PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kinkys Left Foot said:
Have we got a big game this weekend:

So far today sports media have reported:
Peps Leaving according to that united dickhead on "Football Terrace"
Keith Wyness and "Football Insider" have run with the bullshit promoted by the Swedish Rumble ****
Talk Shit have plenty of red scousers on each taking turns calling City "Cheats"

I suspect a bit of green eyed monster is doing the rounds. Sad Twats
Click to expand...
It has been lovely. I have such a great time on twitter winding those fans up. They are soooo angry. They will remember these days of City domination for decades, they just cannot get it out of their heads.

Winning stuff has been brilliant. But seeing them lose their cosy little closed-shop cartel of success, seeing their world turned upside down has been a big fat cherry on top of the whole thing.
 
KS55 said:
Thank you for an excellent summary. On Fordham, it should be noted that we negotiated with HMRC and were effectively cleared with no extra tax being levied. About six clubs were given tax levies, I am not sure whether those cases are still being argued about or whether they have paid the extra tax. None of those clubs have been charged by the PL.
Click to expand...
That missed tax could have affect there FFP and could possibly be argued the accounts where in accurate which is some of our charges so they should be gone after even if it did not affect the FFP position given that most clubs are running close to the line it seems highly likely they would have been pushed over on FFP if they had had to pay the original higher taxes
 
dario2739 said:
Not a legal expert obviously, but surely that's contentious too?
City have submitted all the financial documents/records they are required to by the PL... if the PL are now saying there's something wrong, then it's up to them to prove it, I just don't see how City are legally required to supply anything more than they have?!
Click to expand...
It’s the PL rules. ”You are required to provide evidence against yourself. If you have done nothing wrong, make something incriminating up.”
Ok, I have exaggerated a little.
 
I am a great believer in what will be will be,It did use to affect me all this bolloxs that wankstains post and say about the club I love and have done for 44 yrs but now I've the skin of a rhino and I just laugh at the fuckers and see how bitter and how gutted they are,we will prevail in the end of this I have no doubt and I will just smile at the fuckers as sometimes you don't need words to say I told you so..up the blues,keep believing,keep smiling and keep loving.....
 
halfcenturyup said:
2019 PL investigation
  • Investigation was opened concurrently with UEFA investigation.
  • Was delayed firstly by UEFA investigation/ charges and CAS then by some procedural complaints from City on cooperation (countered by PL) and confidentiality (backed by PL).
  • Complaints were legitimate but ultimately rejected.
  • Allegations referred to disciplinary panel chairman in February 2023.
  • Alleged rule breaches were:
  • Filing incorrect accounts, presenting incorrect financial information to the PL, acting in bad faith, 50 alleged breaches.
  • Understating manager remuneration, 8 alleged breaches.
  • Understating player remuneration, 12 alleged breaches.
  • UEFA FFP and licensing, 5 alleged breaches.
  • PL FFP, 6 alleged breaches.
  • Non-cooperation, 30 alleged breaches.
  • Total 111 alleged breaches (plus 4 for when rule changes mid-season led to two rule breaches multiple times in a season).
Click to expand...
This and the subsequent part of your post are what media commentators and fans of other clubs need to understand properly before spouting off. Together, they've created a narrative that there's no smoke without fire — "If the PL have brought 115 separate charges, City must surely be guilty of at least some of them."

But, as the rest of your post goes on to say, these aren't really separate charges; they're all interlinked. And once one gets thrown out, the rest start to tumble as they're reliant on the others being proven. Equally, if found guilty, it's likely to be on almost all, if not all, the charges. It's an all or nothing case.

If and when we're cleared, the media need to properly explain this to everyone who hasn't bothered reading beyond the headlines for the last 2 years. I won't be holding my breath though!
 
The funny thing is some supporters of other clubs seem to think the PL is run by people who actually know what they're doing.

You only need to look at the way the country has been governed the last 10 years to realise that there are plenty of idiots in high places.

Luckily Khaldoun is not one of them.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
The BBC published a big story earlier in the week that assumed City had cheated and were awaiting punishment.

It was amended fairly quickly - but that and Lance Armstrong broadcast on Talksport does not indicate the cheating narrative has stopped to me.
Click to expand...
I was out on site this morning I thought for my sins I would listen to Talksport, Jordon who had been one of the leading critics of City and had said some very legally close to the bone before, his tone was remarkably different, I have not head the Lance Armstrong reference I have read it on Rag Forums

It's a valid topic for discussion for the media they won't shut up about it because it generates clicks which generate money for them, but there are very few assumptions of guilt in fact that really has changed

From my observations it would appear the groundwork is being done in order to exonerate the club (or minimise things) we are not party to all the ins and outs but I can see when groups are on monoverse.

How do you change the narrative? First you stop any reference to presumed guilt, and there was a lot of that prior to a few weeks ago, then you brief chosen people in the media )and people that matter in the media)as to what the charges are really about i.e stuff that allegedly happened many years ago, I am quite confident that this matter will be closed shortly and the club will come out of it very strongly, although I think some chairment (particularly of a North London club we played recently) will be sleeping with one eye open for many years
 
na annananananan city living rent free
rent free
in your head
 
Not really thought much about the player remuneration bit of the charges. Do we know who it relates to ? Which email was it at CAS ? I don’t really remember any details now or in the past far more on Mancini image rights no cooperation sponsorships etc
 
WRicko said:
Not really thought much about the player remuneration bit of the charges. Do we know who it relates to ? Which email was it at CAS ? I don’t really remember any details now or in the past far more on Mancini image rights no cooperation sponsorships etc
Click to expand...
Neither Fordham nor Mancini was charged by UEFA, or discussed at CAS after the UEFA judgment.
 
I could not give a damn about the 115 charges, but when the media tell us of the City punishment, without the balance of what the PL punishment would be then they are building costs. to them it probably viewed as click bait, problem with that though is no one is interested in 115 this 115 that, except liverpool fans, and they have to read it on the walls of their houses. so they have upped the ante.
i could not give a damn what the PL do, in a court of law they lose, and we get compensation. But what compensation would we want? mine would be, every member of the G14 and their American allies, removed from the corridors of power, within the PL/FA, and every sub committee, out with Masters and the other three, a reintroduction of dept to FFP
 
WRicko said:
Not really thought much about the player remuneration bit of the charges. Do we know who it relates to ? Which email was it at CAS ? I don’t really remember any details now or in the past far more on Mancini image rights no cooperation sponsorships etc
Click to expand...
Don`t know who but i think it when we copied utd and introduced image rights.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Warning *Long post*

We go around and around sometimes, so I tried to summarise where we are and how we got here. By necessity it avoids some of the intricacies, but I tried to be factual where I could. Feel free to comment if I have said anything you disagree with.

2014 UEFA investigation and settlement
  • City were never charged with anything.
  • City accepted the settlement without accepting guilt.
  • There was an investigation but UEFA and City settled before referral to the Adjudicatory Chamber for verdict.
  • A settlement does not indicate guilt.
  • UEFA moving the goalposts was the club’s main concern for an FFP breach but it wasn’t the only issue.
  • Other issues included fair values of sponsorships, related party nature of sponsorships, the inclusion of contract amortisation in the pre-2010 squad cost mitigation, the sale of IP to CFG and the sale of image rights to Fordham.
  • Any of these could have led to a breach even if the goalposts hadn't been moved.
  • It was in the interest of both parties not to litigate all this, so they settled.
  • Importantly for City, the settlement meant the issues of fair value, related party, CDG and Fordham weren’t raised again in 2019.

2019 UEFA investigation, punishment and CAS
  • City were found guilty by UEFA but all charges except non-compliance were not proven on appeal at CAS
  • So, while it is accurate to say City were found guilty by UEFA, it is disingenuous to say that without referring to the successful appeal.
  • The issues for which City were punished by UEFA were: funding of Etihad sponsorship, funding of Etisalat sponsorship, filing incorrect accounts, filing incorrect FFP information.
  • City were banned from the CL for two years and fined 30 million Euros (for all the charges, there was no split).
  • City appealed to CAS and provided new information, mostly external.
  • City didn’t choose the Chairman of the CAS panel, City chose one arbitrator, UEFA chose one and City proposed the Chairman, which was accepted by UEFA. CAS rules allow the two parties to choose the three arbitrators, if they can’t agree they select one each and the two selected arbitrators choose a Chairman and, finally, if they can’t agree then the Chairman of the Judicial Panel can appoint a Chairman. Nothing untoward there.
  • CAS time limited the Etisalat issue and part of the Etihad issue.
  • Note time limiting isn't a “got off on a technicality”, it is a part of case law in every jurisdiction and just means the issue can’t be proven.
  • CAS found, on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the “evidence” presented by UEFA and the counter-evidence provided by the club, that the issue of Etihad was not proven.
  • CAS found that City had not complied sufficiently with UEFA, distinguishing three areas: information requested by UEFA on which they later did not insist - no sanction; information requested by UEFA but was presented for the first time at CAS - sanction; information not requested by UEFA that was later presented to CAS - no sanction.
  • So the CAS award was Etihad and Etisalat not proven, non-compliance partly proven - CL ban overturned and 10 million Euro sanction.

2019 PL investigation
  • Investigation was opened concurrently with UEFA investigation.
  • Was delayed firstly by UEFA investigation/ charges and CAS then by some procedural complaints from City on cooperation (countered by PL) and confidentiality (backed by PL).
  • Complaints were legitimate but ultimately rejected.
  • Allegations referred to disciplinary panel chairman in February 2023.
  • Alleged rule breaches were:
  • Filing incorrect accounts, presenting incorrect financial information to the PL, acting in bad faith, 50 alleged breaches.
  • Understating manager remuneration, 8 alleged breaches.
  • Understating player remuneration, 12 alleged breaches.
  • UEFA FFP and licensing, 5 alleged breaches.
  • PL FFP, 6 alleged breaches.
  • Non-cooperation, 30 alleged breaches.
  • Total 111 alleged breaches (plus 4 for when rule changes mid-season led to two rule breaches multiple times in a season).

2023 Independent PL Panel (more personal comment as in progress)
  • Three member panel chosen by chairman of judicial panel who was chosen by PL.
  • We don't know the detail of the allegations, but:
  • Some of the allegations mirror the UEFA charges (funding of sponsorships, filing incorrect accounting information, acting in bad faith), so it is safe to assume the detail of the allegations, and the evidence to support them, is also the same.
  • The PL may also have additional evidence from their investigation, but, even if the allegations were true, any real incriminating evidence would be external and I doubt any external evidence was provided to the investigation.
  • There are also additional allegations concerning matters that were clearly time limited at UEFA (certainly Mancini), matters that were time limited by CAS (Etihad partly, Etisalat), matters that were included in the 2014 settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (most probably Fordham) and, possibly if unlikely, matters that were not in the leaked emails but were included in the 2014 UEFA settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (fair values, related parties, IP sale to CFG).
  • General consensus is a hearing in the autumn, an award next year followed by the inevitable appeals.
  • Possibility of a settlement before that.

Predictions (completely personal)
  • Mancini, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely).
  • Fordham, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely, but don’t know enough about Fordham to be sure).
  • Etihad, same as CAS, unproven unless PL have some particularly cogent incriminating evidence from somewhere (unlikely).
  • Etisalat, CAS evidence will show no knowing concealment, so time- limited.
  • Filing of incorrect accounts, hinges on Etihad (rest isn’t material), so unlikely to be proven.
  • Acting in bad faith, if the above comes to pass, this falls away.
  • PL FFP breaches, if Etihad resolved as above, shouldn't be a problem.
  • UEFA FFP and licensing breaches, if all resolved as above, shouldn’t be a problem.
  • So what is left -1? Non-compliance. I can’t imagine that City didn't comply with all reasonable requests from the PL after the failed court appeals, so that leaves requests from the PL that City considered either unreasonable (fishing) or requests outside the scope of the PL rules (external information, imo). Probably same as CAS, financial sanction, maybe reduced if City can show unreasonable or outside scope.
  • So what is left - 2? PL disagreeing with some 10 year old accounting treatments (understating expenses due to Fordham / IP sales to CFG). Possible sporting sanction (very unlikely), possible financial sanction (more likely, possibly suspended).
  • So that is it, imho. Most likely outcome: financial sanction for non-compliance and (possibly) understatement of expenses on Fordham/IP sales.
Click to expand...
Excellent post again mate.

Always good to get a refresher crash course.

The contributions made by your good self on this thread are both informative and succinct.

 
halfcenturyup said:
  • Other issues included fair values of sponsorships, related party nature of sponsorships, the inclusion of contract amortisation in the pre-2010 squad cost mitigation, the sale of IP to CFG and the sale of image rights to Fordham.
Click to expand...

Just a clarification. Only deals which were adjudged to be related parties needed fair value appraisal and that in itself wasn't a "breach" so to speak, they'd just adjust the figures. The Etihad deal was found not to be a related party transaction, only the CFG and Fordham ones were.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Warning *Long post*

We go around and around sometimes, so I tried to summarise where we are and how we got here. By necessity it avoids some of the intricacies, but I tried to be factual where I could. Feel free to comment if I have said anything you disagree with.

2014 UEFA investigation and settlement
  • City were never charged with anything.
  • City accepted the settlement without accepting guilt.
  • There was an investigation but UEFA and City settled before referral to the Adjudicatory Chamber for verdict.
  • A settlement does not indicate guilt.
  • UEFA moving the goalposts was the club’s main concern for an FFP breach but it wasn’t the only issue.
  • Other issues included fair values of sponsorships, related party nature of sponsorships, the inclusion of contract amortisation in the pre-2010 squad cost mitigation, the sale of IP to CFG and the sale of image rights to Fordham.
  • Any of these could have led to a breach even if the goalposts hadn't been moved.
  • It was in the interest of both parties not to litigate all this, so they settled.
  • Importantly for City, the settlement meant the issues of fair value, related party, CDG and Fordham weren’t raised again in 2019.

2019 UEFA investigation, punishment and CAS
  • City were found guilty by UEFA but all charges except non-compliance were not proven on appeal at CAS
  • So, while it is accurate to say City were found guilty by UEFA, it is disingenuous to say that without referring to the successful appeal.
  • The issues for which City were punished by UEFA were: funding of Etihad sponsorship, funding of Etisalat sponsorship, filing incorrect accounts, filing incorrect FFP information.
  • City were banned from the CL for two years and fined 30 million Euros (for all the charges, there was no split).
  • City appealed to CAS and provided new information, mostly external.
  • City didn’t choose the Chairman of the CAS panel, City chose one arbitrator, UEFA chose one and City proposed the Chairman, which was accepted by UEFA. CAS rules allow the two parties to choose the three arbitrators, if they can’t agree they select one each and the two selected arbitrators choose a Chairman and, finally, if they can’t agree then the Chairman of the Judicial Panel can appoint a Chairman. Nothing untoward there.
  • CAS time limited the Etisalat issue and part of the Etihad issue.
  • Note time limiting isn't a “got off on a technicality”, it is a part of case law in every jurisdiction and just means the issue can’t be proven.
  • CAS found, on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the “evidence” presented by UEFA and the counter-evidence provided by the club, that the issue of Etihad was not proven.
  • CAS found that City had not complied sufficiently with UEFA, distinguishing three areas: information requested by UEFA on which they later did not insist - no sanction; information requested by UEFA but was presented for the first time at CAS - sanction; information not requested by UEFA that was later presented to CAS - no sanction.
  • So the CAS award was Etihad and Etisalat not proven, non-compliance partly proven - CL ban overturned and 10 million Euro sanction.

2019 PL investigation
  • Investigation was opened concurrently with UEFA investigation.
  • Was delayed firstly by UEFA investigation/ charges and CAS then by some procedural complaints from City on cooperation (countered by PL) and confidentiality (backed by PL).
  • Complaints were legitimate but ultimately rejected.
  • Allegations referred to disciplinary panel chairman in February 2023.
  • Alleged rule breaches were:
  • Filing incorrect accounts, presenting incorrect financial information to the PL, acting in bad faith, 50 alleged breaches.
  • Understating manager remuneration, 8 alleged breaches.
  • Understating player remuneration, 12 alleged breaches.
  • UEFA FFP and licensing, 5 alleged breaches.
  • PL FFP, 6 alleged breaches.
  • Non-cooperation, 30 alleged breaches.
  • Total 111 alleged breaches (plus 4 for when rule changes mid-season led to two rule breaches multiple times in a season).

2023 Independent PL Panel (more personal comment as in progress)
  • Three member panel chosen by chairman of judicial panel who was chosen by PL.
  • We don't know the detail of the allegations, but:
  • Some of the allegations mirror the UEFA charges (funding of sponsorships, filing incorrect accounting information, acting in bad faith), so it is safe to assume the detail of the allegations, and the evidence to support them, is also the same.
  • The PL may also have additional evidence from their investigation, but, even if the allegations were true, any real incriminating evidence would be external and I doubt any external evidence was provided to the investigation.
  • There are also additional allegations concerning matters that were clearly time limited at UEFA (certainly Mancini), matters that were time limited by CAS (Etihad partly, Etisalat), matters that were included in the 2014 settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (most probably Fordham) and, possibly if unlikely, matters that were not in the leaked emails but were included in the 2014 UEFA settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (fair values, related parties, IP sale to CFG).
  • General consensus is a hearing in the autumn, an award next year followed by the inevitable appeals.
  • Possibility of a settlement before that.

Predictions (completely personal)
  • Mancini, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely).
  • Fordham, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely, but don’t know enough about Fordham to be sure).
  • Etihad, same as CAS, unproven unless PL have some particularly cogent incriminating evidence from somewhere (unlikely).
  • Etisalat, CAS evidence will show no knowing concealment, so time- limited.
  • Filing of incorrect accounts, hinges on Etihad (rest isn’t material), so unlikely to be proven.
  • Acting in bad faith, if the above comes to pass, this falls away.
  • PL FFP breaches, if Etihad resolved as above, shouldn't be a problem.
  • UEFA FFP and licensing breaches, if all resolved as above, shouldn’t be a problem.
  • So what is left -1? Non-compliance. I can’t imagine that City didn't comply with all reasonable requests from the PL after the failed court appeals, so that leaves requests from the PL that City considered either unreasonable (fishing) or requests outside the scope of the PL rules (external information, imo). Probably same as CAS, financial sanction, maybe reduced if City can show unreasonable or outside scope.
  • So what is left - 2? PL disagreeing with some 10 year old accounting treatments (understating expenses due to Fordham / IP sales to CFG). Possible sporting sanction (very unlikely), possible financial sanction (more likely, possibly suspended).
  • So that is it, imho. Most likely outcome: financial sanction for non-compliance and (possibly) understatement of expenses on Fordham/IP sales.
Click to expand...
Fantastic summary. Chapeau doffed.
 
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