No, it doesn't. First, when they say "there would have been nothing wrong", they're talking specifically about under UEFA rules. The accounts still wouldn't be "true and fair", as they'd have been disguising owner funding as income, which gives a misleading impression of the bottom line in terms of a company's profitability. But let's ignore that and focus on the UEFA charges for the period when FFP was in force.
As per para 206 of the CAS award, what we were accused of doing once FFP was in force amounted to "dishonest concealment" of equity funding as sponsorship. That means we lied to UEFA by providing false accounting records so that, over an extended period, around £50 million per annum of the owner's funds could be booked as income, meaning we could spend the funds within the confines of FFP in a way we couldn't have
Previously, UEFA wouldn't have cared about this, so we wouldn't have had to discuss the sources of our sponsorship income with them and there'd have been no need to lie to them. The accusation of dishonesty is key.
With regard to the offence of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, by virtue of section 17(1)(b), a person "shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years" if that person "dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another" when he "in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular".
That, in effect, is exactly what UEFA accused us of doing. The CAS rejected it, but the allegation was that the employees and officers of MCFC with whom they were dealing in the context of our FFP issues had committed conduct that happens to fall squarely within the above definition.
If the CAS had found MCFC guilty, the relevant officers of MCFC;
We should also remember that the documents referred to in the above point 3 don't only cover annual accounts. Under section 17(1)(a) of the 1968, the scope of the offence extends to "any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose", which would cover other submissions to UEFA in the context of FFP and licensing that relied on information falsely concealing the source of equity funding.
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have used various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
As I noted previously, section 17 of the 1968 Act is set out in a chapter of that Act that's headed 'Fraud and blackmail' (see the Table of Contents). This means that the offences in the relevant chapter fall within the scope of either fraud or blackmail. The offence under section 17 clearly bears no relationship to blackmail, but is underpinned by the idea of dishonesty that's also inherent to fraud and related offences.
Again I note that, as was discussed extensively in the context of the CAS proceedings, a guilty verdict wouldn't have necessarily (and some argue would certainly not have) resulted in a prosecution of MCFC personnel for false accounting. I merely note that the accusations were an exact match to the body of the offence.
It's therefore entirely proper to characterise UEFA's allegations against us as based on conduct that's tantamount to fraud. We don't yet know about the PL, but if (as seems likely based on the available evidence so far) they're making similar accusations based on our disguising equity funding as sponsorship, then they're doing the same thing.
Make no mistake, the corollary of UEFA's allegations wasn't just that we were guilty of some minor accounting breaches. The claimed concerted actions over a protracted period with the aim of deceiving them make it much, much more serious than that.
I was working to a deadline this morning, which I've now missed, so I really have to stop here. But I hope it's clear that the alleged dishonesty is the key here.
We all know that was bollox though.Very quickly, now the TL,DR version:
UEFA accused us of having deliberately faked our accounts and other FFP submissions to deceive them into letting us spend money the rules didn't allow us to spend, which is an extremely grave allegation involving conduct that potentially constitutes a serious criminal offence on the part of some of the club's officers and employees.
What do you think Sheik Mansour’s attitude would be if Khaldoon was, by implication, accused of issuing false accounts?
Yes they can, but obvs thay cannot charge us.We've been charged with not adhering to PL rules.
The PL can't accuse anyone of fraud.
It is ignorance. Sponsors want exposure, they couldn't care a shit about “the biggest club” in the world, if they are not in the Champions League.Neville is talking shite, either deliberately or because he's a fucking ignoramus.
He's one of those ignorant rags who'll claim because they get bigger attendances than City (as well as usually adding the bullshit that City have no fans, can't fill the stadium, etc.) City can't earn higher revenues than them while failing to understand that ticket sales account for a relatively minor part of revenue.
The big money is is broadcast revenue and with City hoovering up trophies for fun over more than a decade, going deep into most other competitions in most of those seasons and, unlike our domestic rivals, playing Champions League football in each of the last 12 seasons City are coining it. 2020-21 is a prime example. PL champions, League Cup winners. Champions League finalists and FA Cup semi finalists. Far more broadcast revenue than any of our rivals.
Very quickly, now the TL,DR version:
UEFA accused us of having deliberately faked our accounts and other FFP submissions to deceive them into letting us spend money the rules didn't allow us to spend, which is an extremely grave allegation involving conduct that potentially constitutes a serious criminal offence on the part of some of the club's officers and employees.
Interesting quote at the end who said thatNo, 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'.
Was at the game but unless he called out the bbc for misquoting him he's just blowing in the wind and after keeping his 'privileges'.Can’t knock Kevin Parker there then to be fair
So they knew about these payments and perhaps did not try and get them reduced in value or argue they where related part and are now saying some 4 years after it has finished and some 14 years after it startedNo, 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'.
Was at the game but unless he called out the bbc for misquoting him he's just blowing in the wind and after keeping his 'privileges'.
This is an excellent summary.
If allegations proved will we get a tax rebate P?Very quickly, now the TL,DR version:
UEFA accused us of having deliberately faked our accounts and other FFP submissions to deceive them into letting us spend money the rules didn't allow us to spend, which is an extremely grave allegation involving conduct that potentially constitutes a serious criminal offence on the part of some of the club's officers and employees.
:) Thanks for the comprehensive reply and this one. Really appreciate you trying to explain all this legal stuff to a poor accountant.
Sorry for making you waste your time and miss your deadline, though. On the bright side, maybe I am almost there.
Edit: At least I got a lawyer to be brief, if only through exasperation :)
Just a hairy moron. Adds no value at all as a presenter-pundit. Don’t mind BeIN though they usually have some decent guests - and their commentary on BeIN Premium is a fall-back for me - it’s in Arabic !Richard Keys said today in Bein Sport En, that Rui Pinto is a hero because he desclosed all the information about City!!!! This guy is biased، idiot and really hate City.
The last two lines of the tweet are all you need to read.
If allegations proved will we get a tax rebate P?
I usually like his stuff but didn't like his headline on this. There is nothing in what he has demonstrated that would help him reach the conclusion that 'maybe' we are guilty. Quite the opposite. He uses excellent financial information to demonstrate exactly how our business plan has worked and worked brilliantly. I thought Colin did a far better job of putting the charges into context on Cheesys blog without the help of all them fancy charts.
Do you have a link for this blog? Not familiar with it. ThanksDon't think so. We haven't paid much tax, have we? We made losses over the first several seasons after the takeover and now profits are fairly small because the shareholders try to reinvest the club's money rather than taking it out for themselves.
I was also slightly disappointed with the Swiss Ramble piece. He's obviously trying hard to be impartial, but IMO he's missed one or two important points in trying to be all
I also agree about the headline and concluding line: "Will City be found guilty? Maybe." He could easily have said, "Let's wait and see!" when speaking about the prospects, and that would have been a much wiser course given that neither he or anyone else really has any idea at this stage what the likely outcome is.
After all, none of us knows exactly what evidence the PL will be putting forward, so we can't assess the strength of the case. Of the points I mentioned above that he's missed, one is the fact that, if the charges are as serious as he says, this has an important effect on the standard of proof required in the case. It's very much something worth mentioning.
I haven't listened yet to Colin on Cheesy's blog. I will do later, though.
Yes, I read your excellent post on that and it is material. Would be interested to hear your views on what Colin says.Of the points I mentioned above that he's missed, one is the fact that, if the charges are as serious as he says, this has an important effect on the standard of proof required in the case. It's very much something worth mentioning.