PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[waspish]

Is that basically even more illegal rules that the Premier League are looking to introduce?

The more rules they add the more they can trip up the clubs they want

 

[pudge]

So the hearing is over, yes?

What's an estimated timeline for everything else now?

I know this will have been asked a million times, I unashamedly don't care

 

[Centurions]

So the hearing is over, yes?

What's an estimated timeline for everything else now?

I know this will have been asked a million times, I unashamedly don't care

It may or may not be quite over yet and of course there's always the inevitable appeals and clarifications required.

Come back next spring (genuinely) and someone might have more information for you.

 

[KS55]

This article back when we took the loan out is interesting says it be paid up by 2028. Be interesting if that is still the case..

Manchester City-owner raises $650m in mega debt deal

The deal surpasses those made by FC Barcelona and Tottenham Hotspur.

uk.finance.yahoo.com

Manchester City’s parent company City Football Group has reportedly raised $650m (£470m) in one of the biggest ever debt deals the game has seen, as it looks to increase investment in its international network of clubs.

The loan will come due in July 2028, the FT reported, and was underwritten by Barclays (BARC.L).

HSBC (HSBA.L) and KKR Capital Markets assisted in arranging and distributing the debt, people familiar said.

Separately, CFG has also organised a revolving credit facility worth £100m ($138m) with the same finance providers.

CFG, which also owns clubs in the US, Australia and India, is a British-based holding company. It is majority owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, a private equity company owned by billionaire and UAE deputy prime minister Sheikh Mansour.

The company's revenue for the year to June was down 14% to £544m and it posted a loss of £205m as a result of lower ticker and broadcast revenue. .

Yahoo Finance UK reached out to CFG but hadn’t heard back at the time of writing.

‘’This deal is indicative of the trend for the biggest footballing brands to develop into sporting supergroups and find growth through investment into other teams worldwide,” Susannah Streeter, senior investment and markets analyst, Hargreaves Lansdown, told Yahoo Finance UK.

“This will give City Football Group the financial firepower to develop its global footprint.”

The deal surpasses the €525m (£448m, $619m) debt refinancing arrangement between Goldman Sachs (GS) and Spain’s FC Barcelona agreed in June.

Read more: European markets drive higher as EU car sales rise in June

It also beats a deal made by England’s Tottenham Hotspur, which borrowed £637m a couple of years ago from several banks to build its new stadium.

CFG plans to use the funds for infrastructure projects including a new venue for its Major League Soccer franchise New York City FC.

The deal comes not long after the collapse of the European Super League.

City was among 12 clubs planning to form a breakaway rival to the Champions League. The move would have seen the clubs make nearly three times as much money.

Streeter said "CFG’s ambitions to compete exclusively with the world’s biggest football brands may have taken a back step due to the own goal failure of the break-away European Super League, but this shows its ambition to compete on a global financial level."

“Football fans might mourn the growing gulf between the rich elite of clubs and the grass roots but this deal will cement City Football Group in the global league of sporting giants.’’

Thanks for posting that. The MUEN made a comment about it saying that City fans had better get used to City now being heavily in debt.
YCNMIU

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

If you don't like paying costs, don't bring lawyers into the equation. Especially not anyone over the rank of solicitor, and they are expensive enough.

Football managed for well over 100 years without all these fucking complicated financial regulations that no fucker understands. Once you need to start instructing KCs and their ilk to resolve questions you are essentially writing a cheque for ££££££££££££££s.

This legalistic approach to what is a game is a bit silly, quite frankly. The rules need to be massively simplified and their meaning should be obvious to all, not a mystery wrapped in an enigma. If the rules can't be understood by a reasonably intelligent layman, they are too complex.

But absolutely necessary to protect the interests of the cabal team members only.

 

[give it to gordon]

You can bring in any rule you like, but if it's against UK law, I would have thought it's irrelevant and useless. Oh, hang on, where have I heard that before?

Shouldn't there be repercussions for the clubs that voted in illegal rules ?

I don't see how you can vote for something illegal and get away scot free

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Shouldn't there be repercussions for the clubs that voted in illegal rules ?

I don't see how you can vote for something illegal and get away scot free

This is what I struggle with. Clubs seemingly knew that excluding shareholder loans was likely to be unlawful yet still voted the APT rules that excluded them through. They ignored legal advice and voted based on self-interest.

 

[nmc]

But that's the court adjudging costs, surely you can't bake into the rules that if you breach them, then you have to pay all costs?

Wouldn’t it be allegedly breached the rules. Just goes to show their arrogance.

 

[give it to gordon]

This is what I struggle with. Clubs seemingly knew that excluding shareholder loans was likely to be unlawful yet still voted the APT rules that excluded them through. They ignored legal advice and voted based on self-interest.

Perhaps Americans being so use to riding rough shot over anything they don't agree with, can do the same in the UK. So far it seems they can.

They no outcry from the public or press/media for points deduction etc for bringing illegal rules. In fact it's the opposite blaming City for challenging the illegal rules !

 

[half & half derby scarf]

I said at the start of all this that the only 2 options were the collapse of the Premier League or a major back down on their part. There seems so much animosity involved now, that only a major fracture will result. Very sad for our game when you consider the basic premise that a club just wants to invest in it's own future, be it Newcastle, City, Leicester, Everton or anyone outside the cartel.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Perhaps Americans being so use to riding rough shot over anything they don't agree with, can do the same in the UK. So far it seems they can.

They no outcry from the public or press/media for points deduction etc for bringing illegal rules. In fact it's the opposite blaming City for challenging the illegal rules !

In any normal situation, if a commercial enterprise implemented rules it knew were unlawful, because these rules didn't suit a major customer and that customer asked them to exclude those rules, the CEO and Chairman would have to resign if another major customer, which was disadvantaged by that exclusion, successfully challenged this in court.

 

[give it to gordon]

I said at the start of all this that the only 2 options were the collapse of the Premier League or a major back down on their part. There seems so much animosity involved now, that only a major fracture will result. Very sad for our game when you consider the basic premise that a club just wants to invest in it's own future, be it Newcastle, City, Leicester, Everton or anyone outside the cartel.

Said it before and I'll say it again.........the biggest threat to our game is American owners.
It's seems only a few fan bases can see this, and perhaps a very small amount of the press/media

 

[give it to gordon]

In any normal situation, if a commercial enterprise implemented rules it knew were unlawful, because these rules didn't suit a major customer and that customer asked them to exclude those rules, the CEO and Chairman would have to resign if another major customer, which was disadvantaged by that exclusion, successfully challenged this in court.

Is not knowing the rules were unlawful an excuse ?

 

[oldius]

I said at the start of all this that the only 2 options were the collapse of the Premier League or a major back down on their part. There seems so much animosity involved now, that only a major fracture will result. Very sad for our game when you consider the basic premise that a club just wants to invest in it's own future, be it Newcastle, City, Leicester, Everton or anyone outside the cartel.

A new chief and an independent regulator will go some way to dealing with that. At the moment, you have a leader pushed around by a small number of clubs, installing unlawful rules for their benefit, with no independent regulation, and you have another club, champions of the nation, pulling those rules apart and threatening further legal action. Until such a time that a small number of clubs cannot push the organisation around because it is a properly regulated group operating under UK law, this will go on and on.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Is not knowing the rules were unlawful an excuse ?

Legally, no it isn't. But Masters did 100% know that excluding shareholder loans was highly likely to be unlawful yet still did it because it didn't suit some of the member clubs. Like you, I can't understand why some of the 'better' journalists weren't calling for his head.

 

[Oyster28catcher]

Said it before and I'll say it again.........the biggest threat to our game is American owners.
It's seems only a few fan bases can see this, and perhaps a very small amount of the press/media

Agreed, and those red ******s just love milking fanbases and exploring fast buck promotions. Not that all owners don't like a bit of that and this.

 

[give it to gordon]

At what point does the government or a similar body get involved to force the pl to go by the rules of the country ?

You can't have organisation working in England and working outside the laws of the land. That would lead to chaos across all walks of life

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I said at the start of all this that the only 2 options were the collapse of the Premier League or a major back down on their part. There seems so much animosity involved now, that only a major fracture will result. Very sad for our game when you consider the basic premise that a club just wants to invest in it's own future, be it Newcastle, City, Leicester, Everton or anyone outside the cartel.

Indeed, a fracture in top level football will have no winners. The PL commands astronomical revenue from Tv deals compared to any other league in the world, it seems the likes of Masters and co are on a suicide mission to destroy that by protecting certain clubs who have already tried and failed to destroy the league by trying to form the super league. Why does nothing get done with these clubs and why does it feel like they have a gun to the PL league’s head saying that if you don’t get rid of City we will take our ball and go elsewhere.

 

[cheekybids]

You've probably just written the NYT's next headline...

"$500M Payment for NYC Infrastructure Project Raises Eyebrows Amid Allegations of Corruption"

 

[SilverFox2]

This is what I struggle with. Clubs seemingly knew that excluding shareholder loans was likely to be unlawful yet still voted the APT rules that excluded them through. They ignored legal advice and voted based on self-interest.

I worry that their next step will be to appeal any adverse legal decisions then appoint compliant yes men to the appeals panel (like the ones who gave the original Leicester verdict).