PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
www.independent.co.uk

Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football

Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
M18CTID said:
Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
www.independent.co.uk

Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football

Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
Red clubs stirring shit through media. All their owners want is to milk the fans out of as much money as possible with the lowest risk. That is also why they forced UEFA into focusing on historic records in europe rather than actual Champions in the competition.
 
M18CTID said:
Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
www.independent.co.uk

Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football

Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
It is nonsense. Ignore
 
The perfect fumble said:
I'm no accountant, but I know what equity investment is. Clearly Tariq Panja does not.....

Click to expand...

Trying to understand what he was even try to say there was dizzying. That's how you know it's mental gymnastics(triple backflip).

It has me wondering if I understand it correctly. Which is, UEFA's accusation was disguised equity funding but that's based solely on the idea that Sheikh Mansour allegedly paid most of it and that wasn't disclosed in the accounts. The PL have their own term that I summarise as bad faith accounting.

What he is describing(aside from putting people's faces on shirts... arbitrary bs) is related party sponsorship(like PSG's arrangement with their sponsors, which is allowed as long as it's within FMV, why shouldn't it be?). A club hiding that would also breach some rules I imagine but since it was within UEFA's CFCB valuation range for those deals(since at least 2012/13), that would surely be an unnecessary risk to take from City's/Sheikh Mansour's perspective.

Also, if they did do it, you'd think they'd have left no trace of it, even to people working at City, rather than relying on people at the club having to work out how they are cheating the system and those people keeping their mouths shut too(which is what the press/der spiegel, UEFA and the PL have essentially been saying without realising it).

The accusation, if proven, might be used to suggest those deals are related party perhaps. Isn't the whole accusation a little too perfect for the cartel, when you think about it though... Considering having City's deals classed as related party wouldn't have affected City's break even requirement much at all for most, if not all of those years in question and likely will become even more useless to their accusers going forward?

I still believe the state paid that money, which would mean no rules were broken. Does anyone agree though(or can confirm if it's actually in the rules somewhere), if in another scenario, at a different club with a different sponsor:

If a sponsor could only pay a portion of the contracted amount, what would UEFA do once notified?

Would they, as I suspect, allow the owner to pay the remainder and double check he's not paid more than the contracted amount(or perhaps deciding on the FMV valuation of that deal for that period)? Deducting that in the break even calculations if necessary.

Or would they say: "Tough luck, take it up with your sponsor, you've failed break even requirements for this period"?

I find the latter a very unreasonable and unlikely answer personally.
 
Last edited:
The Future’s Blue! said:
Never mention Fight Club.

The clubs sign up to a treaty, the PL contract that is a memorandum of understanding. The PL hold all the rules and if clubs don’t want to follow, they don’t have to take the spoils and will soon be back in the Championship.

The PL, who have been controlled by the few, understand that times have changed and it is they that hold all the power. Bringing their broadcast indoors will suit them but nit sure how that will fare for sporting integrity.
Click to expand...
The three relegated clubs aren’t in the premiership though?
 
Metalartin said:
If a sponsor could only pay a portion of the contracted amount, what would UEFA do once notified?

Would they, as I suspect, allow the owner to pay the remainder and double check he's not paid more than the contracted amount(or perhaps deciding on the FMV valuation of that deal for that period)? Deducting that in the break even calculations if necessary.

Or would they say: "Tough luck, take it up with your sponsor, you've failed break even requirements for this period"?

I find the latter a very unreasonable and unlikely answer personally.
Click to expand...
I'm probably missing your point, but if the sponsor couldn't pay the full amount, it wouldn't appear in the accounts, as they're prepared after the money is paid aren't they?
 
M18CTID said:
Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:
www.independent.co.uk

Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football

Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
The only interesting line in that pile of biased and distorted crap is the one where he is at pains to say the Premier League is "absolutely" making no comment. As if. But it is absoutely clear that he has been given a briefing from one of the PL clubs who are part of the witchhunt against City. He mentions a London source so my money is on Daniel Levy though it could easily be David Gill or someone acting on his behalf.
So the leaking process continues unabated. Someone high up in the PL leaks information about the confidential discussions with City to someone at one of our commercial rivals and they then brief their pals in the media. This is a despicable smear campaign and it shows, once again, that the PL hierarchy are acting in bad faith. Presumably Delaney must think we are all fucking stupid. But he is very bad at covering his tracks.
 
citizen_maine said:
I'm probably missing your point, but if the sponsor couldn't pay the full amount, it wouldn't appear in the accounts, as they're prepared after the money is paid aren't they?
Click to expand...
But then the club's revenue would be down for that period, which means they might fall foul of the break even requirement through no fault of their own.

My point was, surely there is a process to allow an owner to pay that temporarily, if needs be, until the sponsor can pay the owner back for the amount owed. In the account report, the amount the sponsor paid would still be visible but the owner would be allowed to make up the difference for that accounting period(classed as equity perhaps).

The point being, if Sheikh Mansour wanted to pay the remaining balance himself, this could have been done without breaking any rules. The amount owed by the sponsor would then be between him and the sponsor.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
But then the club's revenue would be down for that period, which means they might fall foul of the break even requirement through no fault of their own.

My point was, surely there is a process to allow an owner to pay that temporarily, if needs be, until the sponsor can pay the owner back for the amount owed. In the account report, the amount the sponsor paid would still be visible but the owner would be allowed to make up the difference for that accounting period(classed as equity perhaps).

The point being, if Sheikh Mansour wanted to pay the remaining balance himself, this could have been done without breaking any rules. The amount owed by the sponsor would then be between him and the sponsor.
Click to expand...
I guess they'd say 'tough', though if the sponsor paid it in the following year it would level out over the 3 year accounting period?
 
citizen_maine said:
You are talking about UEFA?
Click to expand...
Yes I know but related party/equity funding is still allowed, they had to include it in some capacity to make sure these rules got approved in the first place. Even if that was their answer(I doubt it personally), I imagine City's lawers would find that an easy case to make. This is all hypothetical but if that was the only option(Sheikh Mansour dipping into his pockets), the advice he'd have been given would be to just pay the remainder and have that classed as equity funding or related party in the accounts, for a situation out of his hands. There's no way UEFA would be able to make charges stick then. It could have been a global sponsor that couldn't pay it, he'd most likely have wanted to do the same thing in the short term because it's what's best for the club. A sponsorship agreement, is a legally binding contract, for a set amount. That money is essentially guaranteed(just as a transfer fee is) as I understand it, so how would UEFA argue against it?
 
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