PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
I think we have more than just beliefs. Just examining the CAS evidence in detail provides solid information. The same is true of the long Rui Pinto court case and the mountains of irrefutable evidence. The Uk media has mostly ignored this material. Plenty of information on this forum has come from very reliable sources. I agree that our opinion is more robust.
Click to expand...
Wonder if there will be fall out if cleared for the media I mean they will look very stupid
 
nmc said:
It it never occurred to the MUEN why no one reads their shitty paper anymore. I can’t think of a local paper that is so anti one of their local teams. They are a disgrace.
Click to expand...
It’s not a local paper. The journalists write for any of the Reach group anywhere in the country. It’s fine for actual “news” such as car crashes, tram breakdowns etc. but for opinion it’s just trash.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Great article that my friend; I just which you’d emphasised the fact that the time limits are as much a part of the PL rules as the rules we have been accused of breaking. Arguably more so, as they supervene them eventually.

The press talk about the time limits as if they are a legal loophole. They are not. They are a key, core rule and understood by all parties at the outset.

Anyone who considers them as a legal loophole is a know nowt ****.
Click to expand...
That's a very good point. People say "You signed up to the rules" and a limitation period is one of those rules. I've also made the point previously that it's completely fanciful to imagine back in 2010 that City thought "You know, we're probably going to get done for this stuff in a few years time so let's do all the dodgy stuff early, as it'll probably be time-barred when we are".
 
nmc said:
It it never occurred to the MUEN why no one reads their shitty paper anymore. I can’t think of a local paper that is so anti one of their local teams. They are a disgrace.
Click to expand...
It's not a local paper but the Manchester edition of the Mirror. They barely have any of their own staff so the content is a mix of soap gossip, national news and local news from other Reach regional outlets such as the Liverpool Echo with barely any genuine Greater Manchester content. Weekends are the same every time with articles like The Secret Village An Hour From Manchester all pre selected to go out at certain times.

There is no money in it as advertising has collapsed so it's an industry declining to zero at a breakneck speed.
 
bitterblue78 said:
Andy gray said hes been told were going to get a points deduction that would make it impossible to survive relegation
Click to expand...
I skim read that shitty F365 article and I don’t recall Andy Gray saying he’d been told anything by anybody. He just gave his own opinion - that opinion being that he thinks we will be found guilty of at least some of the charges and that that would surely lead to a points deduction. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it tbh.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's a very good point. People say "You signed up to the rules" and a limitation period is one of those rules. I've also made the point previously that it's completely fanciful to imagine back in 2010 that City thought "You know, we're probably going to get done for this stuff in a few years time so let's do all the dodgy stuff early, as it'll probably be time-barred when we are".
Click to expand...

Todd Boehly & Scruffy Jim say hi & we’re doing our dodgy stuff early ;)
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's a very good point. People say "You signed up to the rules" and a limitation period is one of those rules. I've also made the point previously that it's completely fanciful to imagine back in 2010 that City thought "You know, we're probably going to get done for this stuff in a few years time so let's do all the dodgy stuff early, as it'll probably be time-barred when we are".
Click to expand...
Well, that's the press got their soundbite for the week ;-)
 
Silva2021 said:
I’m not stirring or indeed making much of a point, but just an interesting conversation last night with someone who works high up for one of our local rivals (not high, high but fairly high) who is interested in this.

He does not support the team he works for and is an intelligent, articulate guy.

We’ve spoken previously but this time was the first time we have had a real chat on it.

Firstly, I was struck by how much they believe we are guilty, he felt that it is widely considered City enhanced our revenues to comply with FFP. He listened to my argument around the damage reputation and the theory the process is the punishment and acknowledged there are 2 sides.

We pretty much agreed that we hear different things from both sides and in reality City being in a growth stage and needing to maximise revenue, whilst planning to be self sufficient long term where happy to invest in the short term.

He acknowledged Man City are considered very professional and probably took the best advise possible on how to spend the most, whilst keeping compliant. A conversation that now dominates most Board rooms in the PL as all clubs have this problem.

He knew about information and the detail, which I find to be rare. Spoke about the £8 million Etihad deal and agreed that it would be a lot below market value and would be a strange deal to do, not one he would expect our owners to do. He felt that it would be a friendly agreement where we back date sponsorship value to help us pass. Which he felt was not in the spirit of how sponsorship worked (likened it to a successful business man, sponsoring his Son’s grassroots team and getting a bill at the end of the season for whatever they have incurred). Felt it was not commercial reality. I kind of got him onboard with the fact FFP, football has always been short term, but these guys are long term and by supporting the team to grow the value comes in later years etc. He acknowledged that the Etihad deal has proved worthwhile and we agreed to disagree who paid, although acknowledged if Etihad paid then there should be no issue.

The Esislat deal I know less about, despite my time on here and the image rights is also a bit confusing, so I was not comfortable enough talking about that. We did touch on Mancini (he considered it a work around but not as clear). However, seemed to agree those contracts happen in the Middle East.

It was interesting I felt how there is such certainty around guilt, whereas a sensible conversation tended to find the middle ground that probably points to City not being charged.

It was also felt that clubs where getting very frustrated with Chelsea, so expect some pressure on them especially if they start to perform.
Click to expand...
With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's money
It all worked out as the agreed amount over the period of the sponsorship, but City received something like £80m one season and a reduced amount the next
 
Father Paul said:
Not sure I agree. There would be no direct interference with the Panel but I would think the UK Govt would not want the UAE to be totally pissed off if for example we got a severe penalty resulting in relegation. I am coming around to the conclusion that we may face a 30 or 40 point penalty if the majority of the charges stick. This is not likely to be enough to relegate us but will of course put us out of Europe.
Click to expand...
No.
As C/L holders we would get a place in 2025/6 comp. (Assuming we win it again this season)
I don't think a points deduction will be made against City and in the unlikely event there is, it wouldn't be anywhere near that amount.
 
dickie davies said:
With regards to the Etihad sponsorship being "friendly", I'm sure that quite early in this thread @Prestwich_Blue has said that in one particular year (think it was the termination of Mancini's contract) that City asked for some of the following year's money
It all worked out as the agreed amount over the period of the sponsorship, but City received something like £80m one season and a reduced amount the next
Click to expand...
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year or not.

If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue in the P&L account, with £140m as deferred revenue in the balance sheet. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.

So when Harris was going on about us under-stating the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
inbetween said:
They do now but that is only based upon what is released. They only started to release their accounts in recent years in response to US pressure on anti-competition grounds, none of them are audited properly.
Click to expand...
That's true.

Etihad is growing, Emirates has shown profits for a few years now. Not like the Americans to moan lol.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That wasn't specifically set out in black and white iirc but even if not, it's a pretty safe assumption. In their submission to CAS, City talked about the 'accruals basis' of accounting, which is separate to the cash payments. That means if Etihad contract to pay us £60m a year over 10 years, we'll record £60m a year in the accounts, regardless of whether the cashflow is £60m a year.

If Etihad paid us £200m in year one, we'd still show that as £60m revenue, with £140m as deferred revenue. If they paid us nothing the following year, we'd again show £60m revenue, but with deferred revenue of £80m.

So when Harris was going on about us under-declaring the Etihad revenue, when he added up three years cash receipts and divided by three, he clearly had no idea about accruals accounting. The timing of the cashflow is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Only this.
 
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