PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Matt Diablo said:
It is politics. Fat Americans hate our Muslim owners end of. Yanks are biggest gangsters on the planet 100%. More military bases in the Philippines etc etc. Bunch of dodgy cunts. Going to bring my own charges out . . .
[/premier league and sky going big on say no to racism, made me laugh because they have both treated City’s owners and still do because they are not white.
Click to expand...
 
chesterbells said:
It’s there; click watch on YouTube- if you have the YouTube app on your phone, if definitely plays
Click to expand...
Just saw that, he comes across as a thief that has been caught in a shop with sweets in his pockets! Gotta say that female presenter is v good, she could give MPs a grilling on Newsnight! Is this from a Chelsea in-house tv channel?
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
I don't see how we can be charged for not operating in good faith if we have double-checked things and then changed it when the rules became clearer that we couldn't continue this.
Click to expand...
uefa only tried to charge us because they waited until we submitted our accounts then changed the goalposts they fucking knew what they were doing
 
KS55 said:
Football is big in profile and reaches many parts of society but it is tiny in financial terms. Financially City is about the same size as a big Tesco branch.
Click to expand...
Valued at roughly 3 billion with the Silver Lake sale, wasn’t it? That’s one bougie Tesco’s branch!
 
mrbelfry said:
My guess is this is just the last set of accounts they had when they opened the investigation.
Click to expand...
No, not really. The charges relate to the years between 2009 and 2018 when City passed the administration of players image rights payments to an outside company, and for whatever reason, EUFA and now PL inspectors can't understand how that was being handled.

Those payments were happening internally before 2009, and continued after 2018 when they reverted to being handled internally by City. The supposed grey area of the years in between, which formed the basis of the EUFA charges, and it would now seem by the PL, as the dates and charges are both similar, are nothing more than a failure of the inspectors to understand a function of accounting that was proved in the CAS appeal. Contracts, agreements and proof of payments were provided which showed nothing untoward was happening and everything was as contarctually agreed.

It's probably worth a moments consideration, with all the hysteria surrounding City at the moment, the value of those image rights payments is, or was, around £10m a year, which, to a club earning hundreds of millions pounds every year, is a relatively insignificant amount, and certainly not enough to materially influence the running of the club in a major way when it is outward payments being questioned, and not inwards investment.

The motives behind that simple misunderstanding are open to question, but City are doing nothing wrong.

As one of the chief executives said last week when being questioned about the charges, he replied with a shake of the head ''that a child could work it out'.
 
paska said:
Valued at roughly 3 billion with the Silver Lake sale, wasn’t it? That’s one bougie Tesco’s branch!
Click to expand...
Market cap, especially in a market with few buyers and few sellers, is no guide to financial impact.
Tesco has a turnover in UK and RoI of £56 billion and profit of £2billion. Potential Market cap for that business? Guess £50billion.
 
Last edited:
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