PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[FantasyIreland]

I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:

1. Providing false accounts for 9 years.
2. Mancini contract partly paid by Abu Dhabi company, Yaya Toure agent fees
3. Breaching UEFA FFP
4. Breaching Premier League sustainability rules
5. Non Co-operation

Thanks,so the other charges are minor points within the main ones?

 

[Sky Blue Thinking]

The building of the extension, hotel, City Square and shop and to the South Stand is the biggest and best FU to the PL you could ever imagine. This is what we think of your 115 charges.

We should name one of the corporate areas the 115 suite.

 

[Claytop]

Thanks,so the other charges are minor points within the main ones?

I think so, also some multiplied by the 9 years in question, same rule break every year.

 

[Mr Ed (The Stables)]

Winston Churchill was once quoted as saying "It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than speaking up and removing all doubt"

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

One trope repeated constantly in the MSM is the validity of the UAE sponsorships. They can NOT be invalidated solely because of country of origin as that would be blatant discrimination against the UAE.

So let’s say a PL investigator requests from MCFC all the communications, correspondence, emails etc between MCFC and Sponsor A, circa 2010. The intention being to ascertain that commercial negotiations took place and that a formal contractual relationship was agreed and entered into and it included market values. This could be confirmed by subsequent financial transactions ie for sponsorship services rendered. nb The PL has no jurisdiction over sponsor A what so ever. If MCFC said sorry we don’t have any supporting documentation but we can supply retrospective informal evidence by individuals involved, that would be very damming . On the other hand if they said we have all the documentation but are not prepared to disclose in the public domain because of confidentiality agreements with Sponsor A, that would be acceptable.

To me, non legal, it seems binary, either Sponsor A was valid or invalid, it should be possible for MCFC to prove all 4 sponsors were valid once and for all.

However, what if the PL consider Sponsor A “dubious”, is that guilty of a charge ?, that’s where a biased non objective judgement could stray into the political. If the PL claim the market value was artificially high, will the panel agree with them or dismiss the charge as being completely subjective.

If the PL judge the sponsorship by Etihad Airways as artificially inflated they will be accusing the airline implicitly of an extremely serious financial crime. Are the PL going take on Ethihad Airways in the courts ? Because they would have an excellent case to sue the PL for reputational damage, and that could have very serious financial consequences for the PL

 

[Xhavenjoe]

We should name one of the corporate areas the 115 suite.

Have a generous round of applause on those early weekend kickoffs, at 1.15.

 

[Blue Llama]

Just read any of the daily/weekly papers.

Rubbish, either your geography is suspect and you don't know one arab country from another. Or you have never taken the trouble to find out that Abu Dahbi is one of the most progressive Arab countries with rights for women and general freedom that others can only dream of. Third option is that your knowledge of British history is suspect.

 

[hcblue95]

Winston Churchill was once quoted as saying "It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than speaking up and removing all doubt"

Takes one to know one.

 

[Oyster28catcher]

Let's put it this way. If they had a case and they want to avoid retrospective ridicule then they'd have ensured the shiny stuff wasn't brought out yesterday.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

Can someone explain how the 115 charges can be rounded down to 5? and what they are?

Apologies for being in the dark.....Cheers

When the full list of financial charges are revealed it will be something as heinous as:
114 charges of not returning the penny on each portion of chips in the 3rd party canteen and the 115th charge will be running out of chips to one customer and offering a pie as an alternative so therefore disguised equity funding. Lol

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Thanks,so the other charges are minor points within the main ones?

Yep.

As someone who works in an auditor role relating to large multi-national corporations I find the whole reason the PL chose to headline with the 115 'symptoms' rather than the 5 'root-causes' really odd.

Usually during an investigation or audit field work you would identify the issues at the coal face, so in this case the 115 items. You would then sit down to agree the 'so what?' for those items and assess the materiality (seriousness) of each, they would then be grouped where required to avoid double counting of both the number and seriousness of the items. This process would ultimately result in an agreed set of themed 'actual' Issues, in this case the 5 items, which would remove any noise and help everyone focus on what needs escalating, reporting, fixing etc.

As above, the reason for this is to avoid sensationalism and not to over estimate the seriousness of the collective findings. In all instances the items identified would not be reported as official gaps/breaches until such point they were validated and agreed by all stakeholders.

Only after this point would the report containing the findings be issued, the headlines would be the 5 items, with traceability back to the 115 items for those who need it.

Some will say that this isn't an audit and as such wouldn't align to this methodology. I would disagree, this should be very much treated as a financial audit rather than the US type criminal lawsuit it has turned into.

As such, the communication of the 115 items without any real desire from the PL to also communicate the relative seriousness of each item to the general public is extremely questionable, as Joe Bloggs will likely just assume that each item is as equally serious, which absolutely will not be the case.

This all leads to asking the question, why were the comms managed like this from the PL? Well we can all take our own guesses, however it does seem that from the very start of the proceedings they wanted to plant the seed that City are rotten to the core, and in the event the case falls apart they are hoping that some mud sticks.

 

[Centurions]

Can someone explain how the 115 charges can be rounded down to 5? and what they are?

Apologies for being in the dark.....Cheers

I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:

1. Providing false accounts for 9 years.
2. Mancini contract partly paid by Abu Dhabi company, Yaya Toure agent fees
3. Breaching UEFA FFP
4. Breaching Premier League sustainability rules
5. Non Co-operation

That looks about right, the PL statement is below which lists 5 groups of charges but of course 115 sounds better as a sound bite. (I'm not sure if those are the corrected rule numbers BTW)

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

 

[Centurions]

Yep.

As someone who works in an auditor role relating to large multi-national corporations I find the whole reason the PL chose to headline with the 115 'symptoms' rather than the 5 'root-causes' really odd.

Usually during an investigation or audit field work you would identify the issues at the coal face, so in this case the 115 items. You would then sit down to agree the 'so what?' for those items and assess the materiality (seriousness) of each, they would then be grouped where required to avoid double counting of both the number and seriousness of the items. This process would ultimately result in an agreed set of themed 'actual' Issues, in this case the 5 items, which would remove any noise and help everyone focus on what needs escalating, reporting, fixing etc.

As above, the reason for this is to avoid sensationalism and not to over estimate the seriousness of the collective findings. In all instances the items identified would not be reported as official gaps/breaches until such point they were validated and agreed by all stakeholders.

Only after this point would the report containing the findings be issued, the headlines would be the 5 items, with traceability back to the 115 items for those who need it.

Some will say that this isn't an audit and as such wouldn't align to this methodology. I would disagree, this should be very much treated as a financial audit rather than the US type criminal lawsuit it has turned into.

As such, the communication of the 115 items without any real desire from the PL to also communicate the relative seriousness of each item to the general public is extremely questionable, as Joe Bloggs will likely just assume that each item is as equally serious, which absolutely will not be the case.

This all leads to asking the question, why were the comms managed like this from the PL? Well we can all take our own guesses, however it does seem that from the very start of the proceedings they wanted to plant the seed that City are rotten to the core, and in the event the case falls apart they are hoping that some mud sticks.

I don't think the PL have ever used the 115 figure? That came about from the MSM I think although the number kept growing at the time.

 

[bluemoon32]

I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:

1. Providing false accounts for 9 years.
2. Mancini contract partly paid by Abu Dhabi company, Yaya Toure agent fees
3. Breaching UEFA FFP
4. Breaching Premier League sustainability rules
5. Non Co-operation

Number 1 is a huge one, with HMRC implictions etc if found guilty

 

[abu13]

Really baffled by all of this, given the allegations against us have gone on for years and both Uefa and the Premier League have been investigating us are we really saying that the club though "fuck it, nobody will ever find out" Our accounting will have been gone through more times than Kerry Katona.

Understating player wages, and yet in all these years no ex player or potential signing has ever commented on this, in fact we have lost out to numerous players due to us not being prepared to match their wage demands. Surely there must be a process where a players income is audited and there is traceability against it. Some thing as simple as player xxxx you are contracted to receive £10 million per year, can you explain what this extra £5 million is for?

Inflating sponsorship, where is the evidence for this, if there is a paper trail showing the agreement and what was actually paid then how can this be the case.

What about our Auditors, given the shit published about us over the years if I was an auditor i'd leave no stone unturned. If we were putting in false accounts and the auditors failed to spot it they would never get another large contract ever again.

 

[abu13]

Number 1 is a huge one, with HMRC implictions etc if found guilty

Which is exactly why it will be utter bollox, there are far too many people at risk for this to be the case.

 

[Oldham Exile]

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.

That is indeed one of their delusions - and there are many more which are even more fanciful

They want to have a parade!!

 

[bluethrunthru]

What about our Auditors, given the shit published about us over the years if I was an auditor i'd leave no stone unturned. If we were putting in false accounts and the auditors failed to spot it they would never get another large contract ever again.

Given that the SNP Auditors quit over a few hundred grand and a mobile home I'd have thought if there was ever the slightest scintilla of any issues on the scale alleged I am sure there would have been a statement and they would have then stopped doing the work.................. something else that hasn't happened

 

[zebbemacahan]

Really baffled by all of this, given the allegations against us have gone on for years and both Uefa and the Premier League have been investigating us are we really saying that the club though "fuck it, nobody will ever find out" Our accounting will have been gone through more times than Kerry Katona.

Understating player wages, and yet in all these years no ex player or potential signing has ever commented on this, in fact we have lost out to numerous players due to us not being prepared to match their wage demands. Surely there must be a process where a players income is audited and there is traceability against it. Some thing as simple as player xxxx you are contracted to receive £10 million per year, can you explain what this extra £5 million is for?

Inflating sponsorship, where is the evidence for this, if there is a paper trail showing the agreement and what was actually paid then how can this be the case.

What about our Auditors, given the shit published about us over the years if I was an auditor i'd leave no stone unturned. If we were putting in false accounts and the auditors failed to spot it they would never get another large contract ever again.

Yes. I don’t know anything about this stuff. But it seems so out of character for our owners to cheat their way to succes for over ten years (or to cheat at all). And what would they gain by cheating? And it is really strange that, if the cheating was real, no one has come out as a whistleblower. And why no auditor has seen anything wrong. And the Silver Lake-investment, wouldn’t they have backed away from the investment of there was something wrong? It seems that there would be a big conspiracy between many people if the PL-charges are true.

 

[SilverFox2]

Thanks for that. Fair enough.

I think a year is about right from white paper to law, so that would be about right. I will be quite surprised in this case, as they have to work out what the regulator does first, and then it depends on whether it has teeth immediately in the face of any existing contractual arrangements.

Mate, even I'm not quite sure what all the charges are, so why would most opposition fans trouble themselves with the details?

As far as they're concerned, we've been accused so we're guilty. The charges & any evidence we have to refute the allegations are mere details they can't be arsed to concern themselves with.

We're guilty, so need to be hung, drawn & quartered with all our titles handed to the runners up. It's all absolute bollocks... \0/

Of course we are guilty, that's why their top man refused to give us medals and custody of the PL cup for another year.