PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
I've done the first of a series of pieces on my blog about the first group of charges, which are seemingly all connected to the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships.

open.substack.com

Manchester City’s PL charges explained – Part 1

Accounts, sponsorships and related parties
open.substack.com open.substack.com
Click to expand...
In relation to:
3) Rules that require clubs to comply with UEFA’s FFP regulations, covering 2013/14 to 2017/18,

Why were united not charged by the premier league when they failed uefa ffp?
If its a PL rule that you must pass uefa ffp then surely they have failed and should be charged.
 
malg said:
If you know PB it can be discounted. However you'd need to disclose this relationship at the checkout and especially if you get the discount on the back of your 'relationship'.

That 'relationship' could come back to haunt you in years to come if PB is late in submitting his accounts as your discount would then make you a related party in his complex finances.....


Or something like that.
Click to expand...
Can I secretly pay mancini instead?
 
117 M34 said:
In relation to:
3) Rules that require clubs to comply with UEFA’s FFP regulations, covering 2013/14 to 2017/18,

Why were united not charged by the premier league when they failed uefa ffp?
If its a PL rule that you must pass uefa ffp then surely they have failed and should be charged.
Click to expand...
Spot on. All I can find online is the Premier League declined to comment when they were asked the same question. Without clarity from the PL, the breach by Man Utd not being charged looks like a sham to me. Who does the PL chairperson support? Man Utd.
 
Slightly less inflammatory/more conciliatory language from Ceferin here in his latest interview?

You’ve been clear recently about your view of Manchester City’s guilt in breaching FFP rules, which they deny. Was there any route for you to attempt fresh proceedings against them in 2021 after the court of arbitration for sport (Cas) overturned the two‑year Champions League ban you had imposed?

No, I don’t think so. Our club financial control body decided. City succeeded with Cas, then, for me, the story was over.
Click to expand...

www.theguardian.com

‘It was like I became Kim Jong-un’: Aleksander Ceferin on Uefa, Super Leagues and Saudi cash

Exclusive: the combative Uefa president talks about his controversial plans that prompted Boban’s exit, Super League threats and football in a time of war
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
The Colonel said:
Speaking to Spurs fans yesterday was a good reality check that we should all take comfort from. We are fed red media bullshit and forced to listen to ignorant rags and the odd scouser (we quote their shite too often in here).
Each Spurs fan said how bitter rags and scousers are. “Pure jealousy” and that our club is an example of how a club should be run. We don’t overpay etc.
This backs up my experiences of other club’s fans and what others have said on here. Most football fans know and see the tiresome rags for what they are. Also said that they couldn’t sit and have a rational conversation with them. Delusional and arrogant.
They just have too much of a mouth in our lives and in the media. They really better off ignored. You should sleep happy in our glorious halcyon days.
Btw respect to Spurs fans they are generally not a reflection of their chairman.
Click to expand...
The only Spurs fan who spoke to me just mouthed "Ya fackin' norfern mankey caaant".
 
117 M34 said:
In relation to:
3) Rules that require clubs to comply with UEFA’s FFP regulations, covering 2013/14 to 2017/18,

Why were united not charged by the premier league when they failed uefa ffp?
If its a PL rule that you must pass uefa ffp then surely they have failed and should be charged.
Click to expand...
There are different maximum allowable losses, with the PL's PSR limit much higher than the UEFA FFP limit. UEFA's was a maximum of €45m (£38m) over 3 years whereas the PL allows a maximum of £105m over the same period.
 
I don't think the Guardian journalist expected this reply from Ceferin.

This brings us to state-run clubs. Some would say we have sleepwalked into this issue: that European football wasn’t ready for their influence and stranglehold. Does it worry you that this has escalated during your tenure?

I’m not worried about state-owned clubs as long as they respect the rules. I’m more worried about hedge fund-owned clubs. With hedge funds, you never know exactly who is behind them. It’s very hard to know because they are, many times, managing money for investors. Where I see a big difference, and maybe this is a bit simplistic, is that state-owned clubs want to win. Whether it’s also for name-washing or not, I don’t enter into this. But they want to win. With purely financial funds it’s important to get money and winning is not the main goal. For state-owned clubs, the goal is not to take money out, so I think those clubs should be more sustainable. With the others, it’s very hard to know who is behind it. It can also be a hedge fund where a state is behind it. But I prefer that it’s clear ownership. And the rules are clear: if they don’t respect them, they get punished.
 
argyle said:
I don't think the Guardian journalist expected this reply from Ceferin.

This brings us to state-run clubs. Some would say we have sleepwalked into this issue: that European football wasn’t ready for their influence and stranglehold. Does it worry you that this has escalated during your tenure?

I’m not worried about state-owned clubs as long as they respect the rules. I’m more worried about hedge fund-owned clubs. With hedge funds, you never know exactly who is behind them. It’s very hard to know because they are, many times, managing money for investors. Where I see a big difference, and maybe this is a bit simplistic, is that state-owned clubs want to win. Whether it’s also for name-washing or not, I don’t enter into this. But they want to win. With purely financial funds it’s important to get money and winning is not the main goal. For state-owned clubs, the goal is not to take money out, so I think those clubs should be more sustainable. With the others, it’s very hard to know who is behind it. It can also be a hedge fund where a state is behind it. But I prefer that it’s clear ownership. And the rules are clear: if they don’t respect them, they get punished.
Click to expand...
That was a remarkable admission and totally goes with what we have been saying on here for years
 
jrb said:
Ceferin made the comments on purpose. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Ceferin could have easily said no comment or told the reporter not to ask him about Manchester City and FFP. He is a lawyer after all. But he decided to make the most of the opportunity afforded to him by the DT reporter, knowing his comments about City and FFP would be printed.

Doing this after Khaldoon and City held out an olive branch to Ceferin and UEFA, thinking Ceferin and UEFA had moved on and it was over.

Ceferin by his actions has shown it will never be over for him and UEFA after their humiliation at CAS.

Comments made towards Man City by Uefa chief Aleksander Ceferin were ‘staggeringly unprofessional’ and indicative of a ‘megalomaniac’.

That is the view of finance expert Kieran Maguire, who spoke exclusively to Football Insider about Ceferin’s comments about City’s financial breaches.

Maguire believes Ceferin’s comments effectively accused City of being guilty before their independent hearing has even begun.

www.footballinsider247.com

Man City: Kieran Maguire labels Ceferin a 'narcissistic megalomaniac'

Football Insider has been told by Kieran Maguire that Aleksander Ceferin's comments towards Man City were 'staggeringly unprofessional'.
www.footballinsider247.com www.footballinsider247.com
Click to expand...

Everyone talks about Ceferin being a lawyer but he’s actually a politician…… a self serving politician who will curry favour & headlines whenever he thinks it serves his purpose.
 
Ric said:
Slightly less inflammatory/more conciliatory language from Ceferin here in his latest interview?



www.theguardian.com

‘It was like I became Kim Jong-un’: Aleksander Ceferin on Uefa, Super Leagues and Saudi cash

Exclusive: the combative Uefa president talks about his controversial plans that prompted Boban’s exit, Super League threats and football in a time of war
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

He refused to answer a few questions which shows he’d was happy to throw City under a bus a few days ago.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've done the first of a series of pieces on my blog about the first group of charges, which are seemingly all connected to the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships.

open.substack.com

Manchester City’s PL charges explained – Part 1

Accounts, sponsorships and related parties
open.substack.com open.substack.com
Click to expand...
Good stuff PB. Inviting you to speculate, any particular reason you can think of why the Abu Dhabi Executive Council decided to subsidise Etihad’s contribution to our coffers, rather than just sponsor us themselves? Presentation?
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Good stuff PB. Inviting you to speculate, any particular reason you can think of why the Abu Dhabi Executive Council decided to subsidise Etihad’s contribution to our coffers, rather than just sponsor us themselves? Presentation?
Click to expand...
Etihad didn't have the money, but as they are state owned the Abu Dhabi government was subsidising Etihad's losses
It was all revealed in a court case in the US
 
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