PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Centurions said:
I had to go back to refresh my memory on what we're alleged to have done.

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of 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, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

So, if I've got this right:-

1. Cooked the books in regards to sponsorship and perhaps Fordham?
2. Mancini
3. Failing UEFA FFP? Obviously(?) can't be right?
4. Failing P&S
5. Failure to cooperate

Am I well wide of the mark on any of that?
Click to expand...
1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.
Click to expand...
I thought Fordham was relatively material at roughly £40m revenue in the season of the image rights sale?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.
Click to expand...
So basically we're being accused of fraud with 3 & 4, which UEFA have already found we haven't committed anything of the sort yet the circus that is the Premier League think we've done it on an industrial scale?

Fuck me do we really have to face these absolute morons in court?
 
Bluewonder said:
I thought Fordham was relatively material at roughly £40m revenue in the season of the image rights sale?
Click to expand...
We sold them for just under £25m. I think Fordham paid out something like £12-13m a season. Our revenue was around £350m at that time, going up to £400m when UEFA spoke to us about it. Our expenses were slightly higher than our revenue, so around £375m

A 'material' amount is, if I recall, reckoned to be around 5%, so compared to our revenue or expenses, Fordham would not be material in the overall scheme of things.
 
The evidence the PL claim to have come from those same leaked E mails right ?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We sold them for just under £25m. I think Fordham paid out something like £12-13m a season. Our revenue was around £350m at that time, going up to £400m when UEFA spoke to us about it. Our expenses were slightly higher than our revenue, so around £375m

A 'material' amount is, if I recall, reckoned to be around 5%, so compared to our revenue or expenses, Fordham would not be material in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Do you recall which season it happened?

I would say a net difference £12-13m would be considered material from a statutory audit perspective as materiality would likely be set at 1-2% revenue (IE - less than £10m in those years to which you refer)

This means the auditors would have known about it and been fine with it.

To be frank, if the PL had a problem with the arrangement, it should have said so at the time.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We sold them for just under £25m. I think Fordham paid out something like £12-13m a season. Our revenue was around £350m at that time, going up to £400m when UEFA spoke to us about it. Our expenses were slightly higher than our revenue, so around £375m

A 'material' amount is, if I recall, reckoned to be around 5%, so compared to our revenue or expenses, Fordham would not be material in the overall scheme of things.
Click to expand...
It would be a complete laugh if we were found guilty of this - SIX clubs were fined by HMRC for incorrect tax payments (tax avoidance that were deemed near tax evasion by HMRC) as a result of their image rights deals. This includes Utd, Newcastle another Red Top and Southampton.
We weren't fined as we had continual discussions with HMRC - we closed the Fordam thing down and paid back tax without a fine - ie we came clean without an investigation.
It would be interesting to see how tax evasion by attempted legal means is less of a 'crime' with the PL than than near tax avoidance...
taxdisputes.co.uk

Man Utd and Newcastle amongst football clubs tackling HMRC tax investigations | HMRC Tax Disputes Solicitors & Barristers

After a six-year investigation into the sport, HMRC has recovered about £464 million from football players, clubs, and agents. In the last year alone, the revenue has recovered £55.6…
taxdisputes.co.uk taxdisputes.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
1 is sponsorship, so presumably Etihad & Etisalat
2 is Mancini & Fordham
3 & 4 aren't about failing FFP necessarily but not submitting accurate accounts for both the PL & UEFA. Those obviously depend on 1 & 2 but the latter is unlikely to involve material amounts.
Click to expand...

Small refinement:

1 is the accounting implications of alleged sponsorship funding, Mancini and Fordham (possibly the shared services as well?). I see they threw related parties in as well. They can't seriously been opening that up again, can they?

2 is the disclosure implications of Mancini and Fordham.

3/4 I think are very much to do with FFP once they have adjusted for the items in 1 above.

5 I guess is obvious and the crux of the issues between the PL and the club, imho.

So, as long as 1 is cleared, 3 and 4 clear as well. I have posited why 5 may not be an issue, so that just leaves 2: disclosures to the PL about Mancini and Fordham. Will the club appeal against those if the allegations are proven? Possibly.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Small refinement:

1 is the accounting implications of alleged sponsorship funding, Mancini and Fordham (possibly the shared services as well?). I see they threw related parties in as well. They can't seriously been opening that up again, can they?

2 is the disclosure implications of Mancini and Fordham.

3/4 I think are very much to do with FFP once they have adjusted for the items in 1 above.

5 I guess is obvious and the crux of the issues between the PL and the club, imho.

So, as long as 1 is cleared, 3 and 4 clear as well. I have posited why 5 may not be an issue, so that just leaves 2: disclosures to the PL about Mancini and Fordham. Will the club appeal against those if the allegations are proven? Possibly.
Click to expand...
The Mancini/Fordham allegation is the one that concerns me: not so much for the alleged advantage (as PB mentioned previously, we made a huge loss that year), but more for the way that the media smears will continue if we're found guilty, but only fined, and not relegated, expelled, liquidated and executed.
 
Screenshot_20240411_202733_Chrome.jpg

Premier League clubs have reportedly agreed in principle to adopt new rules to control costs.

A number of alternative options, such as a luxury tax and salary cap, have been discussed by fans and pundits but the league appears ready to press ahead with a squad-cost ratio system.

This will allow clubs to spend up to 85 per cent of their revenue on transfers, wages and agent fees. A similar system is being adopted by UEFA whereby clubs in European competition can only spend 70 per cent of their income.

Thursday’s Premier League shareholders meeting saw the 20 clubs hold two votes on the new rules, according to Sky Sports, one of which reached a unanimous verdict. Now said to be agreed in principle, the league will aim to enshrine in it their rulebook at their summer AGM.

Critics of the squad-cost ratio say it will only serve to keep the existing established order in tact, with the current biggest clubs able to bring in the most revenue. There are also questions over how clubs will be allowed to artificially increase revenue via sponsorships with businesses related to their ownership, particularly clubs with owners linked to wealthy states.

Opinion: A couple of points... The squad-cost ratio system will still stop ambitious owners from being able to invest beyond their turnover in order to compete with the wealthiest clubs, who have the highest turnovers.

A fairer system would be to allow owners to invest what they like, as long as the investment debt is levied against them personally & not the clubs.

Also a club's actual debt on their balance sheet should not exceed 25% of their turnover & the clubs must demonstrate they have the means & wherewithal to service that debt annually.

Another glaring issue is related parties. Why doesn't this apply to American owned clubs having sponsorship deals with American based & owned sponsors?

It's evident why these transatlantic sponsorship deals are seen as fine, but sponsors based in the same "exotic" countries as the club owners they sponsor, are viewed with suspicion & held to a higher standard of relatability tests?

Also which "State" in the world is wealthier than the United States of America?

If the above reports are true, the thick chasing pack & "Just happy to be in the PL" twats who voted for the squad-cost ratio system, have essentially voted to remain where they in perpetuity.

I'm sure this will suit the Red Top Mafia, Spuds, Chavs & City just fine. Talk about the rest being turkeys who're happy to vote for Christmas...

UnFuckinBelievable!

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...rules-profit-sustainability-ffp-b1150904.html
 
Last edited:
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