PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Stoned Rose]

5 Live this morning.......if City do the treble, would United's be considered "Pure"

Just fuck off.

Pure cunts more like.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Anyone can go to the Companies House web site and view all our audited accounts, eg 2009-2010 includes the following summary

Financial highlights for 2009-10
include
Corporate partnership revenue increasing by £25 9m to £32 4m, an increase of nearly 400% on the
previous year, driven by new long term deals with a number of key partners, including Etlhad,Abu Dhabi
Tourtsm Authority, Aabar and Etısalat
Ticketing revenues increasing by £2 8m (18 6%%) to £18 2m largely driven by extended runs in the FA
and Carling Cups
Season ticket revenues up by fO 9m to £9 6m, as season ticket numbers for the 2009-I0 season
increased by more than 10% on the previous year
Television rights fee income increasing by £5 7m (1 1 8%) to £53 9m reflecting the Club's highest-ever
Premier League finishing position (5th) and record number of live televised Premier League matches
(23)
Match day hospitality revenue growing by £0 7m (13%) on the previous year to £6 Im
Retal sales and merchandise revenue increasing by £2 9m (60%) to £7.9m in first year of a new kit
supply partnership with Umbro
Interest charges reduced by El3 3m to £3 99m following the conversion to equity of shareholder
debt.
For the 2009-10 financial year, the Club has reported a net loss of £121 3m Importantly, this loss includes the

So the question is this...

WHERE IS THE MISINFORMATION, WHY ARE THESE DETAILS NOT A TRUE AND FAIR REFLECTION OF ACTUAL EVENTS ? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING DECEITFUL ... ? WHERE IS THE PLs IRREFUTABLE EVEIDENCE OF WRONG DOING ?

 

[TedofChume]

This is true, and this is why I - like the poster to whom the above response was given - have had ostensibly intelligent people comment to me on City's undoubted guilt. But they haven't read the CAS ruling or other documents relevant to the case. They simply take their lead from the media, who obdurately eschew any notion that we should be viewed as innocent until the contrary is proven.

On several occasions, I've reminded people who've blithely stated that we artificially inflated the value of the sponsorship from Etihad that the relevant contract was accepted by UEFA as being of a fair value, the relevant services to Etihad under that contract had unquestionably been provided, and Etihad had paid for the services in full. UEFA's allegation was that City's owner effectively refunded £50 million per annum to Etihad, which was in effect a favour to Etihad but meaning we forewent the opportunity to seek a main sponsor capable of paying the money itself.

City argued that this would have been a manifestly illogical and absurd course of action by the club, but the CAS panel discerned nonetheless that there could have been a benefit to the club in such an arrangement. Why they thought that isn't material here: the salient point is that the sponsorship wasn't alleged to be inflated.

And that's there in black and white in the CAS award for anyone who cares to read and digest it. Yet you outline this to people - even successful professionals - and they simply refuse to believe it. Depressingly, they choose instead to believe bad-faith, wholly partial clickbait drivel peddled by financially and legally illiterate clowns in the sports media.

Unfortunately, given that the charges have been laid, we can't expect media outlets not to mention the fact when we win the title. But the feverish nature of the reporting with the relentless 'no smoke without fire' subtext is risible. After all, the CAS proceedings showed an incompetent regulatory body pushed into an unwise and unlawful decision by malevolent pressure from venal, grasping member clubs.

One hopes that the PL hasn't been manoeuvred down the same track. But it's at the very least a possibility that they have, and, for that reason, any media outlets whose coverage doesn't refer to the prospect of City being vindicated are patently lacking in journalistic integrity.

This article from Brand Finance goes into greater detail, valuing football shirt sponsorship in terms of "Brand Recall"

Sponsorship in Football: Are You Getting What You Pay For? | Brand Finance

The corporate world continues to find the football industry attractive from a sponsorship perspective, as a way to gain greater visibility and also to broaden

brandfinance.com

"The role that shirt sponsorships can play for commercial brands is limited, as beyond raising awareness levels the brand positioning cannot be conveyed beyond the choice of club to associate with."

What this means is its all about increasing Brand Awareness.

The article then measures Brand Recall from research they have done as to how effective the sponsorship is.

Interestingly it states the following Brand Recall rates:

50% - Rakutan Barcelona
46% - Etihad - Manchester City**
48% - Emirates Real Madrid*
40% - Chevrolet - Manchester United
39% - Emirates - Paris Saint-Germain*
39% - Emirates - Arsenal*
33% - AIA - Tottenham***
30% - Yokohama - Chelsea***

*
"Given Emirates sponsors the shirts of Real Madrid, Arsenal, and Paris Saint- Germain, there is an argument to suggest they could be overspending on shirt sponsorship"

**
"This all suggests that Etihad’s recall rate (46%) is producing considerable value from their shirt sponsorship of Manchester City and in normal circumstances, the club could leverage this for a more lucrative deal."

***
"On the other hand, some sponsors, who have paid high sums for shirt sponsorship, are yet to see the benefit of brand recall. "

Futhermore the following table ranks the value clubs get from their sponsorship deals. I've pulled out the top 8 clubs, for each of the last 10 years available.

So we can see quite clearly that since FFP was introduced in 2014, Etihad have had a better bang for buck from their City sponsorship deal than Standard Chartered have had from their Liverpool deal.

The Man City sponsorship deal is also consistently one of the best performing, further proving that the sponsorship deal is far from inflated when compared to other big clubs.

Football 50 2023 | Brand Value Ranking League Table | Brandirectory

The annual report on the most valuable and strongest football brands

brandirectory.com

2022
1 - Real Madrid
2 - Man City
3 - Barcelona
4 - Liverpool
5 - Man Utd
6 - Bayern Munich
7 - PSG
8 - Tottenham

2021
1 - Real Madrid
2 - Barcelona
3 - Man Utd
4 - Man City
5 - Bayern Munich
6 - Liverpool
7 - PSG
8 - Chelsea

2020
1 - Real Madrid
2 - Barcelona
3 - Man Utd
4 - Liverpool
5 - Man City
6 - Bayern Munich
7 - PSG
8 - Chelsea

2019
1 - Real Madrid
2 - Man Utd
3 - Barcelona
4 - Bayern Munich
5 - Man City
6 - Liverpool
7 - Chelsea
8 - PSG


2018
1 - Man Utd
2 - Real Madrid
3 - Barcelona
4 - Bayern Munich
5 - Man City
6 - Liverpool
7 - Chelsea
8 - Arsenal

2017
1 - Real Madrid
2 - Man Utd
3 - Barcelona
4 - Chelsea
5 - Bayern Munich
6 - Man City
7 - PSG
8 - Arsenal

2016
1 - Man Utd
2 - Real Madrid
3 - Barcelona
4 - Man City
5 - Bayern Munich
6 - Arsenal
7 - PSG
8 - Chelsea

2015
1 - Man Utd
2 - Bayern Munich
3 - Real Madrid
4 - Man City
5 - Chelsea
6 - Barcelona
7 - Arsenal
8 - Liverpool

2014
1 - Bayern Munich
2 - Real Madrid
3 - Man Utd
4 - Barcelona
5 - Man City
6 - Arsenal
7 - Chelsea
8 - Liverpool

2013
1 - Bayern Munich
2 - Man Utd
3 - Real Madrid
4 - Barcelona
5 - Chelsea
6 - Arsenal
7 - Liverpool
8 - Man City

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

5 Live this morning.......if City do the treble, would United's be considered "Pure"

Just fuck off.

The piss boiling levels are high today. Imagine if we do the treble lol.

 

[Hoghead]

That depends on your definition of squeaky clean. Can you expand on why you think Abu Dhabi isn't squeaky clean without using any activities that the UK hasn't tried before?

Just read any of the daily/weekly papers.

 

[TonyM]

Having seen 115 branded about so much and a quiet day at work so far, I decided to go back the press release by the premier league and have a look at the charges. What is crazy about the piss poor standard of journalism is not one of the lazy fuckers has actually broken the list down to rule allegedly broken in each season. if they had they could been the pioneering man city charge with 131 counts of wrong doing.

2009/10	B13
2009/10	C71
2009/10	C72
2009/10	C75
2009/10	C79*
2009/10	C80*
2009/10	Q7
2009/10	Q8
2010/11	B13
2010/11	C71
2010/11	C78
2010/11	C79
2010/11	C86
2010/11	C87
2010/11	Q7
2010/11	Q8
2010/11	K12
2010/11	K20
2011/12	B13
2011/12	E3
2011/12	E4
2011/12	E11
2011/12	E12
2011/12	Q7
2011/12	Q8
2011/12	K12
2011/12	K20
2012/13	B16
2012/13	E3
2012/13	E4
2012/13	E11
2012/13	E12
2012/13	P7
2012/13	P8
2012/13	T12
2012/13	T20
2013/14	B15
2013/14	E3
2013/14	E4
2013/14	E11
2013/14	E12
2013/14	E49
2013/14	T12
2013/14	T19
2013/14	B14.6
2014/15	B16
2014/15	E3
2014/15	E4
2014/15	E11
2014/15	E12
2014/15	E50
2014/15	T12
2014/15	T19
2014/15	B15.6
2015/16	B16
2015/16	E3
2015/16	E4
2015/16	E11
2015/16	E12
2015/16	E50
2015/16	T13
2015/16	T20
2015/16	B15.6
2015/16	E52
2015/16	E53
2015/16	E54
2015/16	E55
2015/16	E56
2015/16	E57
2015/16	E58
2015/16	E59
2015/16	E60
2016/17	B16
2016/17	E3
2016/17	E4
2016/17	E11
2016/17	E12
2016/17	E51
2016/17	B15.6
2016/17	E53
2016/17	E54
2016/17	E55
2016/17	E56
2016/17	E57
2016/17	E58
2016/17	E59
2016/17	E60
2017/18	B16
2017/18	E3
2017/18	E4
2017/18	E11
2017/18	E12
2017/18	E51
2017/18	B15.6
2017/18	E53
2017/18	E54
2017/18	E55
2017/18	E56
2017/18	E57
2017/18	E58
2017/18	E59
2017/18	E60
2018/19	B16
2018/19	B19
2018/19	W1
2018/19	W2
2018/19	W12
2019/20	B16
2019/20	B19
2019/20	W1
2019/20	W2
2019/20	W12
2019/20	W13
2020/21	B16
2020/21	B19
2020/21	W1
2020/21	W2
2020/21	W12
2020/21	W13
2021/22	B16
2021/22	B18
2021/22	W1
2021/22	W2
2021/22	W15
2021/22	W16
2022/23	B15
2022/23	B18
2022/23	W1
2022/23	W2
2022/23	W15
2022/23	W16

I don't know what it means put this is your data in a pivot...

 

[Stoned Rose]

This is true, and this is why I - like the poster to whom the above response was given - have had ostensibly intelligent people comment to me on City's undoubted guilt. But they haven't read the CAS ruling or other documents relevant to the case. They simply take their lead from the media, who obdurately eschew any notion that we should be viewed as innocent until the contrary is proven.

On several occasions, I've reminded people who've blithely stated that we artificially inflated the value of the sponsorship from Etihad that the relevant contract was accepted by UEFA as being of a fair value, the relevant services to Etihad under that contract had unquestionably been provided, and Etihad had paid for the services in full. UEFA's allegation was that City's owner effectively refunded £50 million per annum to Etihad, which was in effect a favour to Etihad but meaning we forewent the opportunity to seek a main sponsor capable of paying the money itself.

City argued that this would have been a manifestly illogical and absurd course of action by the club, but the CAS panel discerned nonetheless that there could have been a benefit to the club in such an arrangement. Why they thought that isn't material here: the salient point is that the sponsorship wasn't alleged to be inflated.

And that's there in black and white in the CAS award for anyone who cares to read and digest it. Yet you outline this to people - even successful professionals - and they simply refuse to believe it. Depressingly, they choose instead to believe bad-faith, wholly partial clickbait drivel peddled by financially and legally illiterate clowns in the sports media.

Unfortunately, given that the charges have been laid, we can't expect media outlets not to mention the fact when we win the title. But the feverish nature of the reporting with the relentless 'no smoke without fire' subtext is risible. After all, the CAS proceedings showed an incompetent regulatory body pushed into an unwise and unlawful decision by malevolent pressure from venal, grasping member clubs.

One hopes that the PL hasn't been manoeuvred down the same track. But it's at the very least a possibility that they have, and, for that reason, any media outlets whose coverage doesn't refer to the prospect of City being vindicated are patently lacking in journalistic integrity.

Good work P.

 

[TinFoilHat]

I see we've been hit with another charge.

Allowing a wish.com Grealish impersonator on the pitch.

 

[TedofChume]

The plan is for the start of next season as its supported by all parties there will be a "shadow regulator" until a permanent appointment is made

English football’s watershed independent regulator to launch next year

The new commission will oversee the sport in England and is set for the beginning of the 2024-25 season

www.independent.co.uk

This article is typical of Miguel Delaney at the Independent, he's no doubt a Liverpool fan, as he is often on the podcast the Anfield Wrap. He can't resist having a dig at City and spreading the myth that City are owned by s sovereign state.

In this article,

Man City scandal is not about fair play – it’s about fraud

The Premier League’s bombshell case against Manchester City goes beyond rules of Financial Fair Play and is really about allegations of dishonesty

www.independent.co.uk

he totally misrepresents the CAS report, using UEFAs allegations as facts and ignores the fact that UEFA failed to convince CAS that City had done anything wrong, or that City produced the original emails refuting what UEFA insisted they meant.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Nail on head.

As it stands we are doing nothing to help our cause,while allowing the issue to snowball through ignorance and lies.

In a criminal court you have the right to silence and you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case.
In a PL tribunal it remains to be seen if we still have these rights, but in the kangaroo court of social media the onus seems to be on the defendant to prove their innocence and you are assumed guilty on the balance of probability which shifts charges every time you break silence and state irrefutable facts in your defence.

Silence is probably the right course of action as proving you’re innocence to an unreceptive unwilling MSM jury is an impossible task.
It is a game you cannot win and only provides further clicks and fodder for the great unwashed.

 

[nmc]

All transfer and contacts have to be ratified by the football authorities end of
What is reported in the media can be different depending upon the agenda

And the HMRC - it’s telling they haven’t raided our offices to investigate all this financial impropriety on an industrial scale….

 

[The perfect fumble]

Apologies if already posted.

Seems Inter have been very naughty boys.....

 

[hello]

I don't know what it means put this is your data in a pivot... View attachment 80306

Very nice & much more readable than mine ;) I was going to put a section for what the various rules align to for each of the respective seasons handbooks, but actually had real work to do & still not found the full set of pdf's. The 24 B ones for instance all relate to good faith but prior to 2020 it was stated as bilateral so for the PL to say the club hasn't acted in Good faith 13 years ago is effectively showing bad faith on their part. The C & E charges are what the red shirt fans would argue the most about in terms of the actual balance sheet & accounts. Except they are fully accessible versions on companies house & independently audited by some the biggest accounting firms in the world so going to really hard for the PL to say differently.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Very nice & much more readable than mine ;) I was going to put a section for what the various rules align to for each of the respective seasons handbooks, but actually had real work to do & still not found the full set of pdf's. The 24 B ones for instance all relate to good faith but prior to 2020 it was stated as bilateral so for the PL to say the club hasn't acted in Good faith 13 years ago is effectively showing bad faith on their part. The C & E charges are what the red shirt fans would argue the most about in terms of the actual balance sheet & accounts. Except they are fully accessible versions on companies house & independently audited by some the biggest accounting firms in the world so going to really hard for the PL to say differently.

If I read it right too, it amounts to 13 individual charges. Am I correct?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Is one of the charges that we've been paying more in transfer fees than we've actually reported?
Was in an argument over the weekend when pointing out that we're 10th in the net spend table for the last years.

I argued that this wasn't one of the charges.
If for example we report the transfer fee for Nathan Ake of £40m, we pay Bournemouth that and they reflect that on their accounts.
If we actually pay them £60m but they report it as £40m, then they are guilty too for false accounting surely?

I'm no lawyer or forensic accountant sadly, unlike the majority of football fans on Twitter these days.

The charges are to 2018, I think, so the recent 5 year period is fairly immaterial to the matter.

I think it's player wage declarations, not transfer fees, which are the subject of some of the points.

 

[Coatigan]

Apologies if already posted.

Seems Inter have been very naughty boys.....

What have they been doing, deleting tweets?

 

[crazyg]

Fuck me. That's a word I never expected to see on a football forum.

"Argument"

Well done!

On a par with Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

 

[crazyg]

There was no referendum to join the EEC, Heath government lied to the public and parliament about the ultimate MO of the EU which was to become a federal state, Wilson held a referendum in 1973 and perpetuated the lie, there was no social media in those days. Its an utter insult to the intelligence of the people who voted in the recent referendum that those who voted to leave were stupid but, those who voted to remain were highly intelligent people. The remain campaign told nothing but the truth of course

But there was in 1975 on whether to stay or leave the Common Market. We voted to stay in, as below.

"In accordance with the Act, the European Communities membership referendum took place on Thursday 5 June 1975, and voters approved continued EC/EEC membership by 67% to 33% on a national turnout of 64%."
Per Wikipedia.
I remember that day very well.
I had my car nicked!

 

[Bazzmand Show]

Makes me wonder what the end game is for our enemies, is it to smear us or shut us down? Is their fantasy to do a Rangers on us? Could they actually get away with it? Or have the EPL seriously overreached and would be happy with a face saving compromise?
fucked if I know!

To my mind Liverpool supporters seem to have a hard on for us and all this shit because they have some fantastical vision that somehow they are going to be awarded titles.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

You're wrong here. It's an arguing technique known as the 'Gish Gallop'. You make a huge number of random, bollox claims, which cost you nothing in terms of time and effort. Your opponent then has to spend considerable time and effort refuting each claim, at which point you just make some more. The whole time your opponent is spent refuting the claims, you are controlling the narrative, and the audience grows bored of listening to your opponent talk. And if your opponent refutes just some of the claims, you can use it as evidence that the others must be true, so you tie your opponent's hands into fighting ALL of them, and your opponent is fighting an uphill battle, regardless of the accuracy of the claims. Not engaging is the only way your opponent can win.

You see this all the time in political debate..thanks for putting a name to it :)