His own or Gill's.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I'd seen it before. It's quite objective in my opinion. Stefan has already said that knowingly providing false financial statements is a criminal offence so these are potentially very serious charges. But I think he says it will be difficult for the PL to make them stick, given the scale of the alleged breaches.
One thing that did occur to me listening to it again was that I'd lumped the Mancini/Fordham stuff in with the core charge of failure to provide accurate financial statements. However as these are separate from that under a different heading, then it's possible that even if we were found to have breached rules for either or both of those, then that doesn't mean the most serious charges would be automatically proven. But I doubt we'll be found to have breached those rules.
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,442
Mostly seems to be in agreement with what some of the legal minded posters on here have been saying.
Except for what he says about the accusation being that the sponsorship wasn't fair value and the sponsor overpaid to hide the running costs of the club, here:
The accusation on point 1, as most people here are aware, is as UEFA put it: 'disguised equity funding'. The sponsorship was fair value, if it wasn't, then there is a different charge for that(which PSG were accused of twice, 2014 and 2017/18). The issue came from the fact that Etihad only paid £8m from their accounts(that much is true) and the rest came from elsewhere... Exactly where the remaining balance came from, is what the case hinges on. If it's not a related party, then there is nothing wrong with that and the whole accusation falls apart. Why would there be a problem with it? Outside of football, an owner can support their business however they like and it's necessary sometimes. It's what Abu Dhabi were already doing with Etihad before that sponsorship started, as I understand it because they were prepared to run at a loss from the beginning.
I really wish the press would stop with this 'falsely inflated revenue' terminology, that they themselves coined(not seen UEFA or the PL use it anywhere), it's blatantly confusing people. That was otherwise a very good video, from someone who has a good understanding of law.
Last edited:
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Maybe the Premier League should consider this..
brandirectory.com
Football 50 2023 | The Annual Brand Value Ranking | Brandirectory
The annual report on the most valuable and strongest football brands
brandirectory.com
What I find bizarre about the excessive and overly negative coverage which lacks balance is that if our detractors actually followed the logic of their arguments as the video explains its even more serous than they would have us believe which is why I don’t think the accusations are true or at least provable. Which is why I don’t think they really utter some of the words phrases etc for fear of a being sued and b showing how stupid the charges must be. You can hate city you can think we are dodgy etc but do you real think that 9 years of accounts are wrong along with a massive conspiracy between auditors Etihad Mancini the Sheik etc etc etc
As I mentioned earlier, the video is a (plagiarised) summary of my work on Twitter/Twitter Spaces.
Your quote above is emphatically not correct.
City stated at CAS (p26 summarising City's skeleton): "As well as the evidence previously before the Adjudicatory Chamber, Etihad has confirmed through Mr Hogan, its President and CEO throughout the period in issue, that the finding of the Adjudicatory Chamber is “simply not true". He also explains that marketing costs, like other operational expenses, were met by funds managed both centrally and at the commercial team level. Mr Pearce explains that he understood that £8 million was available from the airline's marketing budget, with the remainder coming from Etihad’s central funds.
This evidence is further supported by a confirmation from the Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee of Etihad that the accounts of Etihad for the relevant financial years recorded (i) the full amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements as liabilities of Etihad and(ii) the payments made by Etihad to MCFC as settling those liabilities in full. In addition, no amounts were shown in the accounts as being set off against these sponsorship obligations.
Consequently, absent an allegation that the accounts of Etihad were falsely prepared, which even the CFCB has not to date been willing to make, the “disguised equity” funding allegation fails."
CAS concluded (page 79):
"290. The Leaked Emails discuss an arrangement whereby Etihad’s sponsorship contributions would be funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG. The participation of HHSM and/orADUG and Etihad isa prerequisite for the arrangement to be executed, but such participation has not been established. M r Pearce may have tried to implement the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails, but in the view of the m ajority o f the Panel there is no evidence on file establishing that he actually went ahead w ith or succeeded in such attempt.
291. Based on the evidence in front of it, in particular the witness statements which again the Panel notes were not before the Adjudicatory Chamber, the letters issued by Etihad executives and the accounting evidence provided by MCFC, the m ajority o f the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were in fact executed. There is not sufficient evidence on file to establish that arrangements were actually made between MCFC and HHSM and/or ADUG or between HFISM and/or ADUG and Etihad or that HHSM and/or ADUG funded part of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations directly. In the absence ofalink being provenbetween HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad (as indicated in the figure below), the majority o f the Panel finds that UEFA’s theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated."
Also in fairness to the media, "artificially inflated" revenue is terminology used by CAS (p65) and is clearly inferred by the PL charges.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
Manchester City FC’s enormous revenue is
largely attributable to its continued on-pitch success, cemented by its recent triumph over Real Madrid
CF in the Champions League semi-finals with an impressive 4-0 victory. The club’s winning streak continued as they went onto to secure their third consecutive Premier League title after beating Chelsea FC 1-0. The club’s successes in major tournaments have generated enormous broadcasting revenues, including a massive prize pot from its Champions League progression.
Further, Manchester City FC’s triumphant win against the Spanish champions (who have won the Champions League trophy a record 14 times) has earned them international exposure and prestige, which has in turn boosted their sponsorship and commercial revenues. Back on the club’s home turf, a planned £300 million upgrade of their beloved Etihad Stadium is the
next step in propelling the Northern powerhouse’s commercial success.
As well as boosting the club’s global reputation and prestige, a historic Champions League win for Manchester City FC would tick off the final objective in an extraordinary journey initiated by Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour, who took over the club in 2008.
brandirectory.com
Worth downloading the full report. Might not address the legal intricacies but the overview basically says success leads to more money…who knew?
There was an obvious push needed at the start, which hasn’t been proved was outside the rules, but since then success on the pitch has been wonderfully exploited off the pitch by people who obviously know what they are doing.
Very hard for our rivals to accept.It must seem like magic to them. A well run club can challenge and pass clubs that stand still relying on historical exploits from an age increasingly forgotten with each passing season.
largely attributable to its continued on-pitch success, cemented by its recent triumph over Real Madrid
CF in the Champions League semi-finals with an impressive 4-0 victory. The club’s winning streak continued as they went onto to secure their third consecutive Premier League title after beating Chelsea FC 1-0. The club’s successes in major tournaments have generated enormous broadcasting revenues, including a massive prize pot from its Champions League progression.
Further, Manchester City FC’s triumphant win against the Spanish champions (who have won the Champions League trophy a record 14 times) has earned them international exposure and prestige, which has in turn boosted their sponsorship and commercial revenues. Back on the club’s home turf, a planned £300 million upgrade of their beloved Etihad Stadium is the
next step in propelling the Northern powerhouse’s commercial success.
As well as boosting the club’s global reputation and prestige, a historic Champions League win for Manchester City FC would tick off the final objective in an extraordinary journey initiated by Abu Dhabi’s Sheikh Mansour, who took over the club in 2008.
Football 50 2023 | The Annual Brand Value Ranking | Brandirectory
The annual report on the most valuable and strongest football brands
brandirectory.com
Worth downloading the full report. Might not address the legal intricacies but the overview basically says success leads to more money…who knew?
There was an obvious push needed at the start, which hasn’t been proved was outside the rules, but since then success on the pitch has been wonderfully exploited off the pitch by people who obviously know what they are doing.
Very hard for our rivals to accept.It must seem like magic to them. A well run club can challenge and pass clubs that stand still relying on historical exploits from an age increasingly forgotten with each passing season.
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,941
While you are here PB, what is your view on the wording of the first set of breaches?
"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".
There is no requirement that annual accounts be accurate, as far as I know, only that they show a true and fair view. Certainly, no annual accounts I ever audited were accurate in all respects, but as long as the true and fair view given by the accounts wasn't impaired, they got a clean audit report nevertheless. And the PL handbook doesn't talk about accurate financial information either, only about annual accounts with an unqualified audit opnion, and certain other information (interim/forecasts) prepared on the same basis. So what are they getting at with this "accurate" comment, do you think?
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I suppose it is how you interpret the word "inflated." To me it implies that City's sponsor payments were higher than they should have been ie "above market value." This phrase has been distorted by the media.
LeonardoDaVnci
Well-Known Member
Radio 4 Today Programme
In between the extremely serious escalation in Ukraine and the CBI death spiral the Today editors found time to discuss the PL charges.
A football finance expert (for balance from Liverpool University) summarised the charges as historical and concerned three categories (usual tropes), inflating revenues, deflating costs and non cooperation. Which all sounded a bit lame really, He did confirm we were exonerated at CAS but wasn't pushed why the PL charges were needed. No mention of the poitically motivated nature of the charges ie the PL/cartel but did say the tribal nature of fans meant City were unfairly convicted daily in the MSM and social media.
However he did admit the club management in all areas was excellent. I think any reasonable neutral listener would be thnking wtf is this doing on the Today Programme.
We can expect lots more of this as the build up continues to Saturday...
In between the extremely serious escalation in Ukraine and the CBI death spiral the Today editors found time to discuss the PL charges.
A football finance expert (for balance from Liverpool University) summarised the charges as historical and concerned three categories (usual tropes), inflating revenues, deflating costs and non cooperation. Which all sounded a bit lame really, He did confirm we were exonerated at CAS but wasn't pushed why the PL charges were needed. No mention of the poitically motivated nature of the charges ie the PL/cartel but did say the tribal nature of fans meant City were unfairly convicted daily in the MSM and social media.
However he did admit the club management in all areas was excellent. I think any reasonable neutral listener would be thnking wtf is this doing on the Today Programme.
We can expect lots more of this as the build up continues to Saturday...
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,941
I am a cantankerous old ****, but I don't have a problem with the word inflated in this context. I suppose their argument is that the sponsorship has been inflated above a level which Etisalat and Etihad could pay and so Mansour had to top it up. Which is a ridiculous notion for many reasons, the main one being they are both owned by the emirate of Abu Dhabi and they don't need small change from Mansour to pay for anything.
And yes, it has been taken in some quarters to mean sponsorship above market value which isn't the issue at all afaik. But who cares? Not Mansour, apparently.
It is worse than that. The allegation is that they were not just above market value but that they were, in essence, fake agreements. The market value argument won't fly. Even UEFA don't argue with that. CAS said:
"Both Etisalat and Etihad entered into sponsorship partnerships with MCFC in the 2009/10 football season, and those partnerships have evolved and have been renegotiated over the years. Both sponsorship arrangements were entered into for fair value. In any event, the CFCB has not put fair value in issue in these proceedings."
Asa's left peg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 4,584
- Location
- Sandbach via Rusholme
- Team supported
- Some team in the CFG
I still can't get my head around the fact they inspected our accounts regularly over the period, on a regular basis (and in a atmosphere of regular accusations) and suspected nothing and found nothing wrong. It speaks volumes about their own processes. It's not like we hide our dealings in the Caiman Islands or other places .
Assuming they haven't any new shit, then this is just a mud slinging operation which (as the video suggests ) will blow up in the face of the PL eventually down the line, when some other big 4/5/6 appointee will have to deal with.
Assuming they haven't any new shit, then this is just a mud slinging operation which (as the video suggests ) will blow up in the face of the PL eventually down the line, when some other big 4/5/6 appointee will have to deal with.
Couldn't help but have a wry smile, when the completely unbiased and objective UEFA vice president and treasurer was sat next to Bacon Face in matching suits and ties. Nothing to see here............
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
It all points to the PL repeating the mistakes of UEFA and making allegations against City with little or no evidence. The main purpose of this witchunt has been to undermine City driven by a hostile (and in come cases racist) media.
We still don't know why the PL would put its own reputation at risk to do this. When Richard Masters came in he had an opportinity to review this politically-motivated investigation and find a way to stop it and save some face.
Instead he chose to go nuclear. It's not clear why he did this but you can only assume he was under severe pressure from the Directors at MUFC and LFC who actually vetted his appointment. We still don't know why three other candidates (who were offered the PL job) pulled out. Perhaps part of the deal with Masters was that a condition of taking the job was that "he should do something about City." Something smells about the entire case.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,941
You think the actual charge is that the sponsorship agreements were, in essence, fake? Not just that they were partly funded by Mansour himself? Even though they were at a fair value and services were provided at full value? And paid for?
I struggle with that.
Yes I think the charge is far more than who paid for the contractual requirement. It is an allegation that the contract was not as disclosed or as was found in the club's accounts. On sponsorship, I think this is simply a re-run of UEFA/CAS presented with more disclosure and a second bite.
That objective UEFA officer who reportedly informed UEFA that, by his calculations, City’s total sponsorship income was £300m above fair market value. UEFA did not use it.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,941
Fair enough. I still struggle with that as an accountant but I am, as everyone tells me, no lawyer :)