PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

domalino said:
We wouldn't be found guilty of fraud though.

We'd be found to have not in acted the utmost good faith, of not providing accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.
Click to expand...
What you've just stated would be Fraud.
 
Dribble said:
David Gill termed it "Only spend what you earn". It wasn't UEFA who abandoned debt, it was the G14, with the threat of the ESL if UEFA didn't comply.

Who in their right mind would be against reckless owners putting their clubs" existence at risk?

However, just imagine if FFP/PSR was applied to every UK business sector? The country would be more fucked than it already is.
Click to expand...
Platini originally saw debt as the problem and proposed to make clubs reduce levels of debt. This alarmed some of the "biggest" clubs in Europe (we both know which!) and they threatened legal action on the (accurate) grounds that debt was an accepted way of raising capital for investment in European law. Platini panicked and handed control of the process to regulate football finance effectively to football's biggest debtors. They hit on the admirable idea that debt was not the problem because they had shown they could manage these levels of debt, but spending "beyond your means" was. "Your means" did not take any account of what your owner(s) could put in even though Manchester United had relied on owner investment to finance their transfer activity between 1986 and 1993. But the David Gill wasn't bothered by such trivialities. He was, and is, concerned about the financial health of "smaller" PL clubs. Those who had had their share of away gate receipts stolen from them. By .... ?
 
domalino said:
We wouldn't be found guilty of fraud though.

We'd be found to have not in acted the utmost good faith, of not providing accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.
Click to expand...
But they would need to give an explanation for why they stated that surely? They can't just release such a bald statement without expanding on it, that's where they would struggle.
 
If FFP or whatever it is now called was genuinely to prevent clubs going out of business.
The owner should be able to spend what they want on players but secure or prove they have an amount put aside to pay up all players contracts.
Kind of put the amount in trust for the club
 
domalino said:
We wouldn't be found guilty of fraud though.

We'd be found to have not in acted the utmost good faith, of not providing accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.
Click to expand...

I do understand where you’re coming from and it makes the whole situation farcical.

“We’re not saying you’re guilty of armed robbery. But we are accusing you of walking into a bank, pointing a gun at the teller and leaving with a suitcase full of cash”.

You would certainly hope that, even if the PL claim we have merely broken their rules rather than committed fraud, an experienced KC would view the two things as being one and the same and demand a level of evidence appropriate for it.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I don't think this is the case at all. If the ruling of the IC goes against City the club would go straight to court. The grounds of the appeal would almost certainly be (amongst others) that City had been found, in fact, to have broken the criminal law and that the IC has no jurisdiction in such matters since it is not a duly constituted court, and that those presiding are not appointed by the proper authorities and it is thus not a body with the competence to deal with such matters. Then there is the basis on which such a ruling was based: balance of probability or beyond reasonable doubt? Either way the IC cannot rule in a criminal matter. I think this is what Stefan and others are getting at when they say it is a case the PL cannot win - especially when you consider the number and reputation of those who would have to have been deceived by, or taken part in, the deception? Is an IC really competent to judge so many?
Click to expand...

I don't think @projectriver @petrusha and the rest are saying that at all. The IP is completely competent to conclude the club has breached its contract with the PL in a civil environment, even if it implies fraudulent activity.

I think the serious nature of the allegations raises the cogency of the evidence required to a level that is very unlikely to be available to the PL, which is why they are generally optimistic as to the outcome.
 
Lord Blue said:
not sure it would be a good idea to discourage stadium investment. who would build a new stadium if it restricted spending so badly. a mortgage on a stadium should be fine imo.
Click to expand...
If you spent £500m building a new stadium, with repayments spread over 25 years at 3% interest, that's £20,600.000 per season.

If a team becomes relatively successful, they'll more than cover the repayment expenditure with additional sponsorship.

This is the PL payout for 2022-2023 & doesn't include TV appearance payments.

1 Manchester City £170m
2 Arsenal £167.8m
3 Manchester United £165.5m
4 Newcastle United £163.4m
5 Liverpool £161.2m
6 Brighton £159m
7 Aston Villa £156.8m
8 Tottenham Hotspur £154.6m
9 Brentford £152.4m
10 Fulham £150.2m
11 Crystal Palace £148m
12 Chelsea £145.8m
13 Wolves £143.6m
14 West Ham £141.4m
15 Bournemouth £139.2m
16 Nottingham Forest £137m
17 Everton £134.8m
18 Leicester £132.6m
19 Leeds £130.4m
20 Southampton £128.2m

It also doesn't include Cup competition appearance fees or prize money. £20.6m for a stadium out of this level of revenue is easily affordable as long as clubs don't go daft.

Based on a 25% amortised figure, Southampton could have £32m of longterm amortised debt per season, not including all the other income streams.

If the PL adopts the 70% maximum wages to income ratio, Southampton would have a wage level of £90m per season.

Even without all the additional income streams, Southampton would still have £20m per season headroom. It's a rough breakdown, but this model would protect clubs from reckless spending & not stymie owner equity investment.
 
Dribble said:
If you spent £500m building a new stadium, with repayments spread over 25 years at 3% interest, that's £20,600.000 per season.

If a team becomes relatively successful, they'll more than cover the repayment expenditure with additional sponsorship.

This is the PL payout for 2022-2023 & doesn't include TV appearance payments.

1 Manchester City £170m
2 Arsenal £167.8m
3 Manchester United £165.5m
4 Newcastle United £163.4m
5 Liverpool £161.2m
6 Brighton £159m
7 Aston Villa £156.8m
8 Tottenham Hotspur £154.6m
9 Brentford £152.4m
10 Fulham £150.2m
11 Crystal Palace £148m
12 Chelsea £145.8m
13 Wolves £143.6m
14 West Ham £141.4m
15 Bournemouth £139.2m
16 Nottingham Forest £137m
17 Everton £134.8m
18 Leicester £132.6m
19 Leeds £130.4m
20 Southampton £128.2m

It also doesn't include Cup competition appearance fees or prize money. £20.6m for a stadium out of this level of revenue is easily affordable as long as clubs don't go daft.

Based on a 25% amortised figure, Southampton could have £32m of longterm amortised debt per season, not including all the other income streams.

If the PL adopts the 70% maximum wages to income ratio, Southampton would have a wage level of £90m per season.

Even without all the additional income streams, Southampton would still have £20m per season headroom. It's a rough breakdown, but this model would protect clubs from reckless spending & not stymie owner equity investment.
Click to expand...

woah you do research whereas i just "chat shit". you win
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Those who had had their share of away gate receipts stolen from them. By .... ?
Click to expand...
I do love reminding other clubs fans of this, or even telling them for the first time. Your clubs changed a founding principle of the league to ensure you could dominate it on the back of United not winning the title since 1967, Arsenal 1970 and the emergence of 2 very good sides in Forrest and Villa threatening your survival back in 83. They have already taken away the level playing field they're now calling for by restricting owner investment. You couldn't make it up, actually they do make up the rules as they go along. Look at the league winners 83-92, mission accomplished.
 
Is there any chance the tribunal is already happening? Seems a bit weird that the allegations have been published and there is a year or two before any defence can be made.
 
just wondering what punishments are on the table for breaking rules in general (not specifically in our case)
  1. points
  2. fine
  3. relegation
  4. transfer ban
  5. squad size reduction
  6. fan ban (loss of stadium revenue)
  7. premier league voting right suspension
  8. exclusion from european competitions
  9. stripped of titles
  10. forced to listen to simon jordan
any other creative ideas?
 
Iassel said:
To confirm, this is your opinion and is not supported by any sort of facts.

The PL would not be finding City guilty of fraud albeit they could/would strongly infer it. Any ruling by the tribunal cannot be appealed outside of the PL environment, unless it is founded upon such completely egregious reasoning as to convince a commercial court to take it on, and even then, a commercial court has already ruled the PL have jurisdiction to hear the case, not them.

TLDR version, unless City put forth such evidence as to show completely incontrovertibly that everything was above board, the IC acknowledges it and openly ignores it, the case will end within the PL environment.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you going to tell us which team you support?
We’re all waiting
 
The guy that on White and Jordan sad the tribunal was not the right setting. But he did not say anything about appeals or right to appeal to another setting. So are we sure we can ? Is there a reason he did not say we can or will? Also i don’t think he’s used the word fraud so is it defiantly fraud ? my assumption is that they are accusing us of fraud and we can appeal but he s the expert so just checking
 
Lord Blue said:
just wondering what punishments are on the table for breaking rules in general (not specifically in our case)
  1. points
  2. fine
  3. relegation
  4. transfer ban
  5. squad size reduction
  6. fan ban (loss of stadium revenue)
  7. premier league voting right suspension
  8. exclusion from european competitions
  9. stripped of titles
  10. forced to listen to simon jordan
any other creative ideas?
Click to expand...
Manchester City fans wishing to attend away games in the 25/26 season can do so on the understanding they will be collected at a central point (like the train station), be forced to strip naked and have their hair shaved off. They will then be put in chain gang irons and paraded publicly on the way to the stadium whereby home fans will be encouraged to pelt them with rotten fruit and animal faeces. They will be led Sir Alex Ferguson who will ring a bell shouting “Shame!” as the pitiful March makes its way through rival towns and cities.
 
Lord Blue said:
just wondering what punishments are on the table for breaking rules in general (not specifically in our case)
  1. points
  2. fine
  3. relegation
  4. transfer ban
  5. squad size reduction
  6. fan ban (loss of stadium revenue)
  7. premier league voting right suspension
  8. exclusion from european competitions
  9. stripped of titles
  10. forced to listen to simon jordan
any other creative ideas?
Click to expand...
Just simply put no.10 on your list up to first place and I guarantee, absolutely, no football club in England will behave badly or ever again be 'a very naughty boy'..
 
Spili's City said:
Aren’t you going to tell us which team you support?
We’re all waiting
Click to expand...

I think by now it’s well established that he doesn’t support City. Irrespective of that though, on this occasion I think he’s right about the very limited circumstances under which we can pursue this further, should we get found guilty by the IP, namely that unless the judgment is preposterous and they haven’t followed procedure correctly, then an appeal to a 2nd IP would be the end of the line…..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top