You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Answers on a postcard.So in your opinion, CAS were inferring the leaks came from who?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
What isn't right is that the nouveau riche Manchester City Football Club forgot their place & challenged the establishment elite.I’m of the opinion mate that they have something on us, is the guy named (because he was) still employed by the club? Listen mate , I agree with you , but come on , something isn’t right , and it’s down to hacked emails , surely you can see that?
All the rest is the resultant bullshit of the establishment elite trying to put us back in our place.
What are City guilty of? Finding legal ways to circumnavigate FFP so we could compete & grow our business, which enables us to keep competing & keep growing.
That's our crime. It's as simple as that bruv... )(
You think the top accountancy firms are clean? I suggest you Google the top 5, nothing to see here.Oh dear. Just glanced through them rather than read the precise wording of every article but they all seem to suggest BDO completely missing misleading or fraudulent accounts, that doesn't bode well.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 19,209
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Yep that's the top and bottom of it.
Can't have all the armchair fans of the the rags/dippers/goons disappointed and trophyless , it's just not fair !
Sky will no doubt make a banner with Melissa Reddy cheerleading the protest.
Last edited:
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
I cannot understand the image rights issue.I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:
That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.
- Mancini's contract,
- Sponsorships,
- Image rights.
Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.
If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).
Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.
But in the end, it comes down to these three things.
- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?
I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.
From your explanation it seems to me the image rights company is paying twice - buying the rights off City and then paying out to the players?
How does that work commercially?
flb
Well-Known Member
Can anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?
Get that on a big banner in the groundSorry - had a hell of a few days!!!! Here's Che Guardiola
View attachment 69165View attachment 69166
City refused to co-operate on that matter too, I believe.Is it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 18,021
If the answer is yes, what difference will it make?Can anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?
If the answer is no, what difference will it make?
Of course Bayern are clean.I am not a Manchester City expert. But the first difference is that Bayern is owned to 75 % with a majority by their own fans whereas the companies that have shares are stock traded companies with minority shares - no possibility to really influence something. The companies are totally independent from the others. Bayern wanted to get some money to build the stadium and Campus and therefore sold some of their shares to companies that since ages are sponsors. And for the companies it is a good and solid investment.
Again - there is no related parties - no majority shares. There is no reason to check that because of the different construction. It would be totally different if this would be majority shares.
But I know that other German clubs - like Leipzig and Wolfsburg get checked thourougly like City is. But we talk about different owner constructions... And when I see Salzburg and Leipzig and how they trade a lot of their players I am suspicious, too.
No way they would have people running the club who have been prosecuted for tax offences and bribery.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Steady on chief. PB knows and seems to like explaining this stuff. If he has done a post then great. If not no probs.Your putting a lot of pressure on the man. Perhaps he has another life and can’t be here taking questions constantly.
Just a thought.
chris85mcfc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 6,948
And if so, can he play at left back tomorrow nightCan anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?
Unless hacking is involved?I doubt it. For one thing there's no limitation clause in the PL rules. And, for another, as petrusha explained, if there's a potential suspicion of criminality, any limitation probably isn't valid anyway.
There were lots of guys & gals who got their emails hacked, in fact every club employee with an email address connected to the clubCan anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?
So to answer: some will & some won’t
Why are you repeating the same thing? It’s NOT one guy, it was every fucker
Dribble
Well-Known Member
City, the PL or anyone else who uses our players images, pays the image rights company for the privilege.I cannot understand the image rights issue.
From your explanation it seems to me the image rights company is paying twice - buying the rights off City and then paying out to the players?
How does that work commercially?
The image rights company then pays the players their agreed percentage. The players then pay the income tax due.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
In which case is it possible that accounts can be correct from a legal and accounting perspective but not comply with FFP?Wouldn’t have thought so. They’ll just check that they’re a true reflection of the books.
IMO this could have important implications as to whether we are being accused of falsifying accounts ( as some have stated) or simply failing to comply with FFP which are two entirely different issues.
Rhymes with Pick Rarry.Answers on a postcard.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Ta for that.I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:
That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.
- Mancini's contract,
- Sponsorships,
- Image rights.
Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.
If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).
Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.
But in the end, it comes down to these three things.
- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?
I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Not pissed then but coked up?Can anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?