PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Presumably they can't find the club guilty of not obeying UFA's rules, only UEFA can do that surely, but they could find us guilty of providing falsified or misleading information to UEFA, if that is indeed the case?

 

[halfcenturyup]

You’ve gone off piste as that’s not an album!

Never go off pissed this early in the day. Bad for the digestion.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

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.

It does put all the moaning posts about tourists, the new big advertising boards, and "the tunnel club" into perspective a bit, as sympathetic to those complaints as I am.

 

[KS55]

Presumably they can't find the club guilty of not obeying UFA's rules, only UEFA can do that surely, but they could find us guilty of providing falsified or misleading information to UEFA, if that is indeed the case?

Fine distinction. Depends on the detailed charge.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

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.

Much less commented on even here is that the owners, like them or hate them, aren't here for "sportswashing", they're here to make money, promote their wider portfolio, and generally diversify their sources of income in things like tech, property, and culture, leisure and services. It's capitalism. They're just working on a very different timeline to the American owners (decades Vs years).

 

[petrusha]

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?

Yes, this is what the PL rule book provides. However, as a matter of law, if we're correct in the assumption that some of the PL's charges are serious ones relating to dishonesty, it's more complicated than that. The good news is that the position is that the more serious an allegation the less likely it is that the event occurred, the more cogent should be the evidence before a court determines that on the balance of probabilities, the event in question did occur.

If you want the long legal background as to what this means, then there's this post from me earlier in this thread. If you understandably just want a shorter summary of the position, then the post I quoted from @Shads is where you should go after following the link. But the bottom line is that the PL will have a fairly high bar, which is good news for City.

 

[Tomblue]

Much less commented on even here is that the owners, like them or hate them, aren't here for "sportswashing", they're here to make money, promote their wider portfolio, and generally diversify their sources of income in things like tech, property, and culture, leisure and services. It's capitalism. They're just working on a very different timeline to the American owners (decades Vs years).

Agreed, and therefore that investment (with the aim of making money) you would assume would be made with due care, thought and process behind it. It is not up to anyone to baby owners into what they can and can't invest their money on.

These guys are owners and managers of multi-million pound businesses outside of football and therefore i think we can safely assume they will invest their OWN money prudently despite the fact its no one else's business. The PL run by people who I wouldn't trust to run my non-existent investment account have no business telling these guys how to invest appropriately in their business.

We know what it is and it needs setting fire to.

 

[Legal Alien]

Bayern Munich have bigger revenues on sponsorship than City. This is Bayern Munich playing in the Bundasliga which is a mere back water than no one cares about globally compared to the Premier League. This is Bayern Munich with related parties such as Allianz, Addidas and Volkswagen.

Why would City not winning the Premier league 4 out of 5 times and reaching the latter stages of the champions league not see that turn into revenue and more interested parties wanting to come on board as commercial partners?

If you apply Neville’s logic that clubs who have always dominated will have bigger commercial draw than City, where are Preston North End? Where are AC Milan? The guy is a fucking idiot and I’d be worried if I supported Salford with him in charge.

Successful businesses always attract interest and investment, especially one who has been as successful as us over the years.
This is something everyone conveniently seems to forget when talked about us. Why shouldn't we see a huge increase in income, we are the best team in England after all!

Also, our growth has occurred during the era when TV revenue for the PL, at home and abroad, has gone through the roof.

We are one of the main beneficiaries of that, but also one of the main reason the revenues are as high as they are due to the Aguero moment, the best coach in the World arriving and bringing a style of football that has transformed not only our team, but the way a lot of football is played now throughout the country.

The PL and teams should be thanking us for helping raise the profile of the league, but instead all we get is shite thrown from everyone.

It definitely is CITY vs Everybody!

Premier League TV money jumps past £10bn as international revenues exceed domestic - Inside World Football

By Paul Nicholson February 11 – For the first time the overseas broadcast rights revenues for the Premier League will be higher than the domestic broadcast deal. Club bosses were told yesterday that the value of the international TV deals will be £5.3 billion in the 2022-25 cycle. Add that to...

www.insideworldfootball.com

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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’s absolutely mental that people fail to grasp this fundamental fact, or rather choose to ignore it.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...

 

[chickaroon]

The sponsors will still want hype!

It's their product, they still want to sell it. Ironic, that we are part of that sell!

 

[flb]

It’s absolutely mental that people fail to grasp this fundamental fact, or rather choose to ignore it.

GN can see it all right, but knows the vast number of people out there who follow him around in the media have no idea about the basics, most of his "customers" out there also actually think when City spend £150m in a transfer window that we are making bank transfers for the full amount, or that the transfer fee isnt on the books over the player contract period. The prick knows exactly what he's doing ,tarnish the name of City with lies and misinformation.

 

[flb]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...
View attachment 69043

Only thing I can think of is Rui Pinto gave the PL more info, or different information than EUFA got there hands on.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...
View attachment 69043

The transactions will show money being transferred from Etihad to City. Sheikh Mansour’s money going in the other end, how does someone make a judgement that that very same money ended up going into City’s accounts? It’s opinion they have and not matter of fact.

 

[South Stand Balti]

I'd just like to ask one quick question of #Prestwich_Blue please. I watched your interview with Cheesy and have read your informative message a couple of pages back. You address the materiality of both the Mancini scenario and that of the player payments. I agree that neither of these are likely to be significant enough to result in extreme sanctions but you don't make comment on the "sponsorship stuff." I just wondered why that was. In terms of materiality, Mancini is golf ball size, player payments is tennis ball size but the sponsorship is potentially beach ball size. Why have you not addressed the beach ball. I know we have little detail but are you confident the sponsorship stuff is not a threat (can you pop the beach ball?). I ask simply because it is only the sponsorship stuff that really worries me. Thankyou

 

[halfcenturyup]

Looking at the CAS Judgement, it states there was NOT sufficient documentary evidence that MCFC had received and disguised owner equity as Sponsorship. This is the core accusation and the WHOLE saga rests on this issue. The image rights and Mancini issues are relatively minor. From my point of view, as a lay person, I keep thinking why cant the related Banks produce the evidence of the financial transactions. How hard would it be for Etihad's bank to prove the transactions from Etihad to MCFC. Assuming MCFC have a different bank, it would be even stronger evidence, i.e. if the club produced the corresponding evidence of receipt. So that would prove absolutely the amounts, dates, the sender and recipient account holders ?.

This is crucial because the CAS judgement for MCFC was based on the witness evidence of the Chairman and CEO of Etihad Airways and CEO of MCFC.

It actually says this in the judgement, because otherwise both would have committed perjury in a Swiss court!. Here is the clause...
View attachment 69043

The issue, I think, wasn't whether Etihad paid MCFC, it was if ADUG had provided the funds to Etihad to pay MCFC.

IIRC, ADUG''s auditors analysed all company payments over a certain amount (USD 250K?) and reported that none were paid to Etihad or related companies. So that should have been that, really.

 

[wolviedinho]

I have often wondered if Uefa have given the premier league the CAS files? Or to be more precise, the files they could not prove against us. Especially the issues either time barred or issues that Uefa did not deem sufficient enough to charge for what ever reason. Now the premier are zoning in on those issues. Thinking they can trip us up with no time limit.

Does that make sense?

Sneaky bastards.

 

[Dribble]

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.

My thinking is surely City are best placed to make a better suggestion to replace FFP seeing as we've been on both sides of the fence.

I think an alternative option would begin the process of all stakeholders properly looking into football finance & governance. City announcing a workable option would shine a spotlight on the unfair & unworkable current FFP.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I have often wondered if Uefa have given the premier league the CAS files? Or to be more precise, the files they could not prove against us. Especially the issues either time barred or issues that Uefa did not deem sufficient enough to charge for what ever reason. Now the premier are zoning in on those issues. Thinking they can trip us up with no time limit.

Does that make sense?

Sneaky bastards.

Surely it was all confidential, which means only Liverpool has it all .....

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Only thing I can think of is Rui Pinto gave the PL more info, or different information than EUFA got there hands on.

I just hope the "irrefutable evidence" we have is in fact statements from both the concerned banks, I believe MCFC use Barclays. As the PL process is not criminal I don't know if the Banks are obliged to produce evidence. However either the contentious £59 million was sent from Etihad Airway's to MCFC or is wasn't. Lets stop all this bull shit and this frenzy in the MSM. From my own puny experience of dealing with HMRC re Corporation Tax and VAT the Bank statements are gospel. This whole thing is about financial transactions, forget all the shit being sprayed around, so where are the frickin statements ?. Etihad Airways is a billion dollar company it must by LAW keep records of it bank transactions.