PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

All I keep hearing and reading, especially on Talkshite &Sly, is what potential penalties we will incur should we be found guilty. What nobody talks about is what are the consequences if, as I hope and expect, we are found not guilty. Someone should carry the can ( probably Masters) for bringing these charges against us. The club will no doubt refrain for claiming any kind of compensation for defamation of them and senior members of staff, i just wish they would come out of this swinging a few punches.
 
Correct.

Let's not be silly. A proven case of multi-year false accounting creating 10 years or more of sporting advantage with severe aggravating factors (deliberate concealment) would obviously end in relegation either by expulsion or by 100 point deduction. This is not an answer about City - it would apply to any club before or after Everton. And it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
There's no doubt that deliberate false accounting, like at Wirecard who claimed a seemingly fictitious €1.9bn cash balance on their balance sheet, or at Enron, or claiming revenue or commission from contracts that aren't yet signed, is a serious, and potentially criminal, offence.

But I spent enough years in accountancy and you know, as a CEO, that you may have to choose between different interpretations of accounting standards (or other practices) on how to present figures. That's why the law uses the phrase "true and fair", rather than insisting on 100%, to-the-penny accuracy. Things like valuation of stock, WIP, goodwill, intellectual property, and other intangible assets, investments and joint ventures, etc. That's a completely different kettle of fish to deliberate, false accounting.

As you've rightly said before, City would've had to pull the wool over a lot of experienced financial professionals' eyes if they concealed the things they did, knowing they were wrong and completely misleading. Like you, I find that very difficult to believe and I absolutely agree we'd deserve everything we got if that was the case.

But if that wasn't the case, then what was? The deal with Fordham was, in my opinion, a way of getting a few million extra pounds of revenue onto the books (rather than getting expenses off the books) in an attempt to creep within what we thought would be the maximum allowable loss that would see us escape sanction. We know from the Der Spiegel emails that Jorge Chumillas signalled there was still going to be a shortfall in the 2013 financial year. In the end, UEFA's machinations over the FFP mitigation calculation of wages ended that prospect. We must assume that appropriate legal and financial advice was taken over that Fordham arrangement.

We don't know what was or wasn't reported to UEFA regarding the image rights payments. My guess is that UEFA noticed they'd gone off the FFP spreadsheet around 2015. We do know they approached us about this and the arrangement ended for good in 2018. Let's take the view that we presented our case to UEFA and they said "Yes, we understand you've acted within the letter of the law, but not the spirit. As it wouldn't have made any difference to FFP anyway, we'll call it quits as long as you report the figures properly going forward". And we did, whereupon it made no sense to continue the Fordham arrangement, and the company was liquidated.

This is why I take issue with the black-or-white view that we're either totally innocent of wrongdoing or have knowingly committed fraud on a grand scale over a number of years.
 
Talk Shite have done a right job on Stefan's interview.

They are literally no better than Der Spiegel and that Hacker!

This whole case would have been thrown out ages ago if a criminal prosecution.

It absolutely stinks how main stream media and the public have been convinced we are guilty!
 
Last edited:
This... all the rag fans I know spout this 'sports-washing' drivel, a phrase they do not remotely understand. It's all a clever move they say, to hoodwink the public.

The I ask them after all this time and all that money, do you think any better of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mansour, ADUG et al? 'Do I fuck' is the usual response.

Then it clearly isn't working then is it, you fkn dullard? And old Sheikh M is clearly as thick as you.

And do you think someone that rich gives a flying fuck about what the average football fan thinks of him?
Scruffy Jim’s Ineos have a lot of sports washing accusations thrown their way through its cycling involvement.
 
always worth a bump


Actually there might be something in that.

Should a team that is in the premier league for just 1 year in the last 10 have the same voting rights as an ever present like Everton? Maybe, maybe not.

Should Everton get relegated should they lose all voting rights immediately?

Maybe it should be proportional. Maybe you get 1 vote for each of the rolling last 10 years you were in the premier league. So City, Spurs, Chelsea, Everton, Newcastle, Palace would all currently get 10 votes each whereas Burnley would get 8 votes and Forest would get 2 votes.

Not sold on that idea, but it's still the case that no one team gets more than 1/20 of the total vote.
 
Talk Shite have done a right job on Stefan's interview.

They are literally no better than Der Spiegel and that Hacker!

This whole case would have been thrown out ages ago if a criminal prosecution.

It absolutely stinks how main stream media and the public have been convinced we are guilty!
TS have but not a big showing elsewhere, certainly not in print media
 
Actually there might be something in that.

Should a team that is in the premier league for just 1 year in the last 10 have the same voting rights as an ever present like Everton? Maybe, maybe not.

Should Everton get relegated should they lose all voting rights immediately?

Maybe it should be proportional. Maybe you get 1 vote for each of the rolling last 10 years you were in the premier league. So City, Spurs, Chelsea, Everton, Newcastle, Palace would all currently get 10 votes each whereas Burnley would get 8 votes and Forest would get 2 votes.

Not sold on that idea, but it's still the case that no one team gets more than 1/20 of the total vote.
For such a vote to pass it would need to advantage (and be supported by) two thirds of the member clubs which I suspect is a virtual mathematical impossibility. There will always be about 8-10 clubs who would be disadvantaged by weighting the votes in that way.
 
While the press debate whether a massive points deduction or expulsion from the PL is a fitting punishment for City's hideous crimes and Lord Chief Justice Jordan insists there is a case to answer a succession of mere football finance experts - Maguire, Ioannidis, Plumley and our own Stefan Borson, to name but four - have pointed out that proving these charges will be very difficult indeed since they are supposed to have taken place continuously over a period of ten years and involve companies with a global reputation for integrity and individuals well known on the world stage and respected in diplomatic circles. If we look at the commission which passed judgement on Everton, for violating PL spending limits we find that it was made up of a KC and the former finance director of a PL club. It was NOT a case of a senior judge presiding over a properly constituted court of law applying laws enacted by a sovereign body. The body which judges City's case will be similar to the Everton body and to find that City have done anything like what the PL claims is, as Stefan put it, "a big call". I think that the scale and gravity of the charges must be dawning on the PL and that any consideration of such charges is way beyond its competence.
The premier league might be wise to protect themselves (from having to deal with messes like this) going forward by putting time restrictions in place.
Yes some teams might get away with some things but mitigate that by monitoring more carefully and acting quicker.
 
All I keep hearing and reading, especially on Talkshite &Sly, is what potential penalties we will incur should we be found guilty. What nobody talks about is what are the consequences if, as I hope and expect, we are found not guilty. Someone should carry the can ( probably Masters) for bringing these charges against us. The club will no doubt refrain for claiming any kind of compensation for defamation of them and senior members of staff, i just wish they would come out of this swinging a few punches.
The consequences are Manchester City Football Club continues to grow as one of the biggest sports brands in the world, hoovering up trophies, that we continue to develop the stadium and surrounding area, and that Manchester, and East Manchester in particular, continues to be one of the fastest growing and most desirable parts of Europe to live and work in. We will release a statement welcoming the decision, continue to have a seat at the PL table, no matter who doesn't want us there, and never fucking mention it ever again and move on with this exciting part of our history. And a couple of jealous scousers say mean things about us on socials. Can't wait.
 
Talk Shite have done a right job on Stefan's interview.

They are literally no better than Der Spiegel and that Hacker!

This whole case would have been thrown out ages ago if a criminal prosecution.

It absolutely stinks how main stream media and the public have been convinced we are guilty!
No, no, no they have not convinced people we are guilty, they have convinced idiots we are guilty, they have convinced the same idiots who believed us and the dippers shared the last 6 titles, they have convinced the same idiots that believed that the rags had a genuine shot at the champions league, it is not hard to convince these morons of anything as they want to believe it, they want to believe that its not mismanagement by their clubs and that they arent quite good enough, they want to believe it in the same way that they want to believe that if it wasnt for that knee injury theyd have made it and played in the premier league and that they are the funniest person in the office and everyone is laughing with them not at them, they havent convinced anyone with half a brain of anything, its just unfortunate that as with most things the vocal idiot minority make the loudest noise.
 
Thanks for sharing. It’s just rehash. Mood from media is they know where this will end up so they are front loading on negativity. When will the chance appear when can potentially cleared.
 
For such a vote to pass it would need to advantage (and be supported by) two thirds of the member clubs which I suspect is a virtual mathematical impossibility. There will always be about 8-10 clubs who would be disadvantaged by weighting the votes in that way.
I'm not so sure they would be disadvantaged. Everton for instance might vote for it, an ever present whom should they get relegated would likely come straight back up. They're voting share would drop from 10 votes to 9 for around 10 years. We might vote for it as we'd still have 10 votes and if we got relegated we'd still have voting power.

Actually, losing voting power instead of points or a fine, is a kind of punishment that hasn't been suggested.

But it wouldn't happen anyway so its moot.
 
There's no doubt that deliberate false accounting, like at Wirecard who claimed a seemingly fictitious €1.9bn cash balance on their balance sheet, or at Enron, or claiming revenue or commission from contracts that aren't yet signed, is a serious, and potentially criminal, offence.

But I spent enough years in accountancy and you know, as a CEO, that you may have to choose between different interpretations of accounting standards (or other practices) on how to present figures. That's why the law uses the phrase "true and fair", rather than insisting on 100%, to-the-penny accuracy. Things like valuation of stock, WIP, goodwill, intellectual property, and other intangible assets, investments and joint ventures, etc. That's a completely different kettle of fish to deliberate, false accounting.

As you've rightly said before, City would've had to pull the wool over a lot of experienced financial professionals' eyes if they concealed the things they did, knowing they were wrong and completely misleading. Like you, I find that very difficult to believe and I absolutely agree we'd deserve everything we got if that was the case.

But if that wasn't the case, then what was? The deal with Fordham was, in my opinion, a way of getting a few million extra pounds of revenue onto the books (rather than getting expenses off the books) in an attempt to creep within what we thought would be the maximum allowable loss that would see us escape sanction. We know from the Der Spiegel emails that Jorge Chumillas signalled there was still going to be a shortfall in the 2013 financial year. In the end, UEFA's machinations over the FFP mitigation calculation of wages ended that prospect. We must assume that appropriate legal and financial advice was taken over that Fordham arrangement.

We don't know what was or wasn't reported to UEFA regarding the image rights payments. My guess is that UEFA noticed they'd gone off the FFP spreadsheet around 2015. We do know they approached us about this and the arrangement ended for good in 2018. Let's take the view that we presented our case to UEFA and they said "Yes, we understand you've acted within the letter of the law, but not the spirit. As it wouldn't have made any difference to FFP anyway, we'll call it quits as long as you report the figures properly going forward". And we did, whereupon it made no sense to continue the Fordham arrangement, and the company was liquidated.

This is why I take issue with the black-or-white view that we're either totally innocent of wrongdoing or have knowingly committed fraud on a grand scale over a number of years.
I'm not up for exchanging essays. The PL have made the massive claim around sponsors (as UEFA did) and the case is primarily about that. The IC will take a dim view of the PL not being able to make out that claim which will infect the rest. Furthermore, the other matters are not even in play unless the PL can show a level of deliberate concealment to get round the statute of limitations. I think Fordham is generally very uninteresting and far too public (Companies House etc) to be prosecuted in 2024/25.

But obviously if only a tiny part of the claim is proved, the sanctions will be far less than if the sponsorship sham allegation is proved. Obviously.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top