John Wayne
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 3,792
Nobody cares about City.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Nobody cares about City.
And Everton officials blaming the building of the new stadium on breaking FFP, which is utter bullshit when new stadium's/infrastructure are excluded from FFP calculations.The more fans of Everton and Forest scream about us being punished the quicker my sympathy for their predicament evaporates. Get your own house in fucking order first you thick fuckers! As for the rest jumping on the bandwagon I hope they're next.
Everton have lost over 300m, they voted for FFP now take your medicine you scouse top hats.
Last edited:
Morning City, I’m a lurker from another side, Brighton as it happens. Whether your alleged misdemeanours are proven or not - I just wanted to say that I am more sure that the initial UEFA rules of FFP had little to do with the wider good of football, but were drafted to raise the drawbridge against clubs with good strategic focus and masses of cash i.e. Manchester City. Down on the footballing backwater of the south coast, we’re applying good strategy with less cash (but we’re still billionaire owned). Everton & Forest spunked cash with little strategy and that’s the road to ruin. Don’t get me started on Chelsea! Love this forum - you’re a passionate, parochial, salty-as-fuck bunch
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
This incoherent drivel according to the redshirt fanzine purports to 'explain' the PL charges against us.
It's by their boxing correspondent, who btw has a novel idea of the meaning of 'legal' when appended to UEFA
Manchester City’s financial charges explained as Everton and Nottingham Forest accused of breaching spending rules
By Philip Buckingham
Jan 15, 2024
It is close to a year — 49 weeks and counting — since the Premier League handed Manchester City a charge sheet without precedent: 115 breaches of its financial rules across nine different seasons.
The like had never been seen before. As well as being charged with failing to disclose accurate financial information and managerial remuneration details during a period that began their rise to the summit of English football, Manchester City were also alleged to have breached the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
The wide-ranging charges have been strenuously denied by City, who last year said they would look forward to this opportunity to “put to rest, once and for all,” a protracted investigation that had begun in 2018.
Yet almost a year on, against a backdrop of other top-flight clubs forced to answer for their financial misdemeanours, the reigning Premier League champions are still to even see a hearing begin.
Why are Manchester City being made so long to wait to learn their fate?
This, in short, is a case like no other. The financial rule breaches City stand accused of began in 2009 and extended through to 2018, effectively covering the first decade of Sheikh Mansour’s reign as the club’s owner. Three Premier League titles were won during the period under investigation, as well as an FA Cup and three League Cups.
City have already fought legal action from UEFA following the initial reporting of German newspaper Der Spiegel in November 2018 that first highlighted their alleged wrongdoing. That initially resulted in a two-year ban from UEFA competition in February 2020 before it was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) five months later.
GO DEEPER
Premier League financial fair play rules explained
City have never blinked in their defence, insisting they have followed regulations. The Premier League, though, has not been convinced and, following the formal charges being delivered in early February, it will now be the task of an independent commission to pass judgement.
That reality has hung over City for 11 months and more and, in all likelihood, it could be another year before the case reaches its eventual conclusion.
Neither the Premier League nor the club have yet offered any indication when a hearing will be held as a confidential process that includes the compilation of witness statements continues but it is its complexity and breadth that denies a swift resolution.
Details of the charges against Everton and Forest
How the rules are impacting the transfer window
What it means for Nottingham Forest
City’s charges include accusations of failing to disclose accurate financial information, “in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs”, and not fully providing managerial remuneration details for a four-year period that saw Roberto Mancini at the helm.
City have also been charged with breaching UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, as well as the Premier League’s PSR. A final layer of litigation comes from the Premier League’s claims that City did not cooperate fully with investigations in “the utmost good faith”.
Manchester City’s charges were never going to be answered quickly (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)
Unlike Everton’s breach of PSR in 2021-22, when the club was referred to an independent commission and then deducted 10 points within eight months, the 115 charges could not be answered as quickly.
Everton’s formal hearing, held a month before they were informed of their points deduction, lasted only five days and, by direct comparison, was a straightforward case. The weight of evidence and witness statements that will be put forward in Manchester City’s case points to that process lasting months.
The charges facing City, who have appointed so-called ‘super-silk’ Lord David Pannick KC to mount their defence, also fall outside of the new rules introduced by the Premier League last summer.
GO DEEPER
Lord Pannick, Manchester City's lawyer and 'one of the best intellects of his generation'
Everton and Nottingham Forest, who were both charged with PSR breaches on Monday, know their case and any appeal would need to be heard within 12 weeks, enabling any punishment to come before April 8. That tweak to the rules ensured that financial breaches would be punishable within 12 months. City’s alleged wrongdoing, however, does not fall under those regulations.
What about Chelsea’s uncertain situation?
Chelsea have their own historical concerns.
Chelsea’s owners — a consortium led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital — took the unusual step of self-reporting “incomplete financial information” to UEFA, the Premier League and the Football Association last year.
That resulted in an £8.6million ($11m) fine from UEFA for a breach of its FFP regulations owing to “historical transactions” that took place between 2012 and 2019 under the ownership of Roman Abramovich.
No further sporting sanctions were handed out by European football’s governing body but the Premier League and FA continue to investigate a period that saw Chelsea win the domestic title in 2014-15 and 2016-17, as well as an FA Cup and a League Cup.
Some transactions made under Roman Abramovich’s ownership are under scrutiny (Paul Gilham/Getty Images)
Chelsea will hope their cooperation will offer mitigation as they attempt to draw a line under the Abramovich era but the Premier League, which took four years to bring charges against City, is yet to make it known if Chelsea are to face charges.
Deepening the concerns were fresh reports last week that alleged a series of payments, worth tens of millions of pounds, were made by Abramovich-owned companies to entities linked to deals that appear to benefit Chelsea.
Reports by the Guardian, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in November detailed leaked documents appearing to show transactions made to associates and agents who dealt with Chelsea during their rise. It is alleged these may not have been declared, presenting Chelsea with an unfair advantage over rivals.
“These allegations pre-date the club’s current ownership,” Chelsea said in response to those reports. “They are based on documents the club has not been shown and do not relate to any individual who is presently at the club.”
Chelsea do not yet have a case to answer with the Premier League, which has brought no charges, but any proven circumvention of PSR would bring unavoidable sanctions, including the threat of a substantial points deduction. Like Manchester City’s case, however, it is unlikely to be resolved quickly.
It's by their boxing correspondent, who btw has a novel idea of the meaning of 'legal' when appended to UEFA
Manchester City’s financial charges explained as Everton and Nottingham Forest accused of breaching spending rules
By Philip Buckingham
Jan 15, 2024
It is close to a year — 49 weeks and counting — since the Premier League handed Manchester City a charge sheet without precedent: 115 breaches of its financial rules across nine different seasons.
The like had never been seen before. As well as being charged with failing to disclose accurate financial information and managerial remuneration details during a period that began their rise to the summit of English football, Manchester City were also alleged to have breached the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
The wide-ranging charges have been strenuously denied by City, who last year said they would look forward to this opportunity to “put to rest, once and for all,” a protracted investigation that had begun in 2018.
Yet almost a year on, against a backdrop of other top-flight clubs forced to answer for their financial misdemeanours, the reigning Premier League champions are still to even see a hearing begin.
Why are Manchester City being made so long to wait to learn their fate?
This, in short, is a case like no other. The financial rule breaches City stand accused of began in 2009 and extended through to 2018, effectively covering the first decade of Sheikh Mansour’s reign as the club’s owner. Three Premier League titles were won during the period under investigation, as well as an FA Cup and three League Cups.
City have already fought legal action from UEFA following the initial reporting of German newspaper Der Spiegel in November 2018 that first highlighted their alleged wrongdoing. That initially resulted in a two-year ban from UEFA competition in February 2020 before it was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) five months later.
GO DEEPER
Premier League financial fair play rules explained
City have never blinked in their defence, insisting they have followed regulations. The Premier League, though, has not been convinced and, following the formal charges being delivered in early February, it will now be the task of an independent commission to pass judgement.
That reality has hung over City for 11 months and more and, in all likelihood, it could be another year before the case reaches its eventual conclusion.
Neither the Premier League nor the club have yet offered any indication when a hearing will be held as a confidential process that includes the compilation of witness statements continues but it is its complexity and breadth that denies a swift resolution.
Details of the charges against Everton and Forest
How the rules are impacting the transfer window
What it means for Nottingham Forest
City’s charges include accusations of failing to disclose accurate financial information, “in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs”, and not fully providing managerial remuneration details for a four-year period that saw Roberto Mancini at the helm.
City have also been charged with breaching UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, as well as the Premier League’s PSR. A final layer of litigation comes from the Premier League’s claims that City did not cooperate fully with investigations in “the utmost good faith”.
Manchester City’s charges were never going to be answered quickly (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)
Unlike Everton’s breach of PSR in 2021-22, when the club was referred to an independent commission and then deducted 10 points within eight months, the 115 charges could not be answered as quickly.
Everton’s formal hearing, held a month before they were informed of their points deduction, lasted only five days and, by direct comparison, was a straightforward case. The weight of evidence and witness statements that will be put forward in Manchester City’s case points to that process lasting months.
The charges facing City, who have appointed so-called ‘super-silk’ Lord David Pannick KC to mount their defence, also fall outside of the new rules introduced by the Premier League last summer.
GO DEEPER
Lord Pannick, Manchester City's lawyer and 'one of the best intellects of his generation'
Everton and Nottingham Forest, who were both charged with PSR breaches on Monday, know their case and any appeal would need to be heard within 12 weeks, enabling any punishment to come before April 8. That tweak to the rules ensured that financial breaches would be punishable within 12 months. City’s alleged wrongdoing, however, does not fall under those regulations.
What about Chelsea’s uncertain situation?
Chelsea have their own historical concerns.
Chelsea’s owners — a consortium led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital — took the unusual step of self-reporting “incomplete financial information” to UEFA, the Premier League and the Football Association last year.
That resulted in an £8.6million ($11m) fine from UEFA for a breach of its FFP regulations owing to “historical transactions” that took place between 2012 and 2019 under the ownership of Roman Abramovich.
No further sporting sanctions were handed out by European football’s governing body but the Premier League and FA continue to investigate a period that saw Chelsea win the domestic title in 2014-15 and 2016-17, as well as an FA Cup and a League Cup.
Some transactions made under Roman Abramovich’s ownership are under scrutiny (Paul Gilham/Getty Images)
Chelsea will hope their cooperation will offer mitigation as they attempt to draw a line under the Abramovich era but the Premier League, which took four years to bring charges against City, is yet to make it known if Chelsea are to face charges.
Deepening the concerns were fresh reports last week that alleged a series of payments, worth tens of millions of pounds, were made by Abramovich-owned companies to entities linked to deals that appear to benefit Chelsea.
Reports by the Guardian, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in November detailed leaked documents appearing to show transactions made to associates and agents who dealt with Chelsea during their rise. It is alleged these may not have been declared, presenting Chelsea with an unfair advantage over rivals.
“These allegations pre-date the club’s current ownership,” Chelsea said in response to those reports. “They are based on documents the club has not been shown and do not relate to any individual who is presently at the club.”
Chelsea do not yet have a case to answer with the Premier League, which has brought no charges, but any proven circumvention of PSR would bring unavoidable sanctions, including the threat of a substantial points deduction. Like Manchester City’s case, however, it is unlikely to be resolved quickly.
Last edited:
The Lightbowne Cowboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 6,703
- Team supported
- City
I believe some were slagging Kovacic off on the Not Right match thread. I personally thought it was his best game in a blue shirt and allowed Rodders to play his natural game.(sorry, put on wrong thread)
Last edited:
Everton and Forest fans are clearly incredibly stoopid. We are not the enemy. It's the strait jacket of FFP rules that is the problem. I sympathise with both clubs, but not the fans. Plonkers.The more fans of Everton and Forest scream about us being punished the quicker my sympathy for their predicament evaporates. Get your own house in fucking order first you thick fuckers! As for the rest jumping on the bandwagon I hope they're next.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Why would you post a random, anonymous liverpool loving wanker on here? He only seems to post infrequently and it all appears to be wrong anyway.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,902
This incoherent drivel according to the redshirt fanzine 'explains' the charges - by their boxing correspondent, who btw has a novel idea of the meaning of 'legal' when appended to UEFA
Manchester City’s financial charges explained as Everton and Nottingham Forest accused of breaching spending rules
By Philip Buckingham
Jan 15, 2024
It is close to a year — 49 weeks and counting — since the Premier League handed Manchester City a charge sheet without precedent: 115 breaches of its financial rules across nine different seasons.
The like had never been seen before. As well as being charged with failing to disclose accurate financial information and managerial remuneration details during a period that began their rise to the summit of English football, Manchester City were also alleged to have breached the Premier League’s profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) during three seasons from 2015-16 to 2017-18.
The wide-ranging charges have been strenuously denied by City, who last year said they would look forward to this opportunity to “put to rest, once and for all,” a protracted investigation that had begun in 2018.
Yet almost a year on, against a backdrop of other top-flight clubs forced to answer for their financial misdemeanours, the reigning Premier League champions are still to even see a hearing begin.
Why are Manchester City being made so long to wait to learn their fate?
This, in short, is a case like no other. The financial rule breaches City stand accused of began in 2009 and extended through to 2018, effectively covering the first decade of Sheikh Mansour’s reign as the club’s owner. Three Premier League titles were won during the period under investigation, as well as an FA Cup and three League Cups.
City have already fought legal action from UEFA following the initial reporting of German newspaper Der Spiegel in November 2018 that first highlighted their alleged wrongdoing. That initially resulted in a two-year ban from UEFA competition in February 2020 before it was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) five months later.
GO DEEPER
Premier League financial fair play rules explained
City have never blinked in their defence, insisting they have followed regulations. The Premier League, though, has not been convinced and, following the formal charges being delivered in early February, it will now be the task of an independent commission to pass judgement.
That reality has hung over City for 11 months and more and, in all likelihood, it could be another year before the case reaches its eventual conclusion.
Neither the Premier League nor the club have yet offered any indication when a hearing will be held as a confidential process that includes the compilation of witness statements continues but it is its complexity and breadth that denies a swift resolution.
Details of the charges against Everton and Forest
How the rules are impacting the transfer window
What it means for Nottingham Forest
City’s charges include accusations of failing to disclose accurate financial information, “in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs”, and not fully providing managerial remuneration details for a four-year period that saw Roberto Mancini at the helm.
City have also been charged with breaching UEFA’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, as well as the Premier League’s PSR. A final layer of litigation comes from the Premier League’s claims that City did not cooperate fully with investigations in “the utmost good faith”.
Manchester City’s charges were never going to be answered quickly (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)
Unlike Everton’s breach of PSR in 2021-22, when the club was referred to an independent commission and then deducted 10 points within eight months, the 115 charges could not be answered as quickly.
Everton’s formal hearing, held a month before they were informed of their points deduction, lasted only five days and, by direct comparison, was a straightforward case. The weight of evidence and witness statements that will be put forward in Manchester City’s case points to that process lasting months.
The charges facing City, who have appointed so-called ‘super-silk’ Lord David Pannick KC to mount their defence, also fall outside of the new rules introduced by the Premier League last summer.
GO DEEPER
Lord Pannick, Manchester City's lawyer and 'one of the best intellects of his generation'
Everton and Nottingham Forest, who were both charged with PSR breaches on Monday, know their case and any appeal would need to be heard within 12 weeks, enabling any punishment to come before April 8. That tweak to the rules ensured that financial breaches would be punishable within 12 months. City’s alleged wrongdoing, however, does not fall under those regulations.
What about Chelsea’s uncertain situation?
Chelsea have their own historical concerns.
Chelsea’s owners — a consortium led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital — took the unusual step of self-reporting “incomplete financial information” to UEFA, the Premier League and the Football Association last year.
That resulted in an £8.6million ($11m) fine from UEFA for a breach of its FFP regulations owing to “historical transactions” that took place between 2012 and 2019 under the ownership of Roman Abramovich.
No further sporting sanctions were handed out by European football’s governing body but the Premier League and FA continue to investigate a period that saw Chelsea win the domestic title in 2014-15 and 2016-17, as well as an FA Cup and a League Cup.
Some transactions made under Roman Abramovich’s ownership are under scrutiny (Paul Gilham/Getty Images)
Chelsea will hope their cooperation will offer mitigation as they attempt to draw a line under the Abramovich era but the Premier League, which took four years to bring charges against City, is yet to make it known if Chelsea are to face charges.
Deepening the concerns were fresh reports last week that alleged a series of payments, worth tens of millions of pounds, were made by Abramovich-owned companies to entities linked to deals that appear to benefit Chelsea.
Reports by the Guardian, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in November detailed leaked documents appearing to show transactions made to associates and agents who dealt with Chelsea during their rise. It is alleged these may not have been declared, presenting Chelsea with an unfair advantage over rivals.
“These allegations pre-date the club’s current ownership,” Chelsea said in response to those reports. “They are based on documents the club has not been shown and do not relate to any individual who is presently at the club.”
Chelsea do not yet have a case to answer with the Premier League, which has brought no charges, but any proven circumvention of PSR would bring unavoidable sanctions, including the threat of a substantial points deduction. Like Manchester City’s case, however, it is unlikely to be resolved quickly.
Still no context that when we defeated UEFA at CAS they found no evidence of wrong doing.
danielwood5
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 1,355
That sounds exactly like something a narcissist would say.I’m more egomaniac than narcissist, mate.
And the reason why the PL made the charges against us and the time talking to investigate.Why would you post a random, anonymous liverpool loving wanker on here? He only seems to post infrequently and it all appears to be wrong anyway.
The longer it goes on the more our reputation get's tarnished, and even when we are cleared the idiots will still believe we are guilty.
I don't understand any of our fan base giving time to these idiots, never mind giving them clicks and publicity.
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
Really stunning watching the narrative around this unfold.
henry winter the stockport fan. no surprise
*EDIT* I know now its Holt not Winter
Last edited:
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 10,238
- Team supported
- Manchester city
The irony of FFP is that because City got in before this stupid idea came into existence it actually benefits us. It still doesn't mean that it's fair on all the other clubs as it means they don't have the chance to compete. On sly last week all these so called experts were laughing at Eddie Howe because he said that Newcastle couldn't afford a player from Bournemouth because of FFP saying things like"what is he talking about they are the richest club in the world". That's how thick these so called experts are. They know nothing about football finance or how FFP stops clubs growing.Whilst Newcastle United, the most solvent club in world football, are being squeezed to ensure they can't challenge for major trophies, Man Utd remain the biggest spenders in England (over the last 10 years) whilst having over a £billion of debt............FFP working as per design; if only the audience could see.
Last edited:
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Egocentric might be a better option?I’m more egomaniac than narcissist, mate.
Ballosteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 717
I think it should be on channel 504 ?Is the Commons special committee on premier league being televised any ideas.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Highlights on COTD, at 1030 on BBC3 (channel 115 on sky)….Is the Commons special committee on premier league being televised any ideas.
Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 6,052
Yep….for all the excessive verbiage and attempts to look like a well researched investigative piece, that’s the bit they seem to have missed.Still no context that when we defeated UEFA at CAS they found no evidence of wrong doing.
I mean, who needs evidence?!?
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,902
henry winter the stockport fan. no surprise
He’s a Dipper I thought
Man_City_Loyal
Well-Known Member
He’s a Dipper I thought
Sorry yeah, I've got him mixed up with Holt
ZanteWeatherman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 1,224
- Team supported
- Manchester City
So 115 accusations it is then. I am regularly accused of being a knob......... so fucking what.The word charge is misleading because this is not a criminal case. The press keep using the phrase that the PL have "charged" City. The PL is a sporting body and has accused us of breaching their rules. It is wrong to use the word charge in this context. The media like to hype things up.