PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

vincent said:
They found a loophole so good for them. However the one to watch is their offshore payments investigation which they have aready admitted. Apparently the premier league investigation is nearly concluded. The ramifications of this are much more serious than a PSR Breach. Let’s see.
Click to expand...
They haven't admitted the offshore payments that is a separate matter. They've admitted another accounting error but what that is no-one knows.
 
TedofChume said:
Hopefully this will cheer you all up!


I have done some analysis of the PSR case based on the information provided by Rui Pinto and Der Speigel, here:

www.spiegel.de

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.
www.spiegel.de www.spiegel.de

Der Spiegel released the above information two months after City were charged, with the aim of driving the nail in the coffin, but their evidence really sucks and their analysis of it is just naive.

Firstly from reading the PDFs of the documents they share to download (RM.pdf, ADUG,pdf and FFP.pdf), I am pretty certain City haven't actually done anything wrong and should be cleared of all charges.

Allegation 1 is complicated to understand, but the evidence doesn't match what they are claiming at all and it just doesn't add up. A more logical explanation is the one I put forward. I might be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me, you might need to be an accountant to follow the argument though.

The other points I make should be a lot easier to follow.

I've done a worst case PSR calculation (Allegation 4), by going through City's accounts and adding it all up, and concluded that the sums would be:

2013-2016: -£108,113,000
2014-2017: -£75,263,000
2015-2018: -£66,157,000

The limit is -£105,000,000

In other words a minor breach of PSR in the first period of £3million (c.f. Everton £19m & Forest £30m).

Remember, this is if we have done everything they have accused us of and our combined sponsorship deals are re-valued at the Thomas Cook rate (£2m) that we had way back before the Eithad deal. Valuing the deals at say £3.1m or higher means City don't break PSR at all.

How could the Premier League have got this so wrong? Well, we know they rushed it all through, and I don't think they considered that City can adjust their earnings (AEBT) by the depreciation on the building of the Etihad Campus. This completely destroys their case.


Summary: Overview of the Allegations

The Flawed Case Against Manchester City: - ManCityStuff

A Deep Dive into Der Spiegel's Misguided Allegations On April 7th, 2022, Der Spiegel published an article aimed at substantiating the claims against Manchester City, drawing on a collection of redacted emails and scanned documents as their primary evidence. However, after closely examining the...
mancitystuff.co.uk

Allegation 1 Analysis : Inflated Sponsorship

Allegation 1 – Inflated Sponsorship Deals Paid for by ADUG - ManCityStuff

Part 1 - Financial Issues This section references the downloadable files found on this article at Der Spiegel - HERE In the complex and secretive world of football finance, discerning truth from manipulation is no easy task. The case surrounding Manchester City and the emails leaked by Rui...
mancitystuff.co.uk

Allegation 2 Analysis : Mancini and Toure

Allegation 2 – Mancini and Toure - ManCityStuff

This section references the downloadable files found on this article at Der Spiegel – HERE Preamble In the murky world of leaked documents and high-stakes legal battles, it's hard to discern what's authentic and what isn't. UEFA, in its case before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)...
mancitystuff.co.uk

Allegation 3 Analysis : FFP - The Own Goal

Allegation 3 – The Own Goal – City Breached UEFA FFP - ManCityStuff

In the intricate landscape of football regulations, one of the key charges against Manchester City revolves around the allegations made by the Premier League is that the club breached UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules for three consecutive seasons. However, this charge by the Premier League...
mancitystuff.co.uk

Allegation 4 Analysis : It simply doesn't add up

Manchester City Allegation 4 – Analysis - ManCityStuff

A proper look at how the numbers add up. In the intricate web of football finance, where numbers and figures can often be as slippery as the pitches the players compete on, the case against Manchester City and the financial practices under scrutiny require a deep dive into the club's financials...
mancitystuff.co.uk


I've also got a video that I have put together showing how the Premier League have altered their statement on 06 feb 2023 multple times since and a few other points about this. I need time to finish them off. I will rpeort back when they are live!
Click to expand...
What do you mean City can adjust the cost of building the campus ? Surely you cannot just change figures
 
slbsn said:
They likely are time barred
Click to expand...
I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.
 
Sorry to sound a bit thick
But does Leciester' s Conclusion put us in a good position too??
Just a Yes or No will do
No need to be sarcy or Cryptic
( I know the 115 is still awaiting )
Thanks
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.
Click to expand...
Surely the Premier League will at this stage have given full disclosure to City. Only our legal eagles will know whether they could add late evidence into the pot as you suggest.

I'm a layman and don't know.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.
Click to expand...

On what grounds will the PL be able to remove the limitation on the Mancini issue?
 
There's no way of getting away from 115.

PXL-20240904-135532083-MP.jpg
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t work like that mate.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Doesn’t work like that mate.
Click to expand...

Correct, imho. It seems to me the PL have all the evidence they need from the der Spiegel leaks to start an investigation and to refer the allegation if they don't think the club has countered effectively.

But now they have to prove that allegation in front of an independent panel and, even before they can do that, they have to prove that the club deliberately concealed information, committed fraud or covered up a mistake. It's always been my view, given the wording of the rules in place at the time, the counter-evidence that the club will most likely provide and the difficulty in proving that any action towards the PL was deliberate (given that the club's position is presumably that they acted completely honestly and in good faith), that it is very probable that the Mancini issue will be time limited.

As our legal people on here always tell us,though, nothing is ever guaranteed in these things.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Really ?

Not sure that the PL/rag alliance is as overt as that.

Seems that rags and dippers may possibly enjoy a more favourable relationship than lesser clubs :)
Click to expand...
What I mean is all the PL clubs voted for covid losses to be allowed and if a club claims losses due to covid the amount of loss had to be evidenced to be accepted.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow the logic, to be honest. Should City take comfort from the appeal board getting it right, or panic from the original panel getting it so wrong.

That said I expect our panel to be much better quality, more akin to the appeal board and our legals are more than capable of keeping the panel on the straight and narrow. Also, I am pretty sure the Leicester fiasco was embarrassing for Rosen, as well as the PL, and he will absolutely be making sure the best qualified people are on it and that they come to the right decision. The last thing he, or they, want(s) is another balls up in a higher (the PL have made it the highest) profile case.
 
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