PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Yankunian]

If arsenal football club are so disgusted with our dirty money why take it!

Arsenal who are sponsored by Emirates?

 

[Tb1981]

I hate Simon Jordan but these are not conflicting opinions.

You can believe that rules should be changed, while also believing current rules must be followed, and breaking them punished.

maybe you can
But maybe people like me are entitled to think you are full of shit and a total hypocrite.
Same as people who pretend to be all about human rights when it comes to football ownership but dont Have the same misgivings about anything else
Like Gary Neville….love to know his thoughts on Qatar buying united, I guess he will be very quiet

 

[meeesh]

Willingly signed up for, funny you should say that as in both examples that didn’t happen

You don’t willingly sign up for the laws that are imposed on you from birth.

Likewise, City didn’t willingly sign up for a cartel league, corrupt governance, FFP, et al. It was a long and rotten coup d’etat that carried away the entire pyramid through linkage.

Problem is,we probably did,as we were in the league when it was formed in 1992............................unfortunately

 

[paska]

I think alot would leave tbh

Not all would have an option unless we let em. They might want to but they have contracts. In current times we don’t hold onto players that want to go, but in circumstances like that a different policy may be necessary

 

[argyle]

Given this was well received. Some more context on this to help anyone not aware.

An audit is effectively an opinion from a qualified and experienced auditor that the financial statements that a company prepares are materially true and fair, and are in line with accounting standards and uk law. Material being a key word and that is a £ value that differs from audit to audit.

In our case we arent a profitable business so that isnt the key metric but we are a trading business so I’d assume that the auditors materiality level is a revenue based metric and will likely be calculated as 1-2% of revenue.

Revenue in 09/10 was £125m
Revenue in 17/18 was £500m

Hence in english this means that in 09/10, the auditors have effectively signed off that every single number within those accounts and presented to PL is accurate and free from misstatement (by mistake or deliberately) to within max £2.5m. By 17/18 revenue has grown so the auditors will have signed off that every number is accurate to within max £10m.

To be able to do that on our revenue line (since that seems to be where attention is) they will have at the very least targeted any individual contract of that value or more because if they didn’t and it was wrong there could be a material misstatement. So that pretty much covers every single commercial contract (as well as broadcasting and prize money). And they will have at the very least sample tested everything else (because they are too small to individually result in a material misstatement but could aggregate).
When they tested they will have traced either to a signed contract and/or cash receipt. There are no other options.

Ie in english again. Almost every single £ of commercial revenue we reported will have been agreed to signed contracts and/or cash receipt and the auditors found no issues.

Hence for the charge to be true that our revenue does not present a true and fair view, the auditors will have had to either have not fulfilled their professional duties as auditors and/or our directors will have had to have committed financial fraud to deceive them or in collusion with them. Both are significant claims and should not be dealt with by a premier league internal investigation but are legal cases.

The more likely scenario in my mind is that the financial accounts submitted lawfully as a company are not in question but the PL is effectively taking a moral stance that whilst the accounting is correct, they just dont believe that the revenue has come from a willing third party. Ie yes you have a contract, yes you received the money but we think that money has ultimately come from your owner.

That was the claim made by UEFA and CAS said there was no evidence that had happened. In another process with the same evidence I see no reason why that conclusion would be different.

I'm being serious when I say can this and the other post be pinned?

It explains how fanciful the implications of the charges are.

If what they are charging us is true it would be government/international agencies investigating us, not a 3 man panel at the PL.

 

[KS55]

Given this was well received. Some more context on this to help anyone not aware.

An audit is effectively an opinion from a qualified and experienced auditor that the financial statements that a company prepares are materially true and fair, and are in line with accounting standards and uk law. Material being a key word and that is a £ value that differs from audit to audit.

In our case we arent a profitable business so that isnt the key metric but we are a trading business so I’d assume that the auditors materiality level is a revenue based metric and will likely be calculated as 1-2% of revenue.

Revenue in 09/10 was £125m
Revenue in 17/18 was £500m

Hence in english this means that in 09/10, the auditors have effectively signed off that every single number within those accounts and presented to PL is accurate and free from misstatement (by mistake or deliberately) to within max £2.5m. By 17/18 revenue has grown so the auditors will have signed off that every number is accurate to within max £10m.

To be able to do that on our revenue line (since that seems to be where attention is) they will have at the very least targeted any individual contract of that value or more because if they didn’t and it was wrong there could be a material misstatement. So that pretty much covers every single commercial contract (as well as broadcasting and prize money). And they will have at the very least sample tested everything else (because they are too small to individually result in a material misstatement but could aggregate).
When they tested they will have traced either to a signed contract and/or cash receipt. There are no other options.

Ie in english again. Almost every single £ of commercial revenue we reported will have been agreed to signed contracts and/or cash receipt and the auditors found no issues.

Hence for the charge to be true that our revenue does not present a true and fair view, the auditors will have had to either have not fulfilled their professional duties as auditors and/or our directors will have had to have committed financial fraud to deceive them or in collusion with them. Both are significant claims and should not be dealt with by a premier league internal investigation but are legal cases.

The more likely scenario in my mind is that the financial accounts submitted lawfully as a company are not in question but the PL is effectively taking a moral stance that whilst the accounting is correct, they just dont believe that the revenue has come from a willing third party. Ie yes you have a contract, yes you received the money but we think that money has ultimately come from your owner.

That was the claim made by UEFA and CAS said there was no evidence that had happened. In another process with the same evidence I see no reason why that conclusion would be different.

Thank you Woody for making it so clear and for your effort in laying out the issues so well.
Three comments.
1. In former times, it was common practice for clubs to understate matchday take as so much was in cash. The money was used for bungs for transfers etc. City certainly did this in the Swales era and simply returned an attendance figure well short of the actual.
2. In the current case, the question of players‘ image rights worries me somewhat. I believe we sold those rights to a third party who then paid the players directly. The revenue deemed that tax avoidance, ruling that income from the rights was gained in the course of employment, so we brought them back in house. I hope we dealt with the PL correctly.
3. In the UEFA case, there was a lot of argument over an email reference to “HH” being responsible for a payment from Etihad. In the end it was settled by Etihad saying they were solely responsible for paying sums due under the sponsorship agreement. However our claim that “HH” could never refer to Mansour was not convincing and I hope it does not become an issue again.
I’m sure we will win substantively again, maybe with a slap for non co-operation which is highly subjective.
Thanks again for all your effort.

 

[domalino]

Wrong. He's been against us ever since the takeover which pre-dated the rules. He calls us (and Chelsea) "artificial clubs" and that's fuck all to do with whether he thinks we broke the rules - it's to do with him slagging off clubs whose owners pump lots of money into football clubs. Well, certain football clubs anyway. Just watch the **** change his tune if the Qataris buy his beloved United.

He didn't even have a media career for the first 10 years of the takeover so when was he espousing all these anti City views in 2008?

 

[Bluemoonadam]

Not all would have an option unless we let em. They might want to but they have contracts. In current times we don’t hold onto players that want to go, but in circumstances like that a different policy may be necessary

I couldnt see us keeping say haaland against his will forcing him to play him league 2.

 

[Tbilisi]

Yes the auditor signs off the accounts to companies house and a separate report (of similar information) to PL on compliance with FFP rules. Hence they are saying everything was lawful, appropriate and accurate with those rules.

They can not confirm 100% where the cash came from. That for me is the only potential point of contention.

However at CAS City brought the CEO of Etihad as a witness. No doubt he said Etihad paid it (or at least arranged for payment and booked the costs) and it was fair. I find it hard for anyone to then rule against that in my opinion. No doubt similar would happen for other deals.

I dont think this is corruption. I just think this is PL saying we dont believe you and although we may not be able to prove it we are going to charge you anyway and see what happens. Whether that motive is due to pressure from the other clubs or a self entitled sense of responsibility by the PL is anyones guess

Good post. Maybe this was the motive?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64578730

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What you mean by this?

The exact charges against City are already known in detail.

The Athletic, for example, has even analyzed each of the 105-or-so charges against City and have lumped them into 4 broad categories: 1) most are apparently due to accounting practices with regard to sponsorships; 2) the second set of charges are related to alleged improper compensation for Mancini; 3) the third category of charges involves the license requirements to qualify for play in European football; 4) and the final category is due to City's perceived obstruction of the investigation into its finances.

They aren't known in detail though. Matt Lawton is one of the better commentators on financial stuff but he's just guessing, as we all are.

There is stuff about sponsorship in those charges but they're a subset of the overall group of charges around our accounts. It looks to me like the PL are going back to the period that was time-barred, as well as the period that wasn't. But I also think it involves the image rights payment issue, when these were paid by Fordham, rather than the club directly.

But that's speculation; we don't know the detail.

 

[schfc6]

He doesn't charge £80,000 an hour and we would never pay £80,000 an hour or anywhere close to that. I wouldn't believe what you read.

This, he likely once got paid £80k for a trail that lasted an hour..

 

[ytic04]

Ric - how do you think I feel? Another four fucking years of trawling through handbooks, toolkits, legal judgements, working out what they all mean and trying to make sense of them for City fans.

Not just City fans!
It's good for us to have real facts when we're dealing with the gobshite abuse.
PS - keep it in English, preferably moss side english. Thanks.

 

[Blue Feather]

Ah the new super league. Cut through the bullshit and saw this lil snippet.

”
Reichart set out plans for cost control measures, saying clubs should spend only a fixed percentage of their annual football-related revenue on player salaries and net transfers.

"Club spending must be based solely on the funds generated and not on competitively distorting capital injections," he wrote.
”

So in effect the clubs with highest revenues can spend but the ones (like Newcastle) who want to catch up can’t. How can you raise your revenue if you can’t win?

Football is eating itself thanks to these new non competitive rules.

Blackburn okay, Wolves okay, Salford okay, Wrexham okay, cartel okay, everything before 2008 okay.....City not okay. If Sheikh Mansour had rocked up at any of the red shirts nobody would have battered an eye-lid..... CLEAR AND OBVIOUS

 

[Sleeping_Easy]

I doubt it'd be a problem, with a judgement potentially 3-4 years away. We'll just have to insert a clause into any contracts saying that players will be allowed to leave if, and it's a big if, we are found guilty.

It'd have to be that they're allowed to leave for a fee though. We can't just have half the squad walking out the door after a judgement against us

 

[train man]

Reported as , means nothing.

Maybe, but that's very different to 80k ph...

 

[HelloCity]

He's against City because he thinks we broke the rules. The rules he (presumably) was having to run his club by during the same period. He's got good reason to think we broke the rules as well, the emails look damning, the PL has enough evidence to charge us.

That's why this judicial process is important to everyone.

Pretty sure he was making such derogatory comments about us after CAS and before the PL charges.

 

[KS55]

My Dad used to mention Dennis Viollett every time they signed someone. He lived opposite the main entrance to Maine Road and, to everyone’s surprise, signed for the rags. His signature was quickly followed by a procession of those fancy new ‘white goods’ arriving at his Mam’s house!

And then he went and scored an own goal against Bert in the testimonial. He is reported to have said it was deliberate as he had never managed to beat Bert in a league match.
Ungrateful rag!

 

[M18CTID]

He didn't even have a media career for the first 10 years of the takeover so when was he espousing all these anti City views in 2008?

Oh I do apologise. Fact is that the twat has a clear and obvious agenda against us and is so far up the arse of United and the other so-called history clubs it's untrue. Did you see what the prick tweeted when City and Chelsea were the first 2 clubs to pull out of the Super League? Somewhat incredibly, he called us both out for being cowards while giving the other 4 English clubs a free fucking pass.

If you think he's actually being in any way sincere about his thoughts on City then you must have "GULLIBLE" tattoed across your forehead and I don't believe for one minute that you're stupid enough to be so naive.

 

[paska]

well, the £8bn figure is for the PL industry and all its spin off jobs and contributions etc, not the revenue. I suppose the other leagues will add a bit, but not much. Anyway, seems a bit of a tangent so i wont take it any further.

(energy drink != soft drink)

CTID.

How many clubs in the entire pyramid? How many employees does each have? Not just coaches but day-to-day facilities, administration, financial, legal.

Not just first team but age groups down to practically toddler. And the women’s game.

How many employees at Sky Sports, BT Sports, Talksport? Various other media organisations.

How many employees at The FA? How many employees at The EFL? How many at all the other leagues?

Merchandise?

How many employees does Ribena or Coca-Cola have?

They’re both big industries but football is colossal and has so many different parts to it.

 

[Kippax77]

Look at all these cockroach journalist creating these stories about Haaland, Pep etc wanting to leave. The club are too fucking soft. They need to be banned from attending the Etihad and having the opportunity to ask Pep and the players the shit questions. I’m sick of it

I'd love Erling to score on Sunday then run over to the press box kissing the badge.
That would have them spewing