PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Silva2021]

Even if we are totally exonerated - the " perception of other fans " will be that we are as guilty as hell, and have got away with it again .

We cannot win the public opinion polls of the football world.

I actually don’t believe that is true, I know what you are saying is with United, Liverpool fans etc.

But who cares we all believe Ferguson had control over the refs and Klopp had them all on asthma juice 2 out of every 3 seasons.

Take them and some others away and most football fans is someone has always spent more money then us, so they are more open.

The narrative of this needs to change, at the moment the image is we spent so much more then everyone else and paid for it by owner topped up equity and paying people of the books.

We need to get it out there messages such as if what is being said is true, how much more or less did we spend then United.

If the figure is lower then the majority of people don’t have this club earned over investment chip on their shoulder.

The model of which is best also needs some public consideration, City before takeover and now, United before takeover and now.

This will always be decided on the legal framework and available facts.

The court of public opinion will be decided by PR and we are terrible at it and have been for awhile.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Not me. The only ones who care are the mardarse redshirt sycophants and their pet lemmings.

When you think that most raggy fans exist only because they attached themselves to a club that was winning everything on a regular basis and that attachment provided a whole swathe of saddos and social misfits with something successful in their otherwise drab, wretched existences which they could believe imbued them with similar air of success , then you can’t begin to imagine how those weirdos and cretins would deal with what’s happening to us. They would have collective breakdowns.
We have, over the many bad years built an inner strength and resilience that fans of clubs like them cannot even conceive of and that will see us through this latest attack.

 

[Dribble]

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 ?

It wasn't an individual email account that was hacked, it was the whole server meaning Pinto had access to EVERYTHING contained on the server.

 

[cookster]

Sorry - had a hell of a few days!!!! Here's Che Guardiola
View attachment 69165View attachment 69166

Get them printed. I'll take two.

 

[Len Rum]

City, the PL or anyone else who uses our players images, pays the image rights company for the privilege.

The image rights company then pays the players their agreed percentage. The players then pay the income tax due.

But as I understand it we actually RECEIVED money from the image rights company who then went on to pay it out ( double whammy).

 

[domalino]

This is the internal document about Fordham.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

This is the internal document about Fordham.

I'm beginning to wish I'd paid more attention at school.

 

[imrebanana]

KC if you are male...QC if you are female...it's easy enough mate.

Eric Morecambe would say otherwise.

 

[chesterbells]

They are not accusing our auditors of fraud. They are looking at whether we appear to have complied with the rules of their club (i.e. the Premier League Club). The standard of evidence required will be far lower than that in a criminal investigation.

That was my understanding, and also that it was based on balance of probability.

 

[domalino]

I'm begging to wish I'd paid attention at school.

Simplified version :

Normal way of doing things.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Club pays player for using image over the season.

City's Fordham way.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Create new company called MCFC Image rights ltd.
3) Club sells shares in MCFC Image rights Ltd to a third company called Fordham for £25m.
3) Fordham pays players and City for image rights over the season.


It was actually a little bit more complicated in reality and involved David and Jonathan Rowland (Conservative donors and friends of Abu Dhabi) and a series of shell companies to disguise it all.

 

[i kne albert davy]

OK so normal way of doing things.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Club pays player for using image over the season.

City's Fordham way.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Create new company called MCFC Image rights ltd.
3) Club sells shares in MCFC Image rights Ltd to a third company called Fordham for £25m.
3) Fordham pays players and City for image rights over the season.

Is that good or bad for us though.

 

[domalino]

Is that good or bad for us though.

If the Premier League investigators convince the independent panel that it happened, it's very bad.

 

[i kne albert davy]

If the Premier League investigators satisfy the independent panel that it happened, it's very bad.

Oh dear.

 

[Dribble]

But as I understand it we actually RECEIVED money from the image rights company who then went on to pay it out ( double whammy).

My understanding is we sold the image rights to this company & paid them for the rights to use the images.

The issue seems to be that the company (albeit separate to City) was owned by a City related company. To be honest, I've seen no reports that money was paid to this company by City.

Again, I don't know how this company was funded, eg: Purely by image rights revenue, or was it owner funded too, which is perfectly legal, but could be perceived as City paying itself for image rights, hence keeping roughly £20m per season off our books.

Perhaps @Prestwich_Blue could elaborate, clarify & correct where necessary...

 

[domalino]

Oh dear.

Yes, I think if it were proven to be the case, it would satisfy the really high bar for proving dishonest behaviour that @projectriver talks about.

It suggests the club packaged up a loss making part of the company, sold it to another ADUG controlled group for £25m and then went to great lengths to disguise it though a shell company in the British Virgin Islands.

 

[HelloCity]

It was actually a little bit more complicated in reality and involved David and Jonathan Rowland (Conservative donors and friends of Abu Dhabi) and a series of shell companies to disguise it all.

Is this fact?

 

[bluemonkey71]

If the Premier League investigators convince the independent panel that it happened, it's very bad.

How do they need convincing if they have the same info as above? Is this your understanding of the flow of money or it’s fact pulled out of the hacked mails?

 

[domalino]

My understanding is we sold the image rights to this company & paid them for the rights to use the images.

The issue seems to be that the company (albeit separate to City) was owned by a City related company. To be honest, I've seen no reports that money was paid to this company by City.

Again, I don't know how this company was funded, eg: Purely by image rights revenue, or was it owner funded too, which is perfectly legal, but could be perceived as City paying itself for image rights, hence keeping roughly £20m per season off our books.

Perhaps @Prestwich_Blue could elaborate, clarify & correct where necessary...

In one of the emails, Simon Pearce writes to Jonathan Rowland promising that ADUG will fund Fordham with £11m per year.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

OK so normal way of doing things.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Club pays player for using image over the season.

Fordham way
1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Create new company called MCFC Image rights ltd.
3) Club sells shares in MCFC Image rights Ltd to a third company called Fordham for £30m.
3) Fordham pays players and City for image rights over the season.

Thanks for that. It looks like this is the one, which could be exploited to give us a kick in the swingers, then.

 

[waspish]

If the Premier League investigators convince the independent panel that it happened, it's very bad.

Could you point me in premier rule book that that method is not allowed?

Don’t you think City would now if it was against the rules or not knowing our books are looked at continually for any misdemeanours!