That's a good example.Silverlake purchased $500 million share in the City Football Group back in 2019. They would have done the due diligence on City’s accounts and would have come to the conclusion that $500 million was worth a 10 percent stake in the club.
As daft as these charges sound, did Citys owners mislead Silverlake on what the value of the club was? Or were they in on it as well? Building a £365 million pound asset on the Etihad campus in the Co-Op Live arena is not something you do if you felt you had been ripped off or miss sold something by City’s owner.
Cheers.They are only fictitious revenue and concealed costs to the PL, not to whoever is preparing the accounts.
There was a valid, fair value contract for the Etihad sponsorship that was fulfilled and fully paid for. There is no way to account for that other than the way it was done. Ask Leicester how their annual accounts account for their owner sponsorship. The PL would have liked to know if Mansour gave any money to Etihad, but for the accounts it is irrelevant.
I don't know much about the image right issue, but as I understand it, there was a valid contract to sell future image right income, net if the amounts paid to players for cash up front. I would be amazed if it wasn't at fair value as our management aren't idiots and would get tax clearance. In that case, there is no other way to account for that transaction than income year one, lower income and costs in future years.
These were valid business transactions and so wouldn't affect the view given by the accounts to a potential investor. The Etihad contract, for example, would continue to termination at the contracted amounts no matter how it was funded. The image rights of certain players would still be off books, so no change.
All imho, of course.
Cheers.
So if that's the case - City don't appear to have much of a case to answer!
Or at the very least I have absolutely no idea how the FA would prove otherwise.
In effect, the PL is accusing Silverlake of either being complicit in industrial-scale accounting fraud, or being defrauded by MCFC.That's a good example.
Imagine if the Sheikh walked away and sold the club. If previously unknown multi-million pound cost lines emerged overnight along with the disappearance of vast sponsorship revenue then Silverlake would stand to lose out in a dramatic way.
So what the FA are effectively saying is Silverlake's shares aren't worth what they paid for them? Quite an accusation really!
(But to repeat I am no finance expert!)
Most people don't lie. That is a fact. Research supports me on that. We all speculate about peoples motives without having any idea about the people we are talking about. The individual's in the tribunal will have to operate with integrity because of the rules that govern what they are doing. The stakes are high for all parties. I am not of the view that the tribunal will be made up of red cartel stooges.In this world we live in, people look each other dead in the eyes and lie all the time. Looking someone in the eyes shouldn’t be taken as proof of impartiality, especially in the murky worlds of politics and sports, which this issue unfortunately spans both
Why would I be sued by the club for defending it’s own position?
Hmrc are already looking into players tax avoidance schemes from my understanding. Saw a legal bulletin and allegedly over 300 players are being investigated and one premier league club for paying agent fees through satellite clubs.As I say I haven’t seen anything to suggest to me, (a Chelsea supporter who has a background in some of these matters ) to suggest that city have filed with HMRC and or Companies House accounts that understate income.
The Mancini Contracts do pose a question for the football authorities but I very much doubt that HMRC would be that interested in money paid out and accounted for under other nations tax regiemes
It’s not just city that probably have an image rights issue but that will almost be a separate debating point.
For most clubs it’s one issue but for city the problem is wider because of the issue re selling image rights off.That I suspect is something additional that HMRC will be taking a view on but not sure it’s close to fraud.
The question for me in this regard is did the other entity pay the players and account for tax etc ? If not why not?
In this area cities biggest issue for me is how they sold off rights as I am far from sure that complies with the PL rules on such matters.
That’s round four of City against the Cartel. Anyone who thinks this will be the end of it is mistaken. If and it’s a big if they get anything to stick they will then unbundle another load of shit, UEFA will also be watching with interest. They want us gone and won’t stop.I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?
Because we've been not spending as much and commercial revenue has grown so much by/since 2018. We are now very much the model club in terms of ffp, or at least in terms of the pretend reasons for ffp.I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?
I have become very suspicious of people who say or do certain things and believe they are either lying or stupid when it comes to football or politics but I am sure your right about the research on lying the other thing is that the tribunal are not asking me or your about these things but some of the most powerful and wealthy people and have to call into doubt the work of key people or assume they have been conned e.g accountants auditors etcMost people don't lie. That is a fact. Research supports me on that. We all speculate about peoples motives without having any idea about the people we are talking about. The individual's in the tribunal will have to operate with integrity because of the rules that govern what they are doing. The stakes are high for all parties. I am not of the view that the tribunal will be made up of red cartel stooges.
My previous point was that if the tribunal members disregard clear irrefutable evidence presented by City's reps because they want to have a guilty verdict irrespective of the evidence, I would not want to be one of those tribunal members. They have to do their jobs properly.
Just a question about the player's remuneration.
How is their individual sponsorship (e.g. boots) get paid? To them directly or through the club?
I think we have to be careful to distinguish breaking UEFA/PL rules and false accounting generally.If you're saying that the allegations specifically over inflating sponsorship which are specifically referenced in the PL charge sheet differ substantially from those put forward by UEFA as justification for banning MCFC and fining the club £30 million, then that would impact on a analysis of the position. If you're not saying this, on the other hand, then I invite you to read the CAS Award in City's case against UEFA because the Award is arguably the best source out there in terms of explaining the charges in question.
After all, we're accused by the PL of breaching the duty contained in its rules to provide financial information that gives a true and fair reflection of the club's financial position "with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs". This is exactly the issue that dominated the CAS proceedings, and unless we're presented with evidence to the contrary, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to assume that the nature of the accusations from the PL is materially the same as that of the charges UEFA found proven against us.
In particular, then, I invite you to consider the text between pages 8 and 12 of the CAS Award, the Panel summarises the nature of the UEFA decision we were appealing in the proceedings at hand. In doing so, the panel quotes directly from the Decision of UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber, so we have the findings straight from the horse's mouth as follows:
So there you have it in black and white. UEFA said that City deliberately and intentionally concealed the source of sponsorship income to circumvent the FFP regulations. In doing so, the club produced accounts that "were not complete and correct".
The offence of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 is a fraud-based offence. By virtue of section 17(1)(b), a person "shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years" if that person "dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another" when he "in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular".
That, in effect, is exactly what UEFA accused us of doing. The CAS rejected it, but the allegation was that the employees and officers of MCFC with whom they were dealing in the context of our FFP issues had committed conduct that happens to fall squarely within the above definition for the following reason.
If the CAS had found MCFC guilty, the relevant officers of MCFC;
How else are UEFA's accusations to be interpreted if not as allegations of conduct that, if committed, constitutes a serious criminal offence. There are all sorts of reasons why a prosecution might not have ensued even with a guilty verdict from the CAS, but make no mistake, what UEFA claimed we'd done constituted conduct that was, in effect, fraudulent.
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
Dont think you can be objective on this and implying it is us without saying itHmrc are already looking into players tax avoidance schemes from my understanding. Saw a legal bulletin and allegedly over 300 players are being investigated and one premier league club for paying agent fees through satellite clubs.
I think we have to be careful to distinguish breaking UEFA/PL rules and false accounting generally.
Accounting standards and rules can be grey areas, and open to interpretation (as can the law of course). So an interpretation that later proves to be incorrect is not, by definition, fraud.
Similarly, reporting income from Etihad as sponsorship, if Sheikh Mansour had directly contributed to as owner, might break FFP rules (although that could be debated) but as long as we reported all monies received accurately, it's not in itself fraudulent.
I've used the example of the former directors of the insurance company I worked for, who knowingly withheld claims from the systems, thereby artificially inflating our financial results. This involved deliberately deceiving the auditors, the company that certified our reserves as adequate, investors, the regulatory authorities and our reinsurers. That was criminal fraud. The prosecution of those three directors still had to prove there was deliberate intent to deceive though.
So there's innocent misinterpretation of rules or standards, playing fast and loose with rules imposed by a private organisation, and outright fraud.
That's when they opened the investigation iirc.I am just wondering why the charges are up until 2018.
Did our accounting change since then? If there are any problems with our image rights payments, Etihad deal, other sponsor payments etc, did anything change after 2018? or if they have been potentially breaking PL rules all those years do they still break those same rules in last 5 years too each year?
For clarity I am not implying it has anything to do with city.Dont think you can be objective on this and implying it is us without saying it
True but the actual deals and structures in question for the most part have not changed so the correctness of our accounts won’t have changed even if we don’t need to do what is alleged now when we might have beforeBecause we've been not spending as much and commercial revenue has grown so much by/since 2018. We are now very much the model club in terms of ffp, or at least in terms of the pretend reasons for ffp.
Why would they not also amount to dishonest accountingThey would represent dishonest disclosures to the PL, not dishonest accounting. Imho.