PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Big Dave Watson said:
Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.
Click to expand...

All they have is the hacked emails and what came up at cas! All the red shirt fcukers and most of the rest of the premier pressurised the fa premier to look into that for premier ffp purposes
 
nmc said:
Spuds see themselves as a heritage club, although you need heritage to remember the last time they won the last of their two league titles…..
Click to expand...
Heritage spuds...
www.potatohouse.co.uk

Heritage Seed Potatoes | Potato House | Free UK delivery

Market Leaders in growing and supplying Heritage Seed Potatoes | Vast range of Heirloom Seed Potatoes | Bringing potatoes back from obscurity | Taste amazing | Varieties date from pre 1950
www.potatohouse.co.uk www.potatohouse.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: nmc
halfcenturyup said:
Well, this is the thing. As I understand it, they aren't disputing the value of the sponsorship. They are suggesting that the Etihad sponsorship was funded into Etihad by Mansour and so should be shown as equity investment rather than income. It's a ludicrous notion. It won't have any chance of success.
Click to expand...
It failed at CAS so I can't see it succeeding here. But I'd say that they're looking beyond Etihad, maybe at the Etisalat & other sponsorships, where there is some evidence that (at one point) ADUG may have funded these. Although my understanding is that Etisalat repaid that money prior to FFP kicking in and blocking that sort of arrangement.

But how it was funded shouldn't be a problem as it wasn't against any known rules prior to 2011/12. More likely it'll be something to do with the amount not being 'fair market value' or a related party transaction that wasn't disclosed. That could potentially be a financial reporting issue but I do now wonder if that's why City have gone to court, claiming that the PL are charging us with transactions that weren't actually against the rules that existed when they took place.
 
Big Dave Watson said:
Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.
Click to expand...
I’m slightly confused over the charges regarding Uefa FFP,I thought this was all dealt with when we went to CAS so how has this raised its head amongst the charges from the premier league..
 
Big Dave Watson said:
Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.
Click to expand...
If we didn't put image rights payments through the accounts, or excluded payments that we should have made to Mancini, then by definition we've under-reported expenses. But there's a separate issue as to whether that means our accounts don't show a 'true and fair' view. That would depend on materiality and an auditor wouldn't necessarily qualify accounts where the directors assured them that they'd followed the appropriate standards and legal requirements, and the amounts involved weren't material.

I very much doubt that even if they'd decided that Mancini's £1.75m a year from Al Jazira should have gone through our accounts, they'd regard that as material. They might write to the directors setting out their opinion but they wouldn't qualify the accounts as not presenting a true and fair view I'd say.
 
deano ou812 said:
I’m slightly confused over the charges regarding Uefa FFP,I thought this was all dealt with when we went to CAS so how has this raised its head amongst the charges from the premier league..
Click to expand...
They're claiming the accounts are fraudulent, so the accounts we submitted to UEFA are based on them
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It failed at CAS so I can't see it succeeding here. But I'd say that they're looking beyond Etihad, maybe at the Etisalat & other sponsorships, where there is some evidence that (at one point) ADUG may have funded these. Although my understanding is that Etisalat repaid that money prior to FFP kicking in and blocking that sort of arrangement.

But how it was funded shouldn't be a problem as it wasn't against any known rules prior to 2011/12. More likely it'll be something to do with the amount not being 'fair market value' or a related party transaction that wasn't disclosed. That could potentially be a financial reporting issue but I do now wonder if that's why City have gone to court, claiming that the PL are charging us with transactions that weren't actually against the rules that existed when they took place.
Click to expand...

Yes. Etisalat is pretty complicated for a small contract and there are, I think, some accounting issues around it, but it's so immaterial. If they are hanging their hat on that to get a result, a lot of people are going to be disappointed I think.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
If we didn't put image rights payments through the accounts, or excluded payments that we should have made to Mancini, then by definition we've under-reported expenses. But there's a separate issue as to whether that means our accounts don't show a 'true and fair' view. That would depend on materiality and an auditor wouldn't necessarily qualify accounts where the directors assured them that they'd followed the appropriate standards and legal requirements, and the amounts involved weren't material.

I very much doubt that even if they'd decided that Mancini's £1.75m a year from Al Jazira should have gone through our accounts, they'd regard that as material. They might write to the directors setting out their opinion but they wouldn't qualify the accounts as not presenting a true and fair view I'd say.
Click to expand...

I was never very clear about this image right business, PB. Didn't we sell commercialisation to a third party for a number of years? We got an upfront payment to help us pass FFP, and the third party then should have accounted for income from image rights and the corresponding costs?

And for Mancini, we can't be putting the cost of other company's contracts through our accounts can we? We have no legal obligation to account for all a manager's, or player's, costs through our accounts surely? Only those relating to contracts the club/company has signed?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I do now wonder if that's why City have gone to court, claiming that the PL are charging us with transactions that weren't actually against the rules that existed when they took place.
Click to expand...
There is no court (or even arbitration) route to go down for a dispute like this. This would simply be a defence at the independent panel.

Something wrong with Zeigler article. Much of it (obviously briefed by someone) doesn't make much logical sense. I'd be cautious reading too much into it.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well, this is the thing. As I understand it, they aren't disputing the value of the sponsorship. They are suggesting that the Etihad sponsorship was funded into Etihad by Mansour and so should be shown as equity investment rather than income. It's a ludicrous notion. It won't have any chance of success.
Click to expand...

If you look through the charges you get the impression of a witch hunt based on assumptions and the frustration that comes with it, they were not happy when Uefa couldn't punish us and took it upon themselves to carry out the task but they'd fail here too as assumptions won't hold up without evidence and they have feck all
 
projectriver said:
There is no court (or even arbitration) route to go down for a dispute like this. This would simply be a defence at the independent panel.

Something wrong with Zeigler article. Much of it (obviously briefed by someone) doesn't make much logical sense. I'd be cautious reading too much into it.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I'm no lawyer but I've been telling people to treat the story about objecting to Murray Rosen with a large pinch of salt. Based on what you've said previously, I thought the only thing we could go to court on is where there was a dispute of a point of law or where we were claiming abuse of process. As we're not aware anything substantive has happened yet, maybe not even appointment of the 3-man panel, then that must rule out any issue over a point of law.

That seems to suggest to me that the only other reason we could go to court is over abuse of process, but that process has barely started.
 
This is my first post. I have supported City since the late 1970s and have been a season ticket/card holder since 1995 when we moved close enough to Manchester to make the journeys. I have read the forums for many years now and have learned more about issues such as this from threads like this than any other source. I have no great insight on this and do not have access to any privileged information or legal skills. But it’s nice to share thought with fellow blues. Like everyone else on here I have been disgusted with the coverage of the charges and find the concerted efforts of the red-top teams to bring us down appalling. I have tried arguing our case on social media and tried to inform fans of the usual suspects what is actually going on. But as many have pointed out on here it’s virtually impossible to get over the uninformed rants which usually contain the words ‘cheat’, ‘oil money’, ‘state-owned’ etc – you all know the narrative. I’m torn between trying to tell as many people as I can about the injustices we have suffered from the avaricious behaviour of the red-top clubs and just giving it up as whatever you say they come back with the same misguided nonsense.



We all tend to think our own are the best. But one thing I am absolutely convinced about is the integrity of the owners and the excellent management team they have installed right through the club. I used to teach in a university Management School and it always seemed a huge irony that if you were looking for an organisation that had great vision and achieved such great success in its corporate strategy as a case study – MCFC would be a magnificent example. Yet the ‘football authorities’ are trying to crush us and reward inefficient competitors who come nowhere near our standards of excellence. Problem is how you do you convince people that is true? I often tell myself to just forget the background noise and just concentrate on the magnificent football we have been luck enough to witness over recent years. But it’s not good pretending that I am not hurt by the constant jibes and untruths which are thrown our way. The other thing I am certain of is the resilience of our fans. I will always remember the first game in the third division (or whatever it was called then). Full to the rafters at Maine Road and we prevailed – like we will against this corrupt campaign to smear us. We have strong and capable management, owners with vision, an innovative coach who has changed the face of English football and we have fans who will fight and never give up. Apologies if much of my post is just emotional and lacks any facts of substance – we all know what I’m trying to say – but I think it’s still worth saying.
 
halfcenturyup said:
A couple of points:

I know you are trying to be reasonable but you have fallen for the media narrative that the club has "infinte wealth". We have a rich owner, yes, but he is limited as to what he can invest in squads the same as anyone else.

Also, I don't think City fans despise "super clubs", at least no more than other rival fans. It's the arrogance of these "super clubs" who want a closed shop that grates, in the case of CIty for obvious reasons.

Lastly, your salary cap idea won't float, I don't think, nor should it. There is a club level salary cap that will limit wages and amortisation to 70% of revenues soon. So I am not sure there would be much point testing European labour law for no reason whatsoever..

I will throw you a few bones, though. It's true that City have a higher potential for sponsorship revenues because of who our owners and our directors are. I sometimes have a tinge of guilt about that. But then I remember how Liverpool and United became so successful and I don't give a toss anymore. You want to compete? Get better executives, and probably better owners.

It is also true that our owners can invest as much as they want into CFG, buying new clubs to strengthen recruitment. I haven't seen much benefit to City as yet, but if I was one of the "heritage" clubs of yours, I would stop worrying about what happened ten years ago and start looking at that particular steam train that is hurtling to wards them very, very quickly.

Lastly, it is true that the infrastructure investment exemption has meant we could invest large amounts in the academy, for example, largely unhindered. You can expect the benefits of that little investment to become obvious in the next five years. But don't blame us. We didn't make the rules.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. They still don't seem to have grasped the scope of the march that we stole on them.

Been telling my red-supporting friends over here for years: that wasn't just a Blue Moon that rose, it was a Blue DeathStar.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Unlike you, I'm no lawyer but I've been telling people to treat the story about objecting to Murray Rosen with a large pinch of salt. Based on what you've said previously, I thought the only thing we could go to court on is where there was a dispute of a point of law or where we were claiming abuse of process. As we're not aware anything substantive has happened yet, maybe not even appointment of the 3-man panel, then that must rule out any issue over a point of law.

That seems to suggest to me that the only other reason we could go to court is over abuse of process, but that process has barely started.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier on this thread. We've been to the High Court on the potential "unconscious bias" of the panel in the earlier disputes re the investigation. It was comprehensively dismissed then - I just can't see how any court says Rosen is unsuitable to appoint a panel (or sit on one) purely as an Arsenal fan. If he has said things or City have specific evidence of bias, then that is different. So I am sceptical, Rosen is at the centre of any winnable dispute.
 
Big Dave Watson said:
Don’t know whether it’s been asked yet?

How have the PL been able to level the charge of false accounting? What have they seen in our accounts that is false? To make a charge they must have seen something, they can’t have just made it up surely?

I understand the other charges around Mancini, Image Rights and failing UEFA FFP but surely they have to have seen a problem in the accounts to level that particular charge?

Confused.
Click to expand...

There's so many ifs, buts and maybes about that aspect of the case against us it's hard to see how those more serious charges can be sustained - only time will tell. However, I have grave reservations about the fairness of the procedure and whether we can receive a fair hearing given the amount of pressure being exerted by all corners of the media and the old cartel clubs. I think the fairness of the proceedings is a point being taken in the High Court case alongside the fact the PL is seeking to apply the Rules retrospectively. I don't claim to be an expert but i sense the stakes are very high in the upcoming High Court case as if it goes against us, the "independent" tribunal will sense the way the wind is blowing and see it as a licence to come down hard on us.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top