PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that response, very informative and much appreciated.
 
It's all great & well & completely understandable that we view FFP as unfairly targeting us hence why we hate it, so if asked for an alternative to FFP, what would/should Manchester City Football Club suggest that is fair, feasible & workable?

I believe we should have a fair alternative prepared & ready as a suggestion to fix the mess that football's become.
 
Paul lakes knee said:
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?
Click to expand...
I imagine it’s because a lot of fans of other clubs want us to be guilty. They are selling a product, if they want people to buy it they need to tell them what they want to read.

Or they are cunts.

Take your pick.
 
Paul lakes knee said:
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?
Click to expand...

As City have stated over the PLs accusations, the time-barred stuff prevented us from being able to prove that was bullshit too... hence why the club welcomed being able to prove once and for all we are completely innocent.
The media probably know this already, but saying that doesn't get them the clicks they want!
 
Dribble said:
It's all great & well & completely understandable that we view FFP as unfairly targeting us hence why we hate it, so if asked for an alternative to FFP, what would/should Manchester City Football Club suggest that is fair, feasible & workable?

I believe we should have a fair alternative prepared & ready as a suggestion to fix the mess that football's become.
Click to expand...

Financial fair play works for us at the moment for what the club wants. Keeps us at the top of the tree in the premier league and stops Newcastle or any other owner wanting to spend from doing so. The club have worked hard to get this far and things like the academy providing a lot of income to be investing back into the playing squad.

The only alternative is not to have it and leg clubs spend what they want. It’s worked for well over a 150 years since football was invented, why did we need to change it?
 
Paul lakes knee said:
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?
Click to expand...
There is no chance that we would have lost due to those two items. On the Etesalat case CAS said: “There is no evidence that the alleged payments continued after the introduction of ffp.” On the other, our accounts would have been a complete defence.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Financial fair play works for us at the moment for what the club wants. Keeps us at the top of the tree in the premier league and stops Newcastle or any other owner wanting to spend from doing so. The club have worked hard to get this far and things like the academy providing a lot of income to be investing back into the playing squad.

The only alternative is not to have it and leg clubs spend what they want. It’s worked for well over a 150 years since football was invented, why did we need to change it?
Click to expand...
Agreed in part, but we know that City suggesting no form of finance control in football would be unacceptable.

What I'm seeking is a workable alternative that would stand a chance of at least being considered as a viable alternative...

Perhaps @Prestwich_Blue or @petrusha etc have a solution they can share? )(
 
I'm happy with the current arrangement. We didn't vote for it. We know it's wrong. We know why it was brought in. But we have ultimately run the gauntlet and won. Why should we now vote for something so that the same people who voted in FFP can benefit? The same people who tried to stop us on our march to the top now seek aspirations of their own. For example, Newcastle fans didn't oppose FFP originally. They made their bed. They should now lie in it.
 
Woody135 said:
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.
Click to expand...
but but they have more fans buying merch from the website every single one of them , not one snide shirt from the back streets of jakarta and delhi
 
Dribble said:
It's all great & well & completely understandable that we view FFP as unfairly targeting us hence why we hate it, so if asked for an alternative to FFP, what would/should Manchester City Football Club suggest that is fair, feasible & workable?

I believe we should have a fair alternative prepared & ready as a suggestion to fix the mess that football's become.
Click to expand...
While I understand your sentiment and it might even be a rhetorical question I don’t think it’s for City to suggest an alternative to the current FFP. Perhaps an independent regulator would be in a good position to advise.
 
Woody135 said:
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.
Click to expand...
GM and Ford have sold over 100M cars between them in the last 10 years whilst Tesla has only sold 2.5M in its history. How can Tesla have a market value of over 10 times both GM and Ford as they clearly have ‘more fans’??
 
One thing that strikes me as potentially weird.
If the PL charges mirror exactly the UEFA charges in some items, there is a danger that the PL will find us guilty of not obeying UEFA rules when UEFA themselves, having accepted CAS verdict, say we did not transgress.
 
Dribble said:
It's all great & well & completely understandable that we view FFP as unfairly targeting us hence why we hate it, so if asked for an alternative to FFP, what would/should Manchester City Football Club suggest that is fair, feasible & workable?

I believe we should have a fair alternative prepared & ready as a suggestion to fix the mess that football's become.
Click to expand...
The History Boys don't want fair and reasonable, they want to be at the top of the pile forever. Something like fixed and equal spending, with owner investment only being investment, rather than debt, in facilities and academies, a salary cap, and merging the premier league with the rest of the football league would be fine with me tbqh. But all 20 clubs would vote against it and England would lose its competitive edge over the rest of Europe.
 
Woody135 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post but misses the obvious that our trophy haul over the last decade gets us an increasing amount of those fickle glory hunting pennies that the red shirts rely on so much. I've not always been a fan of some of the recent branding/commercial efforts, but they clearly work.
 
Dribble said:
It's all great & well & completely understandable that we view FFP as unfairly targeting us hence why we hate it, so if asked for an alternative to FFP, what would/should Manchester City Football Club suggest that is fair, feasible & workable?

I believe we should have a fair alternative prepared & ready as a suggestion to fix the mess that football's become.
Click to expand...
I don't think any form of FFP should hinder an owner from making investment into his/her business from their own pockets. Should the money be lost the only person losing out is that of the original investor. This seems to work perfectly well in all other business industries i can think of.

FFP should solely ensure that football club owners are not spending money and/ or borrowing money against a club which ultimately they will never have the ability to repay. The whole thing is anti-competitive dross and those who it both does and does not benefit can see this without their rose-tinted spectacles on.
 
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