PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Shads]

I think we can all agree that we will be nailed for non compliance as if the feeling around the club is the same as UEFA then the club will want its time in court? So we will get without question a big fine for that.

As I think I have made very clear. I definitely do NOT agree.

 

[NPBlue]

I don’t think you’re understanding me or maybe I am not getting you. I am not saying there is anything dodgy or need to hide it but the and I certainly understand image rights to be normal though the sale might not be but allegations seem to be that. The price was to high presumably the premier league are going to argue it is a related party. Chevrolet paid United too much but that’s not an issue as they are not related party that’s just there own stupidity though I do believe the guy who did the deal got sacked not proper sign off or just incompetent. Non related parties don’t over pay there in it to get the best deal possible.

There is nothing untoward regarding the size of the payments City were, or are, making to the players for image rights. The contracts between the players and the club are open to negotiation regarding the remuneration they will receive, and the two parties can agree whatever sum they deem suitable.

It doesn't matter what the figure is when the contract is signed. There are no rules in place regulating image rights, and is an expense for the club.

Related party regulations concern income from sponsorship deals and have nothing to do with how a club spends its money.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Fordham was not covered in the CAS trial. I don't know how else you want it explained, it simply was not a part of it.

Probably because neither cas or uefa were arsed about it because having looked at it there was nothing to see. They obviously knew about it, so they either couldn't be arsed investigating, decided to do city a favour by turning a blind eye because they love us, or there was nothing about Fordham worth pursuing - take your pick, I know which one I think is true.

 

[Shads]

Premier League: Show us all these payments Sheikh Mansour made to MCFC.
MCFC: There aren't any.
Premier League: But there must be, everybody is saying there were, even Gary Neville.
MCFC: No really, there aren't any.
Premier League: Right, we're charging you with non cooperation...

Even though a joke. That’s the exact point. You cannot be found guilty for failing to provide documents that don’t exist. We admitted non cooperation at CAS hence the fine. We do not admit it here. We will argue we did cooperate fully.

 

[Shads]

The notion that Khaldoon is involved in a conspiracy to defraud is utterly comical. Anyone who actually believes that is an idiot.

There are lots of idiots who support other clubs and who operate in the media…

 

[wolviedinho]

The same assumption being made time and time again. PL members do not have to hand over every scrap of paper in the building. Only relevant financial documentation.
I assure you if there was a requirement to send everything then the club would deposit 250,000+ pages of information including coach doodles during matches, the cleaning schedule for the CFA and the listed contents of the broom cupboard for every day in the last decade. It would cost the PL lawyers the leagues entire annual budget to review it all.
Apart from the fact that none of the PL members would ever sign up to an agreement that required them to give all of their documentary secrets…

It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.

 

[Shads]

It certainly takes some getting used to. There are still a few remnants of the old world, such as email sign offs that haven’t been amended and the odd sign here and there, but overall it’s remarkable how quickly it changed, especially since it hadn’t done so for over 70 years.

Indictments didn’t change though, as they went from R v X to…errr…R v X!

Rex and Regina both start with R…good old Latin again… I can Feel another MGS chat about to start…

 

[BobblyBlue]

It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.

I think the rights and wrongs have already been drafted for them. They just need to sign on the dotted line.

 

[Shads]

It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.

Not really. They do not need to decide anything other than what is or is not proven by the evidence to a sufficient standard. It is something the individuals concerned will be well used to doing.
It is not about finding the truth of the matter. Just whether or not the PL has the cogent evidence to prove the charges they made.
From everything already said it remains highly unlikely that they do.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.

And although we may get a kangaroo court.. it speaks to reason that if the panel wants a result that's upheld and not appealed, it will not go into stuff over 6 years unless it really has to.

6 years time bars anything from before 2017.

 

[Shads]

I don't see it going that long mate, too much outside noise now for City also not to be demanding a quick resolution, certainly with irrefutable evidence on hand.

Agreed. Once Discovery is complete I still think this ends with a whimper.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s in the CAS judgment.

Sorry I meant the part about how we handled co-operation with the PL investigation.

 

[Shads]

Sorry I meant the part about how we handled co-operation with the PL investigation.

It’s in several High Court cases brought over the last few years by the PL to obtain further info from City. Our stance has always been that we have provided what we are obliged to provide and anything else requires specificity not a fishing expedition.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What do you want?

If you want to inhabit a world where only things that have been explicitly stated by the club in a public statement are "factual statements" then you should probably just leave this thread and come back in 18 months when there's a verdict, because the only factual statement so far is the PL and City statements from last monday. The other 14,450 posts in this comment are opinion and discourse.

In the meantime, the rest of us are probably going to keep discussing the possibilities using what we have in the public domain and trying to figure out what the club is fighting.

What we know is that City's internal documents involve putting 4 random companies between ADUG and Fordham, 4 companies who do nothing, have no business plan, and involve routing things through the BVI.

Feel free to offer another theory why the corporate structure was like that if you don't think that's someone disguising it. Or don't, because it won't be a fact.

Tax avoidance?

We used to have three Luxembourg companies between some of our business operations and the holding company in the old days when I was involved in setting them up. It was a perfectly acceptable and normal business procedure then, using loans and two different forms of company: one where interest income wasn't taxable and one where the interest was tax allowable. Before we did it, though, we would get tax clearance, which I guess the club did as well if this was the reason, or even if it wasn't now I come to think of it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That may sound a bit dodgy but is there a rule saying you can’t do that? Is it illegal?
Company I worked for did something similar and were used to protect assets in case the parent company fell into difficulties.
For example, one of them owned the building and rented it back to parent company.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with selling assets on which you earn income, or can earn income in the future, for a lump-sum amount up-front. Barcelona have recently done the same with some of their future broadcast revenues. For the same reasons, btw.

It doesn't matter if it helps the club meet FFP, because it is a perfectly acceptable way of doing so. It doesn't really matter who the assets were sold to either: another group company, a related company, a third party company - provided it was accounted for properly. IMO, the only thing that matters is that the transaction was at a fair value. That it wasn't inflated just to meet FFP, in this case. We don't have the information to make any conclusion on that matter, so it's all just speculation.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s in several High Court cases brought over the last few years by the PL to obtain further info from City. Our stance has always been that we have provided what we are obliged to provide and anything else requires specificity not a fishing expedition.

OK thanks. Didn't follow all that in all honesty. I didn't think the PL would charge us all over again for the stuff that was cleared at CAS. More fool me :)

 

[Shads]

OK thanks. Didn't follow all that in all honesty. I didn't think the PL would charge us all over again for the stuff that was cleared at CAS. More fool me :)

As I said before… never confuse tactics with incompetence…

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've read pretty much every post in the last 25 pages and haven't seen any City fans arguing furiously that the club is guilty or wishing it so.

I've seen people who's interest in the case extends beyond "club says we're fine so wake me up when the not guilty verdict comes in" and who actually want to look at the details of the accusations and evidence in the public domain discuss the investigation, but perhaps you can't tell the difference.

I think he was talking about you, not to you :)

 

[Shads]

We don't know. We know there's emails promising money, we know the discussed company was created, but that's it. Hence why I said "If the PL can convince the judicial panel it happened...".

But if the accounts and financial documents do NOT show it and City refused to provide fishing expedition documents to show that it may or may not have happened…then the PL, who have the burden of proof, cannot show that it did.
Remember we do not have to prove that something didn’t happen, unless there is cogent evidence in the first place to show that it did. If they have nothing to prove it did, then a simple appearance by Simon Pearce saying it was discussed in that manner but never went further in that manner on the basis of legal advice (which is privileged) and therefore not obligated to be disclosed. Game over.

 

[Shads]

You're quite correct. If A accuses B, A has to present their evidence to support the accusation & give B the opportunity to offer a defence & supporting counter evidence.

What you can't do is accuse someone of wrongdoing with zero evidence & challenge them to disprove the claim, or ask for evidence to prove the claim.

You make the claim, you provide your evidence & the other side can either accept the claim in whole or part & provide whatever necessary supporting evidence.

This is why the only long-term solution is an independent regulator & the scrapping of FFP & the fair workable revision of football finances & debt management.

I know that ostensibly you can’t do that, but realistically that is what UEFA first and now the PL have tried to do…