PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Blue Llama]

You're right - the standard of reporting is abysmal. Right the way through from web articles written by kids (or so it seems) to so-called quality broad sheets. The quality of writing is superior in the latter but the content is normally biased and uninformative. It all adds up to provide fodder for belligerent key warriors to do their stuff on social media and turn the whole football community against us. Why haven't any of these analysed the charges like our legal and financial colleagues on here - pointing out that there are really 4/5 charges and not 115. That would be good analytical writing making a contribution to what is a complex subject. But of course they would prefer to trumpet the 115 charges so that social media dimwits can peddle the line of how can you not be guilty - some of these charges must be true. I get the fact that football is tribal and do not expect or want support from our red friends - but it is not unreasonable to expect the media to be informative and objective. I can honestly say I have only garnered information and perspectives from this thread - particularly those who have a legal and financial background and I am extremely grateful for all their efforts.

Certainly the BBC News team have different levels and editorial standards to meet than the sports department. The former take pains to explain how stories that could be influenced by vested interests is 'verified'. Sports department say what they want, even ignoring known facts to smear shit.

 

[BlueAnorak]

What did we do up to 2018, that cannot be included in the charge sheet up to the present date?

Didn't we change the way we paid image rights?

If so, is that an admission of guilt, or an agreement?

As Man Ure, Newcastle and 3 others were found to have actually broken HMRC tax rules on Image rights in an actual HMRC investigation and had to pay up and cancel their existing deals then what have we done differently?
Oh yes we saw the way the wind was blowing and canceled our deal and retrospectively paid the tax we owed without a HMRC tax investigation. HMRC were happy with that.
We all know why the PL aren't

 

[halfcenturyup]

What did we do up to 2018, that cannot be included in the charge sheet up to the present date?

Didn't we change the way we paid image rights?

If so, is that an admission of guilt, or an agreement?

The image right deal may have had a fixed duration.

Notwithstanding that, accounting is a wonderful profession. Two parties can account for an issue in completely different ways, both of them correct from an accounting point of view, but acceptable to one party for one reason and unacceptable to the other party for a different reason. What I am trying to say is that just because an accounting treatment was ended in negotiation with a third party doesn't mean that the original treatment was wrong, just that there was more than one way of accounting for it, and the other party, in this case a regulatory body, prefers the other way. Does that make any sense?

Btw, accountancy is a jungle, where men are real men ;)

 

[dario2739]

What I don't understand is surely other clubs in this league had done some kind of wrongdoing but we never hear or see a case being made about them.

Just pointing out

I always used to say - regarding the Rags back in the day – absolute power corrupts absolutely... there has been many scandals regarding them out in the press from time-to-time, but they always got swept under the carpet (absolute power again?).
United and Liverpool will have been up to all sorts of shit in the past, but in the days of handwritten accounts and brown envelopes, the evidence of that will be hard to find/prove.
Now we live in a technical world, where everything's online and pricks can hack into your systems... and it's so easy to edit emails, photos etc... and add to that, the power of social media to be used as a tool to influence an opinion!
I hope that City learned a hard lesson from the UEFA accusations and have been getting their own shit about every other club in the league/CL so we can fuck them all over once we're cleared!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What did we do up to 2018, that cannot be included in the charge sheet up to the present date?

Didn't we change the way we paid image rights?

If so, is that an admission of guilt, or an agreement?

Apart from the non-cooperation charges, which go up to this financial year, that's the only information they have, as the Der Spiegel articles were published then. But the image rights arrangement appears to have ended in 2018, as Fordham stopped trading and our wage bill went up by a noticeable amount (c£50m). We also know UEFA discussed the Fordham arrangement with us in 2015.

My guess is that we weren't including it in the figures for player remuneration from 2013 to 2015 but did after that discussion with UEFA. I'd also guess that the c.£50m increase is about 3 or 4 years of the Fordham payments. That's complete speculation on my part but based on the amounts that seemed to be going through Fordham (which is difficult to see accurately as they didn't publish a P&L account). It's possible therefore that we 'transferred' the accumulated 2016-18 image rights payments back into our own books (but had reported it to UEFA after 2015 assuming we hadn't before).

That'd be my guess but, if I'm right you'd have to ask why UEFA didn't bring charges for that? On the surface failing to report around £15m a year (give or take a couple of million), might seem a pretty egregious breach of FFP. They almost certainly had us bang to rights, yet didn't charge us even after Der Spiegel had published the arrangement. It's possible that we argued it was an entirely personal payment to the players, which while clubs generally paid it directly, we'd legally assigned the rights to a third-party (Fordham), received a consideration for that and that it was a matter between Fordham and the players after that. That still begs the question, what did Fordham get out of it?

But UEFA's lawyers could have looked at it and thought that, while it was rather 'cute', it didn't actually break any rules and there was little or no prospect of successfully arguing the case (and they wouldn't have known about CAS at that point).

I've always said that the sponsorships/related party issue and the Mancini contract are red herrings, blind alleys, whatever you want ot call them but that Fordham was probably the most questionable. But if it was that questionable then I'm sure UEFA would have charged us, which is why I'd question the chances of the PL succeeding.

UEFA took 3 or 4 months from the publication of the Der Spiegel articles to the CFCB issuing the 2-season ban. The PL has taken over 4 years and come up with not very much. The haste with which they appeared to issue the charges, and the subsequent withdrawal of some because they'd completely messed up, plus the rumours that Levy was allegedly pressuring them just before they were issued, suggests to me they knew they had very little but decided to go ahead anyway, as it least it muddied the waters.

 

[dario2739]

What did we do up to 2018, that cannot be included in the charge sheet up to the present date?

Didn't we change the way we paid image rights?

If so, is that an admission of guilt, or an agreement?

Didn't Prestwich_Blue say that the image rights details were on public record... and the company set up to pay them was listed on Company's House, and again in the public demain for all to see...
...if so, it's not as if the Club was hiding anything!?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Didn't Prestwich_Blue say that the image rights details were on public record... and the company set up to pay them was listed on Company's House, and again in the public demain for all to see...
...if so, it's not as if the Club was hiding anything!?

We really tried hard to cover our tracks.

 

[abu13]

I keep on hearing that we pay Haaland £835k a week more than double what anyone else was prepared to pay, do people seriously believe this?

I know he is a top class player but really.

Lets assume that Madrid offered him £400k a week, he is a known City fan who had the chance to play for us, not only that but also to play under Pep and with a genuine chance of clearing up a serious amount of silverware over the next 5 years. With this in mind do people really think that we topped it up by another £435k on top just to make sure we got him.

And that's before we talk about the supposed £50 million signing on fee split between him and Alfie.

The same people then claim he will walk away from this to go and play for Madrid in a couple of years, almost like they can't decide which bullshit to believe.

 

[Centurions]

View attachment 80540

We really tried hard to cover our tracks.

No wonder the buggers caught us, York away it is then.

 

[LongsightM13]

I keep on hearing that we pay Haaland £835k a week more than double what anyone else was prepared to pay, do people seriously believe this?

I know he is a top class player but really.

Lets assume that Madrid offered him £400k a week, he is a known City fan who had the chance to play for us, not only that but also to play under Pep and with a genuine chance of clearing up a serious amount of silverware over the next 5 years. With this in mind do people really think that we topped it up by another £435k on top just to make sure we got him.

And that's before we talk about the supposed £50 million signing on fee split between him and Alfie.

The same people then claim he will walk away from this to go and play for Madrid in a couple of years, almost like they can't decide which bullshit to believe.

The only ‘source’ for that bullshit was Mike Keegan, acting as a stenographer for someone at liverpool or united who was bitter about Erling choosing City and getting off to a flying start

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

You're right - the standard of reporting is abysmal. Right the way through from web articles written by kids (or so it seems) to so-called quality broad sheets. The quality of writing is superior in the latter but the content is normally biased and uninformative. It all adds up to provide fodder for belligerent key warriors to do their stuff on social media and turn the whole football community against us. Why haven't any of these analysed the charges like our legal and financial colleagues on here - pointing out that there are really 4/5 charges and not 115. That would be good analytical writing making a contribution to what is a complex subject. But of course they would prefer to trumpet the 115 charges so that social media dimwits can peddle the line of how can you not be guilty - some of these charges must be true. I get the fact that football is tribal and do not expect or want support from our red friends - but it is not unreasonable to expect the media to be informative and objective. I can honestly say I have only garnered information and perspectives from this thread - particularly those who have a legal and financial background and I am extremely grateful for all their efforts.

The problem is - and this is largely true whichever the outlet - you’ve got a bunch of journalists who are experienced in writing about Sport attempting to grapple with complex financial, legal and geopolitical concepts and arguments - issues about which they are clearly hopelessly out of their depth firstly in understanding and secondly in accurately representing in their articles.

You layer onto that a bad faith approach in most cases based on basic football tribalism (although in some I suspect there’s a lot more to it than that), in which there’s simply no incentive or appetite to even try and understand the complex convergence of arguments and factors at play which underpin this story - as it’s easier and generates more clicks to follow an ‘assumption of guilt’ narrative - and you’ve got the current woefully inadequate, staggeringly simplistic coverage of what should be an interesting story.

Why anyone would expect a bunch of sports reporters to be remotely capable of writing about geopolitics, governance and finance is way beyond me.

Just as I’d have no interest in reading the FT’s Chief Economics Commentator writing about the rough and tumble of a relegation six pointer, I have no interest in hearing Miguel Delaney desperately groping about trying to explain the complex political and social history of the Middle East, or the legal arguments for and against in the CAS case against City - particularly when he very clearly hasn’t even bothered to read any of the relevant documents relating to the case.

I mean - most of these fucking idiots can’t even seem to grasp the fact that Abu Dhabi isn’t a state, when they’re busy calling us ‘state owned’!

Why would I trust their understanding of way more complex issues when they get the most elementary, entry level concepts completely wrong!

 

[SilverFox2]

He looked like someone with a dose of the shits that was stuck out on the pitch when he could feel the next bout coming on.

I would like to think that is because he heard some 'hard truths' - I tend to think that it was more him thinking about how to best serve his real employers

I seem to recall our battle with UEFA where the then top man there was supposed to be sympathetic to our cause.
Like him Mr
Masters will just carry on regardless, maybe thinking that his current redshirt wearing members may abandon the scapegoat PL if things go pear shape.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I keep on hearing that we pay Haaland £835k a week more than double what anyone else was prepared to pay, do people seriously believe this?

I know he is a top class player but really.

Lets assume that Madrid offered him £400k a week, he is a known City fan who had the chance to play for us, not only that but also to play under Pep and with a genuine chance of clearing up a serious amount of silverware over the next 5 years. With this in mind do people really think that we topped it up by another £435k on top just to make sure we got him.

And that's before we talk about the supposed £50 million signing on fee split between him and Alfie.

The same people then claim he will walk away from this to go and play for Madrid in a couple of years, almost like they can't decide which bullshit to believe.

They must have some really sharp brains at UEFA/PL as even MI5 or MI6 would have struggled to make the connection between us and Fordham.

 

[domalino]

@Prestwich_Blue if this case goes past the summer will we get another 5 charges added for non-cooperation for that season?

 

[halfcenturyup]

View attachment 80540

We really tried hard to cover our tracks.

Can you help me out with this again, PB. Is this the situation?

City managed image rights for some players. So they made money from the players' image, then paid some of that to the players. The easiest way to account for that is as some image rights income and some image rights expenses. But City needed some more income to meet FFP, so the club came up with the idea of selling some or all of those rights to a third party, in return for a one-off payment. Meaning we got money up front from the third party to help our FFP, then the third party commercialised the rights, earning money and paying the players a share of it.

Now, FFP didn't like that for two reasons: first it generated income that helped us meet FFP (we thought) and secondly because it confuses the position on amounts paid in total to players which, it seems, is important to them for some reason.

UEFA raised this with the club but didn't pursue it in their charge sheet. Why? No idea. Maybe because it was a perfectly valid business transaction, accounted for properly, and supported by legal and fiscal opinions, who knows? In any case, the activity was brought in-house again in 2018, probably as a result of negotiations with UEFA?

Is that it, more or less?

 

[horlock_was_super]

The Martin Samuel article is 'out there.'
How can one person be so against the tide?
If he has got insider information then once again the club have got it right in personnel recruitment.
Having this true sports journalist seemingly in our corner is on a par with Pep as manager and KdB in the first team.
I don't believe he would risk his reputation and standing within the game if he wasn't across the whole thing comprehensively.
I don't think his integrity would allow him to be a paid shrill or the like and he's playing the long game safe in the knowledge that he will always be the go to guy on matters City related going forward once this shit is done and dusted.
The fact that he's referenced other clubs who have been hoodwinked through FFP in this latest article will begin the ringing of many alarm bells among supporters of other clubs I am sure.
Top six (sadly we're a part of it like it or not). Everyone else - Want success? From now on accept your place, take your turn at being this seasons yo-yo club, parachute payments will see you right and when we decide to change the rules to suit ourselves again you'll be the last to know!

 

[Come-on-City]

Can you help me out with this again, PB. Is this the situation?

City managed image rights for some players. So they made money from the players' image, then paid some of that to the players. The easiest way to account for that is as some image rights income and some image rights expenses. But City needed some more income to meet FFP, so the club came up with the idea of selling some or all of those rights to a third party, in return for a one-off payment. Meaning we got money up front from the third party to help our FFP, then the third party commercialised the rights, earning money and paying the players a share of it.

Now, FFP didn't like that for two reasons: first it generated income that helped us meet FFP (we thought) and secondly because it confuses the position on amounts paid in total to players which, it seems, is important to them for some reason.

UEFA raised this with the club but didn't pursue it in their charge sheet. Why? No idea. Maybe because it was a perfectly valid business transaction, accounted for properly, and supported by legal and fiscal opinions, who knows? In any case, the activity was brought in-house again in 2018, probably as a result of negotiations with UEFA?

Is that it, more or less?

Yes, from what I have read that would be my summary.

All perfectly legal and a way to accelerate the receipt of income from sponsorships from a 5 year period into one accounting period - could be argued that the income should have been deferred (spread-out over the term of the agreement), but this would depend on the legals which we obviously do not have access too (and I doubt De Spiegel or Prem / UEFA would have done either).

As long as the accounting decision was sound and able to be argued then nothing to see here.

 

[Dinas]

I keep on hearing that we pay Haaland £835k a week more than double what anyone else was prepared to pay, do people seriously believe this?

I know he is a top class player but really.

Lets assume that Madrid offered him £400k a week, he is a known City fan who had the chance to play for us, not only that but also to play under Pep and with a genuine chance of clearing up a serious amount of silverware over the next 5 years. With this in mind do people really think that we topped it up by another £435k on top just to make sure we got him.

And that's before we talk about the supposed £50 million signing on fee split between him and Alfie.

The same people then claim he will walk away from this to go and play for Madrid in a couple of years, almost like they can't decide which bullshit to believe.

I keep getting this from the social media 'intelligentia'. I've commented to some that the figure is very interesting and that I would be grateful if they would pass on the source of said information. Comments range from 'well everyone knows it's true' to the Daily Mail or Sky Sports. It seems we are the only ones who are sceptical and cynical of the media have any credibility or authority. This is how the myths are peddled and I'm at a loss to see what we can do it about it except as fans to take them on at every opportunity and to keep on winning and showing what a remarkable organisation we are.

 

[citizen_maine]

The Martin Samuel article is 'out there.'
How can one person be so against the tide?
If he has got insider information then once again the club have got it right in personnel recruitment.
Having this true sports journalist seemingly in our corner is on a par with Pep as manager and KdB in the first team.
I don't believe he would risk his reputation and standing within the game if he wasn't across the whole thing comprehensively.
I don't think his integrity would allow him to be a paid shrill or the like and he's playing the long game safe in the knowledge that he will always be the go to guy on matters City related going forward once this shit is done and dusted.
The fact that he's referenced other clubs who have been hoodwinked through FFP in this latest article will begin the ringing of many alarm bells among supporters of other clubs I am sure.
Top six (sadly we're a part of it like it or not). Everyone else - Want success? From now on accept your place, take your turn at being this seasons yo-yo club, parachute payments will see you right and when we decide to change the rules to suit ourselves again you'll be the last to know!

I could be wrong, but i think it's purely coincidence that his stance on FFP is consistent with our (fans) stance on it. He has been consistently and vehemently anti-FFP since way before it was implemented and indeed before our takeover

 

[Dinas]

Apart from the non-cooperation charges, which go up to this financial year, that's the only information they have, as the Der Spiegel articles were published then. But the image rights arrangement appears to have ended in 2018, as Fordham stopped trading and our wage bill went up by a noticeable amount (c£50m). We also know UEFA discussed the Fordham arrangement with us in 2015.

My guess is that we weren't including it in the figures for player remuneration from 2013 to 2015 but did after that discussion with UEFA. I'd also guess that the c.£50m increase is about 3 or 4 years of the Fordham payments. That's complete speculation on my part but based on the amounts that seemed to be going through Fordham (which is difficult to see accurately as they didn't publish a P&L account). It's possible therefore that we 'transferred' the accumulated 2016-18 image rights payments back into our own books (but had reported it to UEFA after 2015 assuming we hadn't before).

That'd be my guess but, if I'm right you'd have to ask why UEFA didn't bring charges for that? On the surface failing to report around £15m a year (give or take a couple of million), might seem a pretty egregious breach of FFP. They almost certainly had us bang to rights, yet didn't charge us even after Der Spiegel had published the arrangement. It's possible that we argued it was an entirely personal payment to the players, which while clubs generally paid it directly, we'd legally assigned the rights to a third-party (Fordham), received a consideration for that and that it was a matter between Fordham and the players after that. That still begs the question, what did Fordham get out of it?

But UEFA's lawyers could have looked at it and thought that, while it was rather 'cute', it didn't actually break any rules and there was little or no prospect of successfully arguing the case (and they wouldn't have known about CAS at that point).

I've always said that the sponsorships/related party issue and the Mancini contract are red herrings, blind alleys, whatever you want ot call them but that Fordham was probably the most questionable. But if it was that questionable then I'm sure UEFA would have charged us, which is why I'd question the chances of the PL succeeding.

UEFA took 3 or 4 months from the publication of the Der Spiegel articles to the CFCB issuing the 2-season ban. The PL has taken over 4 years and come up with not very much. The haste with which they appeared to issue the charges, and the subsequent withdrawal of some because they'd completely messed up, plus the rumours that Levy was allegedly pressuring them just before they were issued, suggests to me they knew they had very little but decided to go ahead anyway, as it least it muddied the waters.

If the Levy thing is true and I don't doubt it at all - what does that say about the PL - being bullied by one of their less successful members to try to bring down the club that has provided the largest contribution to their product. I can't get my head around why any sensible organisation would do that. It seems to suggest to me that they have no long-term strategy. An organisation that was in touch with the market would see the long term benefits of City becoming more and more attractive. The failure to understand the changing nature of their commercial environment will threaten their future and they have all sorts of things to fear like the super league and more fans realising that they are backing losers (redtops) - or am I putting too much faith in people being able to comprehend what is going on?