PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Former footballer from Ireland calling it out as well https://www.buzz.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league-clubs-dissing-manchester-29193391
Click to expand...

I haven't read it all, but the PL has backed itself into a very dangerous corner in my opinion. Bearing in mind that City are now just part of a huge football organisation with almost limitless backing that on it's own makes the PL look like a Sunday League committee, what exactly are they going to prove?

This is a case of slinging enough crap to hope that some of it sticks. I'm damned sure that City are not going to offer them any potentially incriminating documents, so all that leaves them with is "failing to co-operate in accordance with the rules".

That on it's own isn't the greatest ever crime, and they can't do an awful lot with that except give us a large fine, possible transfer embargo, and points deduction. The EFL doesn't particularly want us because that means someone else will have to miss out, probably through losing a promotion place for the season, and EFL clubs probably won't either because it means we'll be odds on for promotion - nobody will want to play us even if half the squad leave, and nobody will want to finish a place lower than they otherwise would have - especially if that place is the top spot.

If they want to hit us hard then it might be something like a 60-point deduction next (or whichever) season, meaning we would have a real fight to stay up and avoid natural relegation, but that would likely be considered excessive for what was technically a minor misdemeanour.

They also don't want to put themselves in a position where the club might be in real trouble and put hundreds of jobs at risk. They can't be seen as the big bad wolf at the end of it. And if they come down too hard, there might be a few other clubs who start looking over their shoulder. They can't be seen to be trying to destroy the club, and they have already shown themselves in a bad light in the opinion of many professional football and legal people for taking it this far - don't read too much into the media hysteria and the opinion of other fans, they are just along for the ride.

This is a long shot, but if, for example, they wanted to put City in the 2nd division then the EU Super League then starts to look very tempting. And if the likes of Barca, RM and co get it together, others WILL follow regardless of what the fans think. Most major clubs now get the majority of their revenue from commercial operations, and half the fans at the top clubs are "tourist" fans now. They're the ones with the money, and that's what it's all about at the end of the day. People like Boehly - as bent as they come (how do you win a copyright court case against Land Rover for the blatant copy of their Defender vehicle when you're odds-on to lose it?) - will go where the money goes and if that means to the ESL then that's where they'll go, with the rags and everybody else creeping behind. You think Chelsea v Brentford, United v Bournemouth, City v Barcelona etc. every week makes good reading for them? Neither will they, and neither will the PL because their very existence will depend on it not happening.

Guilty or not, there's only so much the PL can do. And it's not much in the greater scheme of things. Now lets go and really piss them all off by winning the title again.
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
These bits are fun, but it's more important that the club actually combat the misleading narrative that's been created and Pep can't do that on his own.


If you speak to non CIty fans, they have all been convinced that "City got off on a technicality" because that's what half a dozen journalists, who were convinced it was a slam dunk, fell back on when they got shown up.

The truth as we all know is that only 1 email/sponsorship/charge was time barred, and from the panel's conclusions on the other issues it's impossible to conclude anything other than it would have been thrown out as well if it was actually looked it. They decided emails weren't proof of action, and all UEFA had was emails.


But that narrative of City surviving on a technicality was hammered home and spread and now it's what the average person thinks. Not that all but one of the charges were looked at and dismissed.

Hopefully they have gotten smarter, and have a strategy for getting their version of events - which by the way is the fucking truth after all, not some half truth excluding most of the verdict - into the papers and into the public consciousness.
Click to expand...
People believe what they want to believe...Difficult to change that
 
Braggster said:
In general I don't disagree with this, but to be fair..something has come out, hasn't it?

First we had the Der Spiegel leaks, which of course the club says were misquoted and taken out of context (very possible, but I don't think we know the full picture) and then there's the very real possibility that the PL have had information from a whistleblower.

There's also the separate question of how widespread the conspiracy would actually need to be here. I'm not sure it's as wide as some are saying.

Of course this is going to be extremely difficult for the PL to prove, and the inherent implausibility will be a big part of City's defence. But we must admit the possibility that the PL do have some good evidence. I think that even if they were pressured into taking this action (and again that's very possible), it seems very unlikely they'd do so without a respectable basis. Personally, while I do think on balance City are more likely to be successful, I'd be surprised if the PL don't have a respectable case.


For what it's worth I say this as an experienced professional in an adjacent field who has investigated and litigated fraud and misrep cases of this magnitude.
Click to expand...
The same point was made about UEFA’s case. However once looked at property they had nothing more than der spiegel leaks.
It would not be a surprise to me, also an experienced and respected litigator in 2 jurisdictions, if the only thing the PL have is the older charges that are not time barred under their rules. In fact reading the charges it seems almost certain that is all they have… to me at least.
 
i really hope that if they do hit us hard unlikely in my opinion that we have something on these back stabbing clubs.
if we go down then we have nothing to lose.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I've never understood this either. Biggest legit loophole there is because neither uefa or pl can deal with debt because it will hit the old guard. Rather than all the faff with sponsorship and 'fair values' we could have just been 'loaned' a billion in perpetuity like abramnovitch and just recently the Leicester owner has done.
Click to expand...
Don't know whether this has been answered later (trying to catch up), but we would have needed income to improve the results, not loans to give us more cash. The problem was never cash, it was that we weren't earning enough income so we were making losses.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I've never understood this either. Biggest legit loophole there is because neither uefa or pl can deal with debt because it will hit the old guard. Rather than all the faff with sponsorship and 'fair values' we could have just been 'loaned' a billion in perpetuity like abramnovitch and just recently the Leicester owner has done.
Click to expand...

Debt is a shit way to measure sustainability. That's why it's not used.

Look at Spurs. We may dislike them and mock their lack of ambition but they are without doubt a sustainably run club. They're also £1bn in debt, because they just made a once in a century stadium rebuild, and they'll gradually pay all that off with low interest over the next 15-20 years and that's perfectly fine.

Sometimes businesses need to take out loans, even City have taken out 9 figure loans to cover transfer spending before paying it back in short order.

It's not a conspiracy to help United, it's that removing the ability to borrow money would fuck over everyone.

To be honest the new version that combines wages and transfer spending and ties it to revenue is pretty good, it's much better than the original.
 
domalino said:
Debt is a shit way to measure sustainability. That's why it's not used.

Look at Spurs. We may dislike them and mock their lack of ambition but they are without doubt a sustainably run club. They're also £1bn in debt, because they just made a once in a century stadium rebuild, and they'll gradually pay all that off with low interest over the next 15-20 years and that's perfectly fine.

Sometimes businesses need to take out loans, even City have taken out 9 figure loans to cover transfer spending before paying it back in short order.

It's not a conspiracy to help United, it's that removing the ability to borrow money would fuck over everyone.

To be honest the new version that combines wages and transfer spending and ties it to revenue is pretty good, it's much better than the original.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, short-term, cash flow to debt service is the best way IMO. And long-term, cash flow to debt to ensure any bullets can be paid down if they aren’t refinanced. Sustainability should be modeled on traditional bank covenants.
 
domalino said:
Debt is a shit way to measure sustainability. That's why it's not used.

Look at Spurs. We may dislike them and mock their lack of ambition but they are without doubt a sustainably run club. They're also £1bn in debt, because they just made a once in a century stadium rebuild, and they'll gradually pay all that off with low interest over the next 15-20 years and that's perfectly fine.

Sometimes businesses need to take out loans, even City have taken out 9 figure loans to cover transfer spending before paying it back in short order.

It's not a conspiracy to help United, it's that removing the ability to borrow money would fuck over everyone.

To be honest the new version that combines wages and transfer spending and ties it to revenue is pretty good, it's much better than the original.
Click to expand...
 
but they are without doubt a sustainably run club. They're also £1bn in debt

Haha so they’re not a ‘sustainably run club’
 
domalino said:
Debt is a shit way to measure sustainability. That's why it's not used.

Look at Spurs. We may dislike them and mock their lack of ambition but they are without doubt a sustainably run club. They're also £1bn in debt, because they just made a once in a century stadium rebuild, and they'll gradually pay all that off with low interest over the next 15-20 years and that's perfectly fine.

Sometimes businesses need to take out loans, even City have taken out 9 figure loans to cover transfer spending before paying it back in short order.

It's not a conspiracy to help United, it's that removing the ability to borrow money would fuck over everyone.

To be honest the new version that combines wages and transfer spending and ties it to revenue is pretty good, it's much better than the original.
Click to expand...

If I can borrow money to invest, then why I can't invest my own money into my own business ?

As far as i know there is nothing in the business that limit the investment on revenue except in football after the new ownership of City.


They are not looking to protect anyone but the " cartel" clubs.
 
domalino said:
These bits are fun, but it's more important that the club actually combat the misleading narrative that's been created and Pep can't do that on his own.


If you speak to non CIty fans, they have all been convinced that "City got off on a technicality" because that's what half a dozen journalists, who were convinced it was a slam dunk, fell back on when they got shown up.

The truth as we all know is that only 1 email/sponsorship/charge was time barred, and from the panel's conclusions on the other issues it's impossible to conclude anything other than it would have been thrown out as well if it was actually looked it. They decided emails weren't proof of action, and all UEFA had was emails.


But that narrative of City surviving on a technicality was hammered home and spread and now it's what the average person thinks. Not that all but one of the charges were looked at and dismissed.

Hopefully they have gotten smarter, and have a strategy for getting their version of events - which by the way is the fucking truth after all, not some half truth excluding most of the verdict - into the papers and into the public consciousness.
Click to expand...
I have a journalist friend and he gave me every single bullshit bingo line today including the technicality parrot turd. This is a D Mirror hack. I asked ’so what is the technicality‘? “Err emails not allowed”. I tell him they were admissible and that he’s not read the verdict has he. “No”. Resorted to “cheats”. I have him now. Cheat, bent rules, cheat bent league in your favour, and we still beat you all on and off the pitch. You can see how Russians believe Putin is right!
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
With all due respect, short-term, cash flow to debt service is the best way IMO. And long-term, cash flow to debt to ensure any bullets can be paid down if they aren’t refinanced. Sustainability should be modeled on traditional bank covenants.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is the way, imho, for club sustainability.

But FFP, now FFS, is more than that, as we know.
 
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