PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bobbyowenquiff]

Didn’t know where to put this. But FFP changing with the wind in Europe.

I’d joke that they’ll come after us for inflating the Sterling fee if I didn’t think they might..

UEFA to introduce emergency rule blocking clubs from inflating transfer fees

The governing body's executive committee are set to vote on amendments to financial fair play rules during meeting next week and reports suggests a new proposal in wake of Juventus scandal could see an end to clubs selling players for more than the market says they are worth

www.mirror.co.uk

Hilarious quote from Ceferin saying: "We can't have just five teams winning the Champions League all the time." But eight out of the last 12 seasons it has been won by the same three teams: Real Madrid, Barca, and Bayern. It is only the arrival of Chelsea and now City which has broken the monopoly. He must think fans are bloody stupid but don't expect anyone in the media to challenge him on his bogus claims.

 

[danielwood5]

White and Jordan discussing interview on TS now

Their opinion and intellectual insight is as much use as Bert and Ernie but not as entertaining.

 

[cheekybids]

Relax. PB was talking hypothetically.

Afaik, nobody is questioning the value of the sponsorships. And the club proved to CAS that ADUG didn't pay any money to Etihad.

(You can stop reading here if you like)

But, if you have a moment, just consider what the PL is suggesting. They are saying Etihad entered into a sponsorship agreement at fair value but could only pay 8 milion of it and had to get funds from ADUG for the other 60 million. This is the Etihad that is funded by the government of Abu Dhabi, not known to be short of cash, and that funded losses at that time of a billion a year. They would make that arrangement for 60 million? It doesn't make any sense to me, no matter what evidence they think they have.

Add to that my opinion, that, assuming we accept the sponsorship was at fair value, the accounts give a true and fair view just as they are, then even that doesn't really matter. For reference, the club's accounts don't have to be either accurate (no accounts are accurate, they all have things wrong with them), or give a true and fair view of the club's financial position for PL purposes. They have to give a true and fair view to any "normal" reader of the accounts, say someone potentially trying to invest in the club. To that reader of the accounts, showing a fair value sponsorship as equity would actually distort the view given by the accounts, because they wouldn't show the true potential for income generation. Even if Mansour, in my opinion, delivered bags of cash over to Etihad himself on the backseat of his Maserati. Because it is the fair value of the contract and the fact the contract was fulfilled by both parties that determines the true and fair accounting treatment, not how it was funded. The PL may want a different treatment for their purposes, but the accounts, imho, are fine just as they are.

It’s down to the racist view that “Arabs” are all the same.

Sheik Mansour can’t have a personal investment….

Etihad, Emirates & Qatar airlines were being accused by US airlines of being subsidised by state funding, no idea what’s wrong with that apart from disadvantaging US airlines. However, which is it?

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

It’s down to the racist view that “Arabs” are all the same.

Sheik Mansour can’t have a personal investment….

Etihad, Emirates & Qatar airlines were being accused by US airlines of being subsidised by state funding, no idea what’s wrong with that apart from disadvantaging US airlines. However, which is it?

Newcastle, City, Everton, all under serious investigations, all Middle Eastern owners.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Didn’t know where to put this. But FFP changing with the wind in Europe.

I’d joke that they’ll come after us for inflating the Sterling fee if I didn’t think they might..

UEFA to introduce emergency rule blocking clubs from inflating transfer fees

The governing body's executive committee are set to vote on amendments to financial fair play rules during meeting next week and reports suggests a new proposal in wake of Juventus scandal could see an end to clubs selling players for more than the market says they are worth

www.mirror.co.uk

Any such rules will be almost immediately struck down in the EU and UK for many reasons, but the most basic is determining “fair market value” for any given player at any given time—ignoring the basic principle that they are worth whatever entities are willing to pay to get their registration rights—is a ludicrously complex, inaccurate, and easily manipulated process.

It is a non-starter from a trade practices and freedoms perspective, especially after recent rulings concerning fair market sponsorship assessments.

This is the last desperate act before FFP is challenged en masse and scrapped altogether. It is a bone being thrown to teams to try to avoid a resurgence of momentum toward a Super League.

Ironically, it will just hasten it.

 

[Txiki Txiki Bang Bang]

Hilarious quote from Ceferin saying: "We can't have just five teams winning the Champions League all the time." But eight out of the last 12 seasons it has been won by the same three teams: Real Madrid, Barca, and Bayern. It is only the arrival of Chelsea and now City which has broken the monopoly. He must think fans are bloody stupid but don't expect anyone in the media to challenge him on his bogus claims.

I think Martin Samuel might have something to say about this.

 

[Damocles]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uae-to-invest-10-billion-in-priority-uk-industries

"Dear Mr Sunak,

Can you please explain why your nationally funded footballing body is accusing my brother and Vice President of being a fraudulent crook and liar? Is this the price of investment into your country?

Regards,
Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan
President of the UAE

Cc: Khaldoon Al Mubarak
CEO Mubadala Investment Company
Chairman City Football Group"

 

[Manx Blue]

Their opinion and intellectual insight is as much use as Bert and Ernie but not as entertaining.

Stadtler and Waldorf or however you spell their names

 

[Tracking back]

Do you mean Persil?

I said it was a household name.

I didn't say I could spell it. ;-)

 

[waspish]

Didn’t know where to put this. But FFP changing with the wind in Europe.

I’d joke that they’ll come after us for inflating the Sterling fee if I didn’t think they might..

UEFA to introduce emergency rule blocking clubs from inflating transfer fees

The governing body's executive committee are set to vote on amendments to financial fair play rules during meeting next week and reports suggests a new proposal in wake of Juventus scandal could see an end to clubs selling players for more than the market says they are worth

www.mirror.co.uk

This is all about Saudi because they have rules in place for related club links

 

[Grassland Blue]

It might put a stop to the rags getting ripped off paying over the odds for shite players

Like slabhead?
City decided that £60m was a fair amount, but the rags paid £80m for him, 'because they could'.

 

[SilverFox2]

Any such rules will be almost immediately struck down in the EU and UK for many reasons, but the most basic is determining “fair market value” for any given player at any given time—ignoring the basic principle that they are worth whatever entities are willing to pay to get their registration rights—is a ludicrously complex, inaccurate, and easily manipulated process.

It is a non-starter from a trade practices and freedoms perspective, especially after recent rulings concerning fair market sponsorship assessments.

This is the last desperate act before FFP is challenged en masse and scrapped altogether. It is a bone being thrown to teams to try to avoid a resurgence of momentum toward a Super League.

Ironically, it will just hasten it.

As you say hasten it.

Similar thing happened when the 115 charges were made it simply focused us all onto the objective ie the treble.

 

[Centurions]

Relax. PB was talking hypothetically.

Afaik, nobody is questioning the value of the sponsorships. And the club proved to CAS that ADUG didn't pay any money to Etihad.

(You can stop reading here if you like)

But, if you have a moment, just consider what the PL is suggesting. They are saying Etihad entered into a sponsorship agreement at fair value but could only pay 8 milion of it and had to get funds from ADUG for the other 60 million. This is the Etihad that is funded by the government of Abu Dhabi, not known to be short of cash, and that funded losses at that time of a billion a year. They would make that arrangement for 60 million? It doesn't make any sense to me, no matter what evidence they think they have.

Add to that my opinion, that, assuming we accept the sponsorship was at fair value, the accounts give a true and fair view just as they are, then even that doesn't really matter. For reference, the club's accounts don't have to be either accurate (no accounts are accurate, they all have things wrong with them), or give a true and fair view of the club's financial position for PL purposes. They have to give a true and fair view to any "normal" reader of the accounts, say someone potentially trying to invest in the club. To that reader of the accounts, showing a fair value sponsorship as equity would actually distort the view given by the accounts, because they wouldn't show the true potential for income generation. Even if Mansour, in my opinion, delivered bags of cash over to Etihad himself on the backseat of his Maserati. Because it is the fair value of the contract and the fact the contract was fulfilled by both parties that determines the true and fair accounting treatment, not how it was funded. The PL may want a different treatment for their purposes, but the accounts, imho, are fine just as they are.

CAS (and the Clear Skys investigation in the states?) showed that the ADEC (AD Executive Council) funded Etihad airlines. ADUG had nothing to with it, UEFA accepted the deal as fair value as well so both accusations are off the table from the start you'd have thought. The PL will be aware of this, it'll be interesting to see what exactly the PL were accusing us of once it's all over. Or it could be we'll never find out which would be very, very annoying.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Or it could be we'll never find out which would be very, very annoying.

I don't think City would accept that.

If the PL win, the judgment, in its entirety, will be all over the press an hour before it is published.

If we win, it will receive a word or two the following week. So City will need to do something to make sure the world knows exactly what we didn't do so there is no defence for anyone lying about it.

 

[laserblue]

Like slabhead?
City decided that £60m was a fair amount, but the rags paid £80m for him, 'because they were stupid'.

Fixed for you.

How many times have the rags been ripped off in a one horse race for a player? They even paid more (in transfer fees, wages or both) than had been demanded from City for players City had expressed an interest in but walked away from because the player/agent/selling club wanted stupid momey. Pogba, Sanchez, Ronaldo (second time round) and Fred as well as Maguire spring to mind as does the expression 'There's no fool like an old fool'.

 

[Centurions]

I don't think City would accept that.

If the PL win, the judgment, in its entirety, will be all over the press an hour before it is published.

If we win, it will receive a word or two the following week. So City will need to do something to make sure the world knows exactly what we didn't do so there is no defence for anyone lying about it.

We'll obviously find out the final verdict, I'm just not sure we'll get a CAS like final verdict where everything is broken down (albeit in legalese).

 

[Centurions]

Fixed for you.

How many times have the rags been ripped off in a one horse race for a player? They even paid more (in transfer fees, wages or both) than had been demanded from City for players City had expressed an interest in but walked away from because the player/agent/selling club wanted stupid momey. Pogba, Sanchez, Ronaldo (second time round) and Fred as well as Maguire spring to mind as does the expression 'There's no fool like an old fool'.

You reminded me of this :)

 

[bluealf]

Fixed for you.

How many times have the rags been ripped off in a one horse race for a player? They even paid more (in transfer fees, wages or both) than had been demanded from City for players City had expressed an interest in but walked away from because the player/agent/selling club wanted stupid momey. Pogba, Sanchez, Ronaldo (second time round) and Fred as well as Maguire spring to mind as does the expression 'There's no fool like an old fool'.

I like to think somebody at City leaked our interest in these players just to get the rags to pay more lol

 

[NJMCFC184]

Has anyone heard the rumour of City threatening to release the audio of the Fernandez VAR f*** up at Old Trafford in January? It did seem to get brushed over when Howard Webb went on his media tour a month ago.

 

[Jack Hackett]

I say a quote over on the Caf where they are discussing the charges, one guy is talking about revenue and how we can be anywhere near matching their numbers, one point he made is that they have a worldwide fan base of millions where we proberbly have maybe 100k.

So let’s think about that, 1 in every 2 City fans in the world attend every home game? Do they honestly believe the shit they come out with, the biggest issue they miss is that they can't let go of us being some little club. Like they have failed to recognise how we have transformed the team they have also failed to see what we are doing on a global basis in growing the club.

I‘ve no idea how many fans City have worldwide but whatever the number, I’d find it difficult to believe it was more than Man Utd’s global fan base.