PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LeonardoDaVnci said:
Apologies for double posting, I put this in the Transfer thread but think it may be of interest in here...

At the time of the last update to the PL regs I thought the reaction was purposely under played in the MSM. They really were commercailly draconian. The regs now state that no matter what each club negotiates for a partnership agreement, transfer fee, loan fee or sponsorship fund the PL will have the power to completely over ride that value and force you to re-adjust your recorded accounts accordingly. They also said that the rules will not be enforced in a blanket fashion but only where the PL "determines" them necessary, primarily meaning us. What baffles me is what are you supposed to do with any surplus money, eg if the PL "value" THB at £10M but Southampton paid us £20M wtf are we meant to do with the £10M surplus ? donate it to the Richard Masters pension fund maybe ?.
Click to expand...
The way it works with FFP is that you can keep the £20m cash but have to deduct the £10m from your revenue. So you can only claim £10m. That's also the case under PL rules, where a deal that's been concluded without approval is deemed to be overvalued. If you submit a proposed deal that is deemed to be overvalued then I believe the PL can force the club to renegotiate it to the lower value.

I believe the current rules we're challenging require that any APT has to be commensurate with two other proposed deals you've obtained "quotes" for from non-associated parties. That's complete nonsense. It's saying that if we want to do a new deal with Etihad, we have to get comparable quotes from BA and Delta.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Apologies for double posting, I put this in the Transfer thread but think it may be of interest in here...

At the time of the last update to the PL regs I thought the reaction was purposely under played in the MSM. They really were commercailly draconian. The regs now state that no matter what each club negotiates for a partnership agreement, transfer fee, loan fee or sponsorship fund the PL will have the power to completely over ride that value and force you to re-adjust your recorded accounts accordingly. They also said that the rules will not be enforced in a blanket fashion but only where the PL "determines" them necessary, primarily meaning us. What baffles me is what are you supposed to do with any surplus money, eg if the PL "value" THB at £10M but Southampton paid us £20M wtf are we meant to do with the £10M surplus ? donate it to the Richard Masters pension fund maybe ?.
Click to expand...
Presumably the redshirts do the “determination”. Fred Karno’s. Who on earth could think this worthy of the PL? Surely it is discriminatory, either all or nothing would be fairer but still bonkers.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
The way it works with FFP is that you can keep the £20m cash but have to deduct the £10m from your revenue. So you can only claim £10m. That's also the case under PL rules, where a deal that's been concluded without approval is deemed to be overvalued. If you submit a proposed deal that is deemed to be overvalued then I believe the PL can force the club to renegotiate it to the lower value.

I believe the current rules we're challenging require that any APT has to be commensurate with two other proposed deals you've obtained "quotes" for from non-associated parties. That's complete nonsense. It's saying that if we want to do a new deal with Etihad, we have to get comparable quotes from BA and Delta.
Click to expand...
Haven’t they junked the comparable quotes idea in favour of ‘independent’ appraisal?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The way it works with FFP is that you can keep the £20m cash but have to deduct the £10m from your revenue. So you can only claim £10m. That's also the case under PL rules, where a deal that's been concluded without approval is deemed to be overvalued. If you submit a proposed deal that is deemed to be overvalued then I believe the PL can force the club to renegotiate it to the lower value.

I believe the current rules we're challenging require that any APT has to be commensurate with two other proposed deals you've obtained "quotes" for from non-associated parties. That's complete nonsense. It's saying that if we want to do a new deal with Etihad, we have to get comparable quotes from BA and Delta.
Click to expand...
It's as if the PL have funded a Law school where it produces its own branded Lawyers. That's Lawyers who are prepared to distort, mangle and re-interprerate Anti Competition Law beyond reason. I sometimes think the substance of this whole 115 shit show is 95% Ethihad Airways. The lengths the PL cartel have gone to is beyond belief, but as we've seen with PSR this will come back to haunt them !
eg if INEOS are thinking of sponsoring the rags they will have to get comparable bids from the likes of BASF or the Dow Chemical Co, their main commercial competitors. No doubt that's why scruffy j is saying its all gone too far.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The way it works with FFP is that you can keep the £20m cash but have to deduct the £10m from your revenue. So you can only claim £10m. That's also the case under PL rules, where a deal that's been concluded without approval is deemed to be overvalued. If you submit a proposed deal that is deemed to be overvalued then I believe the PL can force the club to renegotiate it to the lower value.

I believe the current rules we're challenging require that any APT has to be commensurate with two other proposed deals you've obtained "quotes" for from non-associated parties. That's complete nonsense. It's saying that if we want to do a new deal with Etihad, we have to get comparable quotes from BA and Delta.
Click to expand...
Is it retrospective ? Let's say a club bought an 80 million pound player for 40 million they would be, stop laughing at the back there, forced to show the higher figure. But, and this is where it gets complicated, if after a couple of years sold that player for 3 shilling and 6 pence*, would they get a refund ?


* That's old money, in new money it would probably be around half a mill. Not that it would ever happen of course
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The way it works with FFP is that you can keep the £20m cash but have to deduct the £10m from your revenue. So you can only claim £10m. That's also the case under PL rules, where a deal that's been concluded without approval is deemed to be overvalued. If you submit a proposed deal that is deemed to be overvalued then I believe the PL can force the club to renegotiate it to the lower value.

I believe the current rules we're challenging require that any APT has to be commensurate with two other proposed deals you've obtained "quotes" for from non-associated parties. That's complete nonsense. It's saying that if we want to do a new deal with Etihad, we have to get comparable quotes from BA and Delta.
Click to expand...

Unless I am misunderstanding, rule E67 requires a club whose threshold transaction has been determined to be above market value to either i) cancel the contract, or ii) change the terms of the contract and repay the excess back to the other party.

It's not just a question of reporting an adjusted income to the PL for PSR purposes, I don't think.

I can't imagine any of that is legal?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Unless I am misunderstanding, rule E67 requires a club whose threshold transaction has been determined to be above market value to either i) cancel the contract, or ii) change the terms of the contract and repay the excess back to the other party.

It's not just a question of reporting an adjusted income to the PL for PSR purposes, I don't think.

I can't imagine any of that is legal?
Click to expand...
Wow - surely not !!!

Of course - I do not doubt you - just shocked

So we get a sponsor for 100m and they value it at 40m - we don't just lose the credit of 60m we have to reduce the revenue?
 
I'm sure we're doing this anyway, but let's hope every single thing the red cartel do, every loan, transfer, appointment, partnership, sponsorship is micro scrutinised by our in house compliance team. Absolutely anything they do that's suspect and we have grounds then we lodge a complaint with the PL. If we don't get a satisfactory outcome we go straight to arbitration. If that doesn't work straight to the Independent Regulator or the commercial courts. That's the future...
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Unless I am misunderstanding, rule E67 requires a club whose threshold transaction has been determined to be above market value to either i) cancel the contract, or ii) change the terms of the contract and repay the excess back to the other party.

It's not just a question of reporting an adjusted income to the PL for PSR purposes, I don't think.

I can't imagine any of that is legal?
Click to expand...
I had a quick read of the handbook but there seemed to be a distinction between deals that had been signed without PL approval and proposed deals that hadn't been signed. But, to be honest, I'm getting pissed off with this stuff and struggle to motivate myself to keep on top of it all.
 
halfcenturyup said:
View attachment 125320
View attachment 125321
Click to expand...
So can this be applied to transfers? or is it just commercial deals?

I am thinking about Savio, say we agree a fee of £30 million but the panel believe "fair Market value" is £60 million, does this mean we have to either pay up the difference, cancel the transfer or deduct a further £30 million from our Profit?
 
However you look at it the PL have created a process that is going to overwhelm them. This regulatory regime is utter madness, built out of spite and envy and will not be sustainable in the longer term. City just need to keep their heads, challenge everything and wait for other teams to wake up to this fiasco that’s unfolding.
 
abu13 said:
So can this be applied to transfers? or is it just commercial deals?

I am thinking about Savio, say we agree a fee of £30 million but the panel believe "fair Market value" is £60 million, does this mean we have to either pay up the difference, cancel the transfer or deduct a further £30 million from our Profit?
Click to expand...

Transfers too. Pay up the difference.
 
Not seen if mentioned, but have just watched footage of Khaldoon at the Amabani's wedding. The circles that our owners are in, I simply can't see a guilty verdict.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Transfers too. Pay up the difference.
Click to expand...
Only transfers out, looking at that wording (where we have received consideration and some arbitrary panel thinks we've been paid more than the player is worth). Did £40m for Palmer sound too much?

Are you sure it's for transfers freely agreed between clubs?
 
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