PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Searching for any substantive detail on the PL charges is hard going. The only info I found in the public domain relates to 2 alleged payments, both £15M, one on in 2011 and one in 2012, paid directy into MCFC. Note immediately the lack of detail re the actual FY, let alone the dd/mm/yy. So the allegation is these payments were falsely reported in the MCFC accounts as sponsorship income from Etisalat. The false reporting must also some how of the slipped the attention of the auditors BDO. The ridiculous allegation is that both payments were from HHSM via a shadowy third party broker. In the allegation, there is absolutely no reason why these payments were made, eg in order to avoid a FFP threshold, nothing not even a guess why such a reckless action would be taken. Looking at the possible accounts 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 I could find no direct reference to any Etisalat payments.

So in no specific year and for no specific reason Etisalat were happy for MCFC to falsely report a sponsorship payment sent from an unspecified person.This collusion was ignored by the auditors for no apparent reason. If this is The Killer charge it would take a legal professional about 10 mins to destroy.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Searching for any substantive detail on the PL charges is hard going. The only info I found in the public domain relates to 2 alleged payments, both £15M, one on in 2011 and one in 2012, paid directy into MCFC. Note immediately the lack of detail re the actual FY, let alone the dd/mm/yy. So the allegation is these payments were falsely reported in the MCFC accounts as sponsorship income from Etisalat. The false reporting must also some how of the slipped the attention of the auditors BDO. The ridiculous allegation is that both payments were from HHSM via a shadowy third party broker. In the allegation, there is absolutely no reason why these payments were made, eg in order to avoid a FFP threshold, nothing not even a guess why such a reckless action would be taken. Looking at the possible accounts 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 I could find no direct reference to any Etisalat payments.

So in no specific year and for no specific reason Etisalat were happy for MCFC to falsely report a sponsorship payment sent from an unspecified person.This collusion was ignored by the auditors for no apparent reason. If this is The Killer charge it would take a legal professional about 10 mins to destroy.

Read the CAS award for more detail.

 

[Norbiton]

Searching for any substantive detail on the PL charges is hard going. The only info I found in the public domain relates to 2 alleged payments, both £15M, one on in 2011 and one in 2012, paid directy into MCFC. Note immediately the lack of detail re the actual FY, let alone the dd/mm/yy. So the allegation is these payments were falsely reported in the MCFC accounts as sponsorship income from Etisalat. The false reporting must also some how of the slipped the attention of the auditors BDO. The ridiculous allegation is that both payments were from HHSM via a shadowy third party broker. In the allegation, there is absolutely no reason why these payments were made, eg in order to avoid a FFP threshold, nothing not even a guess why such a reckless action would be taken. Looking at the possible accounts 2010/2011, 2011/2012, 2012/2013 I could find no direct reference to any Etisalat payments.

So in no specific year and for no specific reason Etisalat were happy for MCFC to falsely report a sponsorship payment sent from an unspecified person.This collusion was ignored by the auditors for no apparent reason. If this is The Killer charge it would take a legal professional about 10 mins to destroy.

I thought City told UEFA/CAS that HHSM had paid the Etisalat sponsorship in 2011/12 while the details of its renewal were being finalised and the money was repaid by Etisalat once that was done?

 

[KS55]

Sooooooo, although there is no substance to the Athletic story the headline makes it appear there is.....
And on Saturday Raggy Taylor sends Rodri off.

And you tell me they me they are not connected. Huh, yeh fuckin' right. I'm not daft. I know what's happening.

Yeah. All Rodri did was to cancel his sub to The Pathletic. Violent reading conduct.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I thought City told UEFA/CAS that HHSM had paid the Etisalat sponsorship in 2011/12 while the details of its renewal were being finalised and the money was repaid by Etisalat once that was done?

If it’s the Etisaat payments they are trying to get City on, the club were posting £150 million losses at the time. Whatever the club were or weren’t doing in the accounts, it’s not like we were anywhere near passing the break even fresh hold anyway which the club was then subsequently punished by Uefa in 2014 with a fine and a squad reduction.

Where have City had an advantage from this £30 million split payment going forward when they have paid Uefa well over double that in fines in 2014 and 2020?

 

[remember arthur mann]

Sooooooo, although there is no substance to the Athletic story the headline makes it appear there is.....
And on Saturday Raggy Taylor sends Rodri off.

And you tell me they me they are not connected. Huh, yeh fuckin' right. I'm not daft. I know what's happening.

It's pretty obvious there's a relentless attack on City. This makes our success over the past years an admirable achievement. The arseholes probably have a weekly anti City committee, working out what dastardly thing they can do next.

 

[Winchester]

Yawn
Jog on tiil we know..

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

I'm aware that nobody actually knows but which of these scenarios do you feel is more likely?

The 115 charges are really a small number of alleged offences with multiple charges attached to each one. The main purpose of this is to make it seem like there are 115 separate major offences and this is the thrust of the media coverage and the perception of rival fans. Will there be an interim step in the process whereby the 115 charges are reduced to a core number that the PL think they can make stick or will we find out at the end that we have been found guilty or not on however many of the 115?

I think the former option is most likely.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

re the YouTube attack in June 23. Absolutely everything re the integrity/validity of the Etisalat payments could be resolved via an affidavit from the relevant Etisalat CEO or CFO circa 2011/2012. Of course they are under no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with a PL kangaroo court. However a witness statement from either executive would be the type of irrefutable evidence mentioned in the clubs statement in Feb 2023. The notion that our legal experts, who are amongst the best in the world, would propose a defence based on a contrived third party called "Mr Jabber" is so pathetic it would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I thought City told UEFA/CAS that HHSM had paid the Etisalat sponsorship in 2011/12 while the details of its renewal were being finalised and the money was repaid by Etisalat once that was done?

That's also my understanding, and iirc the CAS verdict showed that UEFA had discussed this with City back in 2014 and were happy with the outcome. Therefore if the PL are claiming we overstated our sponsorship income on the basis of the Etisalat arrangement, it's hard to see how they can land this.

I'm aware that nobody actually knows but which of these scenarios do you feel is more likely?

The 115 charges are really a small number of alleged offences with multiple charges attached to each one. The main purpose of this is to make it seem like there are 115 separate major offences and this is the thrust of the media coverage and the perception of rival fans. Will there be an interim step in the process whereby the 115 charges are reduced to a core number that the PL think they can make stick or will we find out at the end that we have been found guilty or not on however many of the 115?

I think the former option is most likely.

The former is correct.

We don't know for certain but there appear to be three core charges - Mancini's Al Jazira contract, the Etisalat sponsorship and image rights payments to players. These have been stretched out over multiple rules and multiple years, plus there's other charges arising from those that won't stand if those specific charges aren't upheld.

UEFA knew about Etisalat and image rights payments well before 2018 yet didn't charge us with any offence (although Etisalat was probably time-barred). They also knew about the Mancini contract in 2018, as a result of the Der Spiegel leaks, yet didn't charge us with that either, despite all the documentation being revealed. We don't know if UEFA discussed it with City as part of the charges that led to CAS, and it didn't come up at CAS so the assumption must be that there wasn't much mileage in that contract.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

It's purely the image rights which worry me a little however, I can't see it being relegation/points thing even if we like every other club were/are a bit bendy with the rules.

As for being labeled cheats? Well that's been done since day 1 and even with CAS clearing us the MSM continue to label us that behind the non-cooperation cloak to prove their point.

Fine us a couple of million for using Yaya's face ....then they've had us for something (see we always were cheats but, managed to hide all the important stuff from years ago!!!!) and can justify the witch hunt, the media and red shirts can then call us cheats forever.

Fucking Meh.

 

[waspish]

It's purely the image rights which worry me a little however, I can't see it being relegation/points thing even if we like every other club were/are a bit bendy with the rules.

As for being labeled cheats? Well that's been done since day 1 and even with CAS clearing us the MSM continue to label us that behind the non-cooperation cloak to prove their point.

Fine us a couple of million for using Yaya's face ....then they've had us for something (see we always were cheats but, managed to hide all the important stuff from years ago!!!!) and can justify the witch hunt, the media and red shirts can then call us cheats forever.

Fucking Meh.

Images rights were sorted we paid HMRC

 

[skillman]

It still makes me laugh how obvious it was/is that the PL panicked and threw shit at the wall right before the regulatory vote was due.

They come across so amateurish here it's unbelievable. The opposite of how you would expect a company of its size to be ran. The majority of the clubs they oversee are ran better than they themselves are.

Food for thought. Food for independent-regulatory thought. And they know it. Hence shitting the bed and buying themselves time by piggybacking on allegations.

UEFA tried it, failed miserably to the point our coaching staff smugly posted selfies when the verdict was announced and the new UEFA president has been overt in praise for us ever since.

PL are wankers, ran by those out of their depth compared to who they're ruling/coming up against and it'll be proven eventually. It must be killing them having to hand over a league title every season.

Then you have journalists at The Athletic writing what they know is nothing-news but by putting 'BREAKING' in the headline, it panders to the gullible idiots who lap it up. It's all a bit of a show.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

So its all about the Etisalat sponsorship payments, Mancini consultancy contract and image right payments. The PL can NOT make accusations of wrong doing by MCFC without implicating Etisalat, Mancini and HMRC (good luck with that one). Can we call on all three to corroborate 1 the legitimacy of the sponsorship, 2 the consultancy work and 3 the authorised image rights payments ?
Are Etisalat, Mancini and HMRC prepared to act in our defence or are they part of the PL "prosecution". If think its impossible for them to be impartial. As a lay person, my hunch is the final outcome will depend on which side they "choose".

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

Bang on !

I believe our owner and City to have played by the books and to be innocent. If I was Citys owner and had invested billions into the uk only for this kangaroo run PL to accuse me of fraud I would be fuming.

I would be using my friends in high places and threatening to pull my investment out of the uk. I guess in away thats what the red shirts want, our owner to sack us off.
Thing is City are only part of his investment in the UK. If he pulls everything out of the UK the country is fucked !

There would be one problem with this scenario.
If it were to be proven that we were using "friends in high places" to have effectively threatened to withdraw investment in the UK as a tool in these "charges", the press and resultant fall-out would be astronomical.......... and ad infinitum. A political shit-storm in the making and the ruination of our club. Khaldoun is not stupid.
Therefore, never going to happen.

 

[SilverFox2]

It's pretty obvious there's a relentless attack on City. This makes our success over the past years an admirable achievement. The arseholes probably have a weekly anti City committee, working out what dastardly thing they can do next.

Well it has not affected our togetherness, our results and our finences together with it reflecting in our global influence.
Comprehensive own goal I think but what else can they do.?

 

[mcfcphil]

There would be one problem with this scenario.
If it were to be proven that we were using "friends in high places" to have effectively threatened to withdraw investment in the UK as a tool in these "charges", the press and resultant fall-out would be astronomical.......... and ad infinitum. A political shit-storm in the making and the ruination of our club. Khaldoun is not stupid.
Therefore, never going to happen.

You don't need to threaten to withdraw investment for the another party to be absolutely terrified of you withdrawing investment.

That's probably why our foreign office had discussions with the UK AD Embassy. They haven't been threatened with withdrawal of investment but they obviously see it is a major risk depending on the outcome of these proceedings and are acting accordingly.

 

[Len Rum]

re the YouTube attack in June 23. Absolutely everything re the integrity/validity of the Etisalat payments could be resolved via an affidavit from the relevant Etisalat CEO or CFO circa 2011/2012. Of course they are under no obligation whatsoever to cooperate with a PL kangaroo court. However a witness statement from either executive would be the type of irrefutable evidence mentioned in the clubs statement in Feb 2023. The notion that our legal experts, who are amongst the best in the world, would propose a defence based on a contrived third party called "Mr Jabber" is so pathetic it would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.

Etisalat is small beer and at least some of it pre dates FFP.
IMO it's time barred anyway.

 

[I'm Blue]

So its all about the Etisalat sponsorship payments, Mancini consultancy contract and image right payments. The PL can NOT make accusations of wrong doing by MCFC without implicating Etisalat, Mancini and HMRC (good luck with that one). Can we call on all three to corroborate 1 the legitimacy of the sponsorship, 2 the consultancy work and 3 the authorised image rights payments ?
Are Etisalat, Mancini and HMRC prepared to act in our defence or are they part of the PL "prosecution". If think its impossible for them to be impartial. As a lay person, my hunch is the final outcome will depend on which side they "choose".

I find the Mancini charges strange.
The reason I say strange is the fact that in a 4 year investigation nobody from the premier league has thought to question Mancini with regards being ‘paid off the books’
Surely with the seriousness of the charges and the ramifications that could come because of said charges someone would surely question him?
But he’s not even had a phone call.
(His words)

Roberto Mancini breaks silence on Man City Premier League charges

Italy's head coach was speaking ahead of his team's Euro 2024 qualifier against England on Thursday

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Like I said I find it strange.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

There would be one problem with this scenario.
If it were to be proven that we were using "friends in high places" to have effectively threatened to withdraw investment in the UK as a tool in these "charges", the press and resultant fall-out would be astronomical.......... and ad infinitum. A political shit-storm in the making and the ruination of our club. Khaldoun is not stupid.
Therefore, never going to happen.

But would the UK be wanting to be seen as accepting money off crooks?? We don't need to threatening withdrawing funding the problem will lie with the government how could they possibly accept money off such people if found guilty???