PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Citizen of Legoland]

I watched the Mauritanian this week, remind me again where the next world cup is?

I had no idea to be honest, had to google it.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks for your insight, it certainly puts things in layman terms for most of us. Sorry to put you on the spot, but in reference to what you mentioned above, do you suspect the PL have new evidence or is it a complete rehash of the UEFA material?

I've been thinking about this the last few days. My thinking can be slow and deliberate so it can take me a few days and a lot of thinking to get my head round things properly. We don't know with certainty what the PL have got or what the specifics of the various charges are.

But there's at least two substantive charges, and we think we know they relate to Mancini's contract with Al Jazira and image rights payments to players. With respect to the former, the PL would have to prove Mancini did not fulfil that contract to provide at least 4 days consultancy per year. Conversely, we need to show he did, and we should be cleared on any of the charges relating to that.

The image rights one is more difficult to call. Those were paid by Fordham from 2013-14 to 2017-18 as far as I can see but the charges also seem to pre-date 2013. Fordham paid us for those rights in the 2012-13 financial year and we assigned the intellectual property of those image rights to them, which they then apparently paid. It's a strange, but not illegal, arrangement that I suspect was used to generate revenue in that financial year when we thought there was a chance we could escape punishment using the Annex XI provisions. I wonder if we'd have done it in different circumstances? This is the one I feel we'll be more vulnerable on than the Mancini charges.

But both of these were part of the material put out by Der Spiegel, based on the hacked emails. The question is, if these are all they've got, then there's nothing new from 2018 but neither of these came up in the UEFA charges arising from Der Spiegel articles. So did UEFA decide they weren't worth pursuing or did they try to focus solely on the sponsorship stuff that they thought was the most egregious breach? Either way, it gives me confidence.

One thing we also know from the previous battle with UEFA is that we didn't cooperate (on legal advice I might add) because we thought they were 'fishing'. I wonder if we took the same stance with the PL, who then had to resort to stuff that was known to UEFA but they didn't pursue, potentially for reasons I outlined above.

I therefore suspect there's little new in these charges and that mainly it's a rehash of the Der Spiegel stuff, and stuff that was either time-barred or that UEFA didn't pursue. And out of that, they've generated dozens of charges making things seem much worse than they really are.

 

[Stockton Heath Blue]

I hope that you are right but it doesn't seem to be truly independent when the chair of the tribunal is appointed by one of the parties involved and is associated albeit loosely with one of the clubs likely to benefit from the outcome. Imagine what the media would have made of it had it been a KC who was a City season ticket holder. Would have been better to ask CAS to recommend the chair and let City and the Premier league chose one each.
As a secondary point if the proceedings and the evidence are kept private then who will be able to judge whether the outcome is reasonable or not?

Notwithstanding that, having read Murray Rosen's credentials, he does seem to be a reasonable choice for this kind of hearing.

We will know pretty quick re the outcome. If the outcome is reasonable - case closed. If unreasonable, expect City to take it further (where to I'm unsure as there doesn't appear to be an appeals process).

 

[KS55]

Hoo bloody ray. I have caught up.

 

[Bandofblues]

Swiss Ramble looks at the charges.

Keep bumping the link so people don’t miss it.

Click on continue reading when the email subscribe link pops up.

View attachment 69023

In a bland, yet shocking, announcement last week, the Premier League confirmed that it had referred a significant number of alleged breaches of its financial rules by Manchester City to an independent commission.

If the charges are proved, it would not only lead to a range of penalties, but would cast a shadow on City’s many achievements since Abu Dhabi United Group acquired the club in September 2008.

Since 2012 the Citizens have won the Premier League no fewer than six times and finished in the top four throughout this period. Under Sheikh Mansour’s ownership the club has also won the FA Cup twice and the EFL Cup six times.

Charges​

​

The scale of the accusation is unprecedented, adding up to more than 100 charges. The offences are alleged to have taken place over nine seasons from 2008/09 to 2017/18, while they the Premier League also claimed that City have failed to co-operate with their investigation in the five seasons since then.

Manchester City charged by the Premier League

(What's the Story) Morning Glory?

swissramble.substack.com

Interesting to see how Tottenham have grown commercial revenue over the same timeframe, with apparently zero owner investment and no real success on the pitch?

Is it actually showing the strength of the premier league and the amount of money that revolves around all premier league clubs in general?

Comparisons of City with Real Madrid aren't really all that valid given that the PL is pulling in around £7.5bn and La Liga only £1.5bn

City having thoroughly dominated the PL over the last decade as well as having had repeated success in domestic cups and participation to the later stages of the CL every year since 2013, not really a surprise that we are able to significantly raise our commercial revenue streams above other teams is it?

 

[petrusha]

If they don’t have better evidence than UEFA, it must call into question the bona fides of the ‘prosecution’. If it is solely to lift pressure from other clubs and the gov, it is tainted.

If they're going over ground again that was covered in the CAS proceedings, you'd think that they must at the very least have something to challenge evidence City presented at CAS in rebuttal of the similar charges. As you say, otherwise these accusations really are vexatious.

Even then, any new evidence should be sufficient to suggest that there's a case to answer. It would surely have to be more than something along the lines of this looks a bit dodgy to us, so there must be something more behind it than they're letting on. Mind you, I thought the same ahead of the CAS proceedings.

 

[jrb]

I did originally post it in the City Charged thread. But the link will eventually drop away down the pages. It needs it’s own thread in all honesty. Everybody should read it.

It’s a very good piece by Swiss Ramble, which makes understanding some of the PL accusations much easier, and how they relate to City’s finances during the PL accusation periods.

Well worth a read. Very interesting.

Manchester City charged by the Premier League

(What's the Story) Morning Glory?

swissramble.substack.com

 

[Woody135]

If someone asked Neville where the Salford City commercial revenue ranked in League 2 against more established clubs I’d love to see how he can explain why without contradicting himself.

Commercial revenue is a result of 1) brand awareness 2) immediate visibility and 3) potential growth of both.

1) Theres not a football fan globally that is aware of united but not aware of city. EQUAL
2) City are more immediately visible than united because they have better players, play more important games and win more. CITY
3) City are growing faster than United, reaching an increasing number of people for the first time and CFG is important to that. CITY

Then you get into the unfair reasons. 4) Business is all about who you know and taking advantage of those relationships for mutual benefit and 5) Not everyone is equal at selling their own brand.

4) City is a tiny part of a massive investment strategy. Our owner and chairman are some of the most well connected people globally. They have more weight in a boardroom than a glazer does. No one outside the US has a clue or cares who he is.
Why were salford sponsored by sky sports in their early years. Why is Wrexham sponsored by TikTok. Because their owners knew people and got good business for their clubs. City is no different. CITY
5) Our Chairman is the CEO of an investment company managing $284bn in assets globally. Ed woowar who was CEO at united 2013-2021 was an accountant and investment banker that hadnt worked outside United since 2005. Who of those is more likely to have better skills or experience. CITY

There are so many logical reasons our commercial revenue is higher.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It’s just a pun on an Oasis album.
‘Don’t Believe The Truth’ would have worked as well…..

As would...

Don't Look Back in Anger

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I've been thinking about this the last few days. My thinking can be slow and deliberate so it can take me a few days and a lot of thinking to get my head round things properly. We don't know with certainty what the PL have got or what the specifics of the various charges are.

Question is, when will City find this information out? During the panel, or before? And if before, are we talking very soon or much further down the line? (Also, tomorrow's Euromillions numbers if you have them available please?)

Thanks to you, @petrusha, @projectriver and a few others for your contribution on this thread. It certainly helps with a lay person such as myself on what's taking place.

 

[bluenova]

Interesting to see how Tottenham have grown commercial revenue over the same timeframe, with apparently zero owner investment and no real success on the pitch?

Is it actually showing the strength of the premier league and the amount of money that revolves around all premier league clubs in general?

Comparisons of City with Real Madrid aren't really all that valid given that the PL is pulling in around £7.5bn and La Liga only £1.5bn

City having thoroughly dominated the PL over the last decade as well as having had repeated success in domestic cups and participation to the later stages of the CL every year since 2013, not really a surprise that we are able to significantly raise our commercial revenue streams above other teams is it?

It shows up Neville's comments about United.

Their commercial income has gone down since 2016, when Liverpool and City have doubled theirs.

 

[citizen_maine]

It shows up Neville's comments about United.

Their commercial income has gone down since 2016, when Liverpool and City have doubled theirs.

It's almost as if it's linked to winning things

 

[Mid Wales blue]

I was shocked when I posted my first post today actually.
By the fact that it was my first post, and by the date of registration ha

How did you manage to remember your password ?

 

[manimanc]

I've been thinking about this the last few days. My thinking can be slow and deliberate so it can take me a few days and a lot of thinking to get my head round things properly. We don't know with certainty what the PL have got or what the specifics of the various charges are.

But there's at least two substantive charges, and we think we know they relate to Mancini's contract with Al Jazira and image rights payments to players. With respect to the former, the PL would have to prove Mancini did not fulfil that contract to provide at least 4 days consultancy per year. Conversely, we need to show he did, and we should be cleared on any of the charges relating to that.

The image rights one is more difficult to call. Those were paid by Fordham from 2013-14 to 2017-18 as far as I can see but the charges also seem to pre-date 2013. Fordham paid us for those rights in the 2012-13 financial year and we assigned the intellectual property of those image rights to them, which they then apparently paid. It's a strange, but not illegal, arrangement that I suspect was used to generate revenue in that financial year when we thought there was a chance we could escape punishment using the Annex XI provisions. I wonder if we'd have done it in different circumstances? This is the one I feel we'll be more vulnerable on than the Mancini charges.

But both of these were part of the material put out by Der Spiegel, based on the hacked emails. The question is, if these are all they've got, then there's nothing new from 2018 but neither of these came up in the UEFA charges arising from Der Spiegel articles. So did UEFA decide they weren't worth pursuing or did they try to focus solely on the sponsorship stuff that they thought was the most egregious breach? Either way, it gives me confidence.

One thing we also know from the previous battle with UEFA is that we didn't cooperate (on legal advice I might add) because we thought they were 'fishing'. I wonder if we took the same stance with the PL, who then had to resort to stuff that was known to UEFA but they didn't pursue, potentially for reasons I outlined above.

I therefore suspect there's little new in these charges and that mainly it's a rehash of the Der Spiegel stuff, and stuff that was either time-barred or that UEFA didn't pursue. And out of that, they've generated dozens of charges making things seem much worse than they really are.

I always love reading your posts PB and i also love reading your stuff in kotk.
You bring a calm to these type of threads and it certainly puts my mind at ease to hear this from somebody with knowledge on the situation.

 

[Trojan1962]

When we all get anxious about this think what the club have told us. They are confident of clearing our name once and for all.

 

[WRicko]

Good afternoon Lucy,

I am writing to you as minister for sport to convey my disappointment at the way my football club is currently being treated by the fa and premier league.

I believe there is a white paper due soon on football governance and how the game can be run more fairly and responsibly. At present I believe there is one club of the so called top six clubs in England in favour of such a new authority, and unless I am mistaken that club is mine , namely Manchester City.

I fervently believe that, based on the evidence and decision documented by CAS some months ago when we were accused of much the same offences and found innocent, we should not have to have our name dragged through the mud once more at the behest of the clubs who are driving the premier league to take this action.

My hope is that the government should and could intercede in this matter by allowing a truly independent review not only of our current case, but also truly independent and responsible governance of the game as a whole.

I like most Manchester City fans ask for no special treatment, I am actually in favour of true FFP, that protects clubs from irresponsible owners and unmanageable debt of the kind that recently drove another of my local clubs Bury FC To cease trading.

Football, like any other business should be allowed to receive investment from Uk or foreign individuals in a responsible way.

It was always my hope that Manchester City wouldn’t be the last club driven to success, but just one in a long line of clubs such as Blackburn and Chelsea that allow football fans to dream that one day they might be so lucky.

Professional football at any level should not be manipulated by shareholder clubs to promote anti competition and favouritism against another.

Also as a nation we do rely on a large element of foreign investment, I do not think we are in a position to put at risk tens of billions of investment by Abu Dhabi to please the owners of other football teams who invest almost nothing into the clubs they own or the area and community surrounding them.

I think I wouldn’t have to remind you of the wonderful things done in east Manchester over the last decade to transform a toxic and run down area of great social deprivation. And that is poignant point as it was why Manchester City was founded some hundred of so years ago.

I would be very interested to know your views on this matter and how your department views the recent events last week on the above.

With best regards

Excellent I imagine however the response will be a bit rubbish even I don’t trust politician but leaving that aside she will fear you publishing her response and interfering in the current process at a PL and potentially a Court level and also won’t want to over emphasis Abu Dhabi links for fear of that being seen as the reason for any victory / dropping of charges

 

[The perfect fumble]

I've been thinking about this the last few days. My thinking can be slow and deliberate so it can take me a few days and a lot of thinking to get my head round things properly. We don't know with certainty what the PL have got or what the specifics of the various charges are.

But there's at least two substantive charges, and we think we know they relate to Mancini's contract with Al Jazira and image rights payments to players. With respect to the former, the PL would have to prove Mancini did not fulfil that contract to provide at least 4 days consultancy per year. Conversely, we need to show he did, and we should be cleared on any of the charges relating to that.

The image rights one is more difficult to call. Those were paid by Fordham from 2013-14 to 2017-18 as far as I can see but the charges also seem to pre-date 2013. Fordham paid us for those rights in the 2012-13 financial year and we assigned the intellectual property of those image rights to them, which they then apparently paid. It's a strange, but not illegal, arrangement that I suspect was used to generate revenue in that financial year when we thought there was a chance we could escape punishment using the Annex XI provisions. I wonder if we'd have done it in different circumstances? This is the one I feel we'll be more vulnerable on than the Mancini charges.

But both of these were part of the material put out by Der Spiegel, based on the hacked emails. The question is, if these are all they've got, then there's nothing new from 2018 but neither of these came up in the UEFA charges arising from Der Spiegel articles. So did UEFA decide they weren't worth pursuing or did they try to focus solely on the sponsorship stuff that they thought was the most egregious breach? Either way, it gives me confidence.

One thing we also know from the previous battle with UEFA is that we didn't cooperate (on legal advice I might add) because we thought they were 'fishing'. I wonder if we took the same stance with the PL, who then had to resort to stuff that was known to UEFA but they didn't pursue, potentially for reasons I outlined above.

I therefore suspect there's little new in these charges and that mainly it's a rehash of the Der Spiegel stuff, and stuff that was either time-barred or that UEFA didn't pursue. And out of that, they've generated dozens of charges making things seem much worse than they really are.

Is there any truth in the rumour that this independent panel are empowered to make judgements on the balance of probability, rather than the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[chaddblue]

When we all get anxious about this think what the club have told us. They are confident of clearing our name once and for all.

Also remember it could take years... what's the point worrying about something that may or may not happen in a few years

 

[John Wayne]

Good afternoon Lucy,

I am writing to you as minister for sport to convey my disappointment at the way my football club is currently being treated by the fa and premier league.

I believe there is a white paper due soon on football governance and how the game can be run more fairly and responsibly. At present I believe there is one club of the so called top six clubs in England in favour of such a new authority, and unless I am mistaken that club is mine , namely Manchester City.

I fervently believe that, based on the evidence and decision documented by CAS some months ago when we were accused of much the same offences and found innocent, we should not have to have our name dragged through the mud once more at the behest of the clubs who are driving the premier league to take this action.

My hope is that the government should and could intercede in this matter by allowing a truly independent review not only of our current case, but also truly independent and responsible governance of the game as a whole.

I like most Manchester City fans ask for no special treatment, I am actually in favour of true FFP, that protects clubs from irresponsible owners and unmanageable debt of the kind that recently drove another of my local clubs Bury FC To cease trading.

Football, like any other business should be allowed to receive investment from Uk or foreign individuals in a responsible way.

It was always my hope that Manchester City wouldn’t be the last club driven to success, but just one in a long line of clubs such as Blackburn and Chelsea that allow football fans to dream that one day they might be so lucky.

Professional football at any level should not be manipulated by shareholder clubs to promote anti competition and favouritism against another.

Also as a nation we do rely on a large element of foreign investment, I do not think we are in a position to put at risk tens of billions of investment by Abu Dhabi to please the owners of other football teams who invest almost nothing into the clubs they own or the area and community surrounding them.

I think I wouldn’t have to remind you of the wonderful things done in east Manchester over the last decade to transform a toxic and run down area of great social deprivation. And that is poignant point as it was why Manchester City was founded some hundred of so years ago.

I would be very interested to know your views on this matter and how your department views the recent events last week on the above.

With best regards

Very good, and thanks for writing on our behalf. Please let us know the details of her reply.

 

[Paul lakes knee]

Why are journalists all 100% sure that City would have lost at CAS if the time barred stuff was admitted? I mean, is there any chance that City would have won their case re those elements if they were allowed to?