PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Clear to me that the winds of change will see a majority of clubs vote to overturn these ridiculous rules to something much more flexible that will allow (some degree of) competition.

Turkeys duped by red shirted clubs awaiting their Christmas dinner.
 
paulchapo said:
Why would these cretins have a fucking meeting discussing our charges??? Also inviting a deranged individual that hates us and only sees one side of the story? An absolute waste of their time.
Click to expand...
Cos it’s cool, blud, innit.
 
Citizen Green said:
Clear to me that the winds of change will see a majority of clubs vote to overturn these ridiculous rules to something much more flexible that will allow (some degree of) competition.

Turkeys duped by red shirted clubs awaiting their Christmas dinner.
Click to expand...
.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Only this. There will always be "interests" who will want to devalue the integrity of the PL in the eyes of fans. And if they succeed, who benefits?

City are just a useful tool towards an end. The bigger question is why Masters has put the PL in this position.
Click to expand...
Masters has a brain the size of a pea and judgement like Theresa May.
 
Chris in London said:
Assuming we get that far, whichever member of the hateful 8 finishes fifth in the league will be praying for a City victory in the champions league (unless we are playing Arsenal).

Which appeals to my sense of the ironic, if nothing else.
Click to expand...
It’s not just the Champion’s League though, Dippers, Brighton, West Ham and Villa will also contribute to the country coefficients in their respective competitions. At the moment England is in third place with Italy and Germany leading the way, the top two countries get the additional place.

Italy have Napoli, Lazio and Inter in the CL, all of those could fail during the current round as they’re at risk with first leg results not great. Fiorentina in the Conference League and Atlanta, Roma and AC Milan in the Europa.

Germany have Bayern and Dortmund in the CL, no representatives in the Conference and Leverkusen and Freiburg in the Europa.

Would be funny as you say if it came down to us having to win the final to get one of the H8 in the CL, hopefully the Rags will have qualified for the Conference League by that time.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'll take the self-publicist remark as a compliment, although I've never set out to promote my "brand" over my mission of demystifying football finance and defending City's corner. You've been a staunch ally in that latter cause and I think we've earned our reputation as two of the leading City financial figures.

But I'm most surprised at the toolkit comment. I started on that road when Khaldoon mentioned at the time of the 2014 settlement that the beef with UEFA was over the treatment of wages.

I did a forensic deep-dive into the FFP regulations, including the toolkit, and I've documented the change from version 1 of the toolkit dealing with eligible wage deductions to version 2. It's unarguable that there was a material change in a key part of the basis of calculation. I clearly demonstrated this with screenshots of the 'before' and 'after'.

I worked with Swiss Ramble, whose sources at UEFA were invaluable in accurately identifying some of the key figures, and we agreed the calculations. I knew the figures that had been agreed between City & UEFA. Professor Rob Wilson at Sheffield Hallam reviewed my work and accepted it.

Furthermore I've had indications from the club that I was on the right lines. So I'm fully confident in my work. I therefore think your choice not to believe it reflects on you, not me.

Edit: here's a link to the piece I did on this. Please note that the reference to not collaborating with Swiss Ramble only refers to the piece he wrote on this. We did collaborate on the initial investigations into City's attempt to mitigate the impact of their losses for the first FFP assessment.

boltfromtheblue.live

How UEFA shifted the Goalposts to Shaft Man City.

By Colin Savage. (@prestwichblue) Introduction I’ve written about this before but it’s clear some people still think that it’s something that I’ve made up in my fevered imagination. Having revisite…
boltfromtheblue.live boltfromtheblue.live
Click to expand...
I read the original piece you have quoted here and it convinced me; I was sceptical at first, naively believing UEFA would not stoop to such depths. We actually obeyed the rules for mitigation as they stood at the time but they applied the amended rule to our already submitted accounts.
A rare case of Stefan getting it wrong? Your explanation here of your researches is further back up.
 
hammocity said:
It’s not just the Champion’s League though, Dippers, Brighton, West Ham and Villa will also contribute to the country coefficients in their respective competitions.

Would be funny as you say if it came down to us having to win the final to get one of the H8 in the CL, hopefully the Rags will have qualified for the Conference League by that time.
Click to expand...
I hope the rags qualify for absolutely nothing. And the way they are going it's very likely.

But egghead thinks it's 1999.

IMG_2539.jpeg.jpg
 
Newman Noggs said:
And it's worth reiterating that The 3 English clubs that were part of that G-18 (as it later became) who put pressure on Platini to shift the emphasis of UEFA's FFP away from the debt it was originally intended to control, were none other than United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

The idea that those clubs were anything other the prime movers in shaping PL's version FFP is simply beyond rational thinking. That Harris finds such a notion incomprehensible proves it.
Click to expand...
Quote from Platini: “We have a problem with the legacy clubs.” Courtesy of Martin Samuels.
 
Metalartin said:
Anyone wonder if David Conn is one of Nick's mysterious sources? Has he ever had any genuine City connections, other than once being a fan, before he decided he couldn't be anymore because City got bought by a UAE royal and "Arabs are bad"?

I think it's fair to say Nick and those like him are the journalist(so called) equivalents of Goldbridge and Terry(Football Terrace) as youtube content creators. They are monetising anti-city narratives by fully pandering to a certain audience. An audience that are hoping all the allegations are true because they can't stand City's success on and off the pitch. The only difference, is the latter are playing characters, or openly playing to the crowd at least(not trying to hide it).

Nick on the other hand is delusional(or a massive bullshitter if he isn't), he has convinced himself he's an expert and a hero figure in football coverage. It's obvious he has an agenda by how he carries himself but unless you can show he has never shown any other club other than City this kind of energy... He will still try and deny that he has any agenda against City. "I'd do the same for any other club because I care about the sport" would be his defence.

So if he's here reading this, maybe he should ask himself and answer honestly with examples. Has he made a massive fuss in the early hours about the suspected betting shell companies linked to United and Arsenal(they've both had them). Did he spend months on end fuming about the Ref bribes in Spain story. Has he talked at length about the Rwanda, Iran, Suadi sponsor links to the red cartel 3 and the human rights element of them.

There's been FFP breaches and allegations aimed at United(failed UEFA ffp, possibly the PL compliance rule by extension), Chelsea, Barca, Real and Juve(you could talk all day about the number of cheating scandals they've had) since 2018. Liverpool multiple times since 2011(still the relevant period). Has he given any of those the same level of interest, with the same emotions?

Imagine if City had written off £50m in expenses for a non existent stadium.
Imagine if City were gaining unauthorised access to another club's scouting network over a number of years, 100s of times(source on internal City investigation findings anyone?).
Imagine if a doctor involved in one of the country's biggest doping scandals named City as one of his clients.

Would he have ever bought the excuses from the club if they gave any. Or the reasons from the organisers for not persuing/investigating the matter? If the answer is "no" to all of the above(and I suspect it is), then yes he does have an obsessive agenda against City. No "that's whataboutery" wouldn't be a valid argument against that conclusion.
Click to expand...
The stupid thing is, there is a wealth of stuff to go at and you could build a good reputation attacking it properly. But no, Harris is obsessed by us, not corruption per se.
 
KS55 said:
I read the original piece you have quoted here and it convinced me; I was sceptical at first, naively believing UEFA would not stoop to such depths. We actually obeyed the rules for mitigation as they stood at the time but they applied the amended rule to our already submitted accounts.
A rare case of Stefan getting it wrong? Your explanation here of your researches is further back up.
Click to expand...

Iirc, the wording of the mitigation rule didn't actually change and probably supported the treatment set out in the 2012/13 toolkit. What is undeniable, though, is that City followed the 2011/12 toolkit and thought they had complied on that basis. By the time the 2012/13 toolkit came out it was too late to do anything about it. So I am not sure that the 2012/12 toolkit was amended to screw City, but rather it was amended to correct a mistake. Whatever. The result was the same.

Don't forget, UEFA were also challenging the fair values of sponsorship contracts (probably around 10-20 million), the calculation of the pre-FFP contract costs (31 million) and the treatment of the intangible asset sales (28 million), amongst other things. It is likely the club would have not been able to use the mitigation if any of those were upheld.

So I would say CS vs SB was a score draw, rather than a defeat for either. :)

We accountants are conciliatory.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the wording of the mitigation rule didn't actually change and probably supported the treatment set out in the 2012/13 toolkit. What is undeniable, though, is that City followed the 2011/12 toolkit and thought they had complied on that basis. By the time the 2012/13 toolkit came out it was too late to do anything about it. So I am not sure that the 2012/12 toolkit was amended to screw City, but rather it was amended to correct a mistake. Whatever. The result was the same.

Don't forget, UEFA were also challenging the fair values of sponsorship contracts (probably around 10-20 million), the calculation of the pre-FFP contract costs (31 million) and the treatment of the intangible asset sales (28 million), amongst other things. It is likely the club would have not been able to use the mitigation if any of those were upheld.

So I would say CS vs SB was a score draw, rather than a defeat for either. :)

We accountants are conciliatory.
Click to expand...
Toolkit and screw in one sentence, I see what you did there, you are Tommy Walsh and I claim my £5.
 
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