're going to be a wreck by the end of the many months (if not years) of wrangling over this.

Haha. You’re right but I’m on holiday & have plenty of time (hourly!) to check my phone!

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

It's really wrong for people to keep calling these accusations illegal, especially on the part of the media who have been very careful to avoid drawing themselves into libelling city. City have done nothing illegal nor are accused of anything that is actually by definition illegal. The only thing that city have done allegedly wrong is in the context of the UEFA/PL rulebook which actually has no place in law.

Those rulebooks are drawn up by supposedly independent sports people who decide what the rules are based upon what they want to achieve. What they want to achieve by those rules is perhaps the most important question. This is why city have been charged by a sports body and the case will not be brought to a court but rather to a private hearing with the league's representatives. The good part of that is any outcome is possible as the league financially benefits massively from city/ADUG so they'll find balance difficult. We could well be charged with 100 things and found guilty but get no punishment at all.

In law terms, the league have already made massive mistakes in not communicating and even changing the charges brought against city which was seen in that statement. This in real life and real law would be a case breaker in itself as you can't serve multiple charges and change them as you see fit to achieve a look in the media.

City will likely take the end result to a real court to not only attack any decision on competitive grounds but they'll also challenge the rulebook on common law grounds which is how they appealed the UEFA charges at CAS. UEFA had to tone down their FFP rules in direct response to these legal challenges.

Anyone who really thinks that UEFA or the Premier League make these rules to ensure there is proper financial fair play are ridiculously mistaken. The rulebook was created as a form of control and to stifle the type of competition which threatens the established clubs because of the free market that clubs have to operate within. These big clubs have considerable influence and when their voice is added together they represent something bigger to protect than city.

It's ironic though because these clubs would destroy the free market in a heartbeat and most of the clubs bleating on about city wanted to create a European Super League to do just that. How many clubs were punished harshly for that? None, not a single one. They weren't punished because the league and UEFA would financially suffer because of the clubs involved so no action was taken, it's a complete joke.

The other clubs aren't rosy in comparison to us by any stretch either because just look at the ownership models of the likes of United and Liverpool. They have ultimate parent companies registered in places like Delaware and the Cayman Islands... How many grass roots clubs benefit from United being registered in the Cayman Islands to avoid tax? Financial fair play..... Really?

I don’t disagree with you as regards general rhetoric (albeit that @projectriver has explained pretty clearly why this is unlikely to ever find its way into a proper court, and he knows his onions), but I’m not sure what any part of your response has to do with my original post!

 

[RACHACE]

Don't know if it's been mentioned anywhere else, but if we are found guilty and banged to rights,then Manchester City FC will have let the fans down big time ,the shit I'm getting now will be nothing to what's to come, Please please City and the lawyers show the fuckers up for what they are, BENT BASTARDS.

3 words pal.

Badge of honour

Fuck them all

 

[halfcenturyup]

im on page 682, this is a very fast moving thread, a pretty important and serious thread,and we've got loads of comments about a made up fixture list, its hard enough to keep up without that bullshit littering the thread.

Or, in fact, comments made complaining about them. Or comments from me being snide about said comments, I suppose. I'll shut up.

 

[CatMan]

I know you’re a City fan posting in good faith and you clearly have more knowledge on this subject than the vast majority on here. However, you are the only person I have seen anywhere say we cannot appeal to the courts. Surely a PL panel handing down a punishment, that can see a multi-billion pound business go out of business, would be something City could argue was “serious”?

Either your interpretation is wrong, or you are absolutely the top bollocks on this subject, in which case, I am wondering why you are posting on here and not being paid £80k per day by City to lead our case instead?

Love it!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I honestly cannot understand why at this stage the PL went public with the charges and briefed the media before informing us. Surely they would go public after we've had a chance to reply?

Saw some Villa fans yesterday explaining that they have been affected most as they were a solid top 6 club and pushing for top 4 every year and then we came along and ruined it.

Yes, we were the single reason they were relegated.

 

[Yankunian]

following what Pep said last year regarding all this, he said if he has been lied to he won't be friends and gone the day after.

Pep's still here

 

[Centurions]

Haha. You’re right but I’m on holiday & have plenty of time (hourly!) to check my phone!

You're on holiday FFS, turn your phone off and enjoy it. Absolutely nothing of note is going to happen in the next week or so I'd have thought.

 

[schfc6]

Good words but this is going to drag on for some months. Will players still want to sign whilst we have this cloud over us?

We signed players with a 2 year CL
ban hanging over us didn’t we?

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

It's really wrong for people to keep calling these accusations illegal, especially on the part of the media who have been very careful to avoid drawing themselves into libelling city. City have done nothing illegal nor are accused of anything that is actually by definition illegal. The only thing that city have done allegedly wrong is in the context of the UEFA/PL rulebook which actually has no place in law.

Those rulebooks are drawn up by supposedly independent sports people who decide what the rules are based upon what they want to achieve. What they want to achieve by those rules is perhaps the most important question. This is why city have been charged by a sports body and the case will not be brought to a court but rather to a private hearing with the league's representatives. The good part of that is any outcome is possible as the league financially benefits massively from city/ADUG so they'll find balance difficult. We could well be charged with 100 things and found guilty but get no punishment at all.

In law terms, the league have already made massive mistakes in not communicating and even changing the charges brought against city which was seen in that statement. This in real life and real law would be a case breaker in itself as you can't serve multiple charges and change them as you see fit to achieve a look in the media.

City will likely take the end result to a real court to not only attack any decision on competitive grounds but they'll also challenge the rulebook on common law grounds which is how they appealed the UEFA charges at CAS. UEFA had to tone down their FFP rules in direct response to these legal challenges.

Anyone who really thinks that UEFA or the Premier League make these rules to ensure there is proper financial fair play are ridiculously mistaken. The rulebook was created as a form of control and to stifle the type of competition which threatens the established clubs because of the free market that clubs have to operate within. These big clubs have considerable influence and when their voice is added together they represent something bigger to protect than city.

It's ironic though because these clubs would destroy the free market in a heartbeat and most of the clubs bleating on about city wanted to create a European Super League to do just that. How many clubs were punished harshly for that? None, not a single one. They weren't punished because the league and UEFA would financially suffer because of the clubs involved so no action was taken, it's a complete joke.

The other clubs aren't rosy in comparison to us by any stretch either because just look at the ownership models of the likes of United and Liverpool. They have ultimate parent companies registered in places like Delaware and the Cayman Islands... How many grass roots clubs benefit from United being registered in the Cayman Islands to avoid tax? Financial fair play..... Really?

There’s nothing illegal in Manchester City paying Roberto Mancini a wage, then another company paying him a wage as well. If all the correct tax, national insurance has been accounted for. It’s not in the spirit of the rules but it’s not illegal.

Similar if Mansour wanted to invest money into Etihad. Etihad then pays City funding for sponsorship and naming rights to the stadium. How do the premier league get the paper trail externally from what City show in their accounts? They will have to demonstrate that and do Etihad even have to open up their books to the premier league if it’s not them in the dock?

If the Etihad deal isn’t at fair market value, how come Arsenal’s sponsorship with Emirates is around the same number. This is Arsenal who haven’t won a premier league for nearly two decades. If there’s tax avoidance going on here the premier league and inland revenue need to throw to book at City and it becomes a criminal case. Why has it taken them so long to deem accounts from 2009 wrong? As another poster highlighted ‘it’s all a bit woolly this from the Premier league’.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I took away from it that it wouldn't be to set aside any punishment, but to go nuclear on the Premier League with what we have.

Are you able to confirm that we do actually have ‘something’ or have you just been informed we do, but no specifics were provided?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I thought that UEFA were probably fairly happy with the City/CAS outcome - they'd tried as hard as they could which would placate any agitators, and didn't succeed.
Individual UEFA people and clubs may be unhappy, but UEFA as a whole would probably take the outcome.
There was also an exemplary fine for non-cooperation.

I think your second point has merit - any agitators will have burnt some of their standing and therefore be diminished for a while.
I expect a fine for non-cooperation here too!

Undoubtedly, and maybe a slap on the wrist for the Mancini thing if it was just a technicality. Can't imagine the other issues will come to much, unless they have some damning evidence we don't know about, which I think is unlikely.

Then again we have no idea of the actual allegations apart from which rules were allegedly breached in which years. So it's difficult to say.

 

[domalino]

Can't tell if he just said that in jest (assuming you're referring to his tweet yesterday?), but if it does take anything like that long then there's little point fretting about it now. A lot can happen in that time. Laughable that some clubs apparently want it to be concluded before the end of this season though.

I'm not sure if the 115 charges thing is giving a distorted impression of the size of the case.

I said yesterday reading through the breaches, the Mancini thing could be responsible for 30 of them. Failure to cooperate post 2018 is 36. If @Prestwich_Blue is right about Fordham/image rights being the 2012/13 to 2017/18 player remuneration issue, that's over 40.

So I don't think this is 115 breaches that need to be litigated seperately, it's more like half a dozen issues which spread across multiple rules and seasons.

In which case, maybe the initial 3 man panel will happen relatively soon. PL must have their case ready. City were preparing for this. End of the season seems fanciful, but initial hearing before next season maybe?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Does Simon Jordan ever attend games at the Etihad?
I see Simons been very forthright in his views about our club whilst protected in his cosy radio studio, I think one or two blues would be interested in having a open & frank discussion about matters face to face :-)

As he openly calls us the ‘Frankenstein club’ I’d imagine he’s not a regular at the Etihad……

 

[Franny 1234]

If a sanction is handed down that threatens the existence of the City business, based on hacked out of context emails, could City argue the panel doesn’t have the jurisdiction to in effect close down a viable business based purely on the probability that they are correct, without hard facts and that contradicts audited records?
or indeed could the club go for the high court as a way of time distancing the charges so that the mood has calmed down a bit and ex months or years down the line most of the media scrum will have died down?

I dont see our media scum calming down. Not when it come to our ownership. CTID

 

[OB1]

What is "it"

The clause that tries to prevent access to High Court. It's what I'd call unfair if it was in a contract but you are the lawyer, I'm just a simple accountant.

 

[Mraitch]

Extract from a BBC article about Kompany’s scepticism of the criticism:

“The charges against City, who were taken over by the Abu Dhabi United Group in 2008, relate to a period between 2009 and 2018 - during which the club won all six of its Premier League titles.”

Despite three of the titles being after.

 

[mrbelfry]

I've heard about this for years but I don't have the brains to get my head around it. Can someone please explain why Mancini getting paid for a consultancy role by anyone while managing us is illegal? People having multiple jobs, hired by the same people doesn't seem abnormal at all to me. Tax purposes?

I just looked at the documents de Spiegel released as I also couldn't understand this but I think the issue is RM had a contract with Al Jazira but there are bank transfers from City paying that salary .

 

[nijinsky69]

From a quick look I agree that the grounds for appeal to arbitration are very narrow (certainly not a re-hearing). The bar is very very high. Effectively City would have to show the PL’s ruling was fraudulent,
seriously irregular in a procedural sense or so unreasonable that no other body could have reached the same conclusion on the same facts. Happy to be told I’m wrong!!

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

following what Pep said last year regarding all this, he said if he has been lied to he won't be friends and gone the day after.

Pep's still here

Yep and Pep proactively brought up that letter in his press conference last week. The Mancini stuff has been the source of allegations for a long time, it's nothing new. Pep was here for the CAS stuff and rigorously defended the club, as presumably he's satisfied with the explanations he's received.

Pep may not be here by the time the enquiry takes place, but only because it looks like his contract will have expired. The media have been desperate for him to leave since before he arrived (same now with Haaland). He was never going to be a lifer at City and I'm not sure those one club managers of the 80s and 90s even exist anymore.

Whatever happens with Pep and City won't be related to our battle with the Premier League. But that narrative doesn't generate clicks or sell papers.