PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Stoned Rose]

So what do you mean is nonsense?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

Howling at the moon more like.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Question. - what’s the Fordham stuff?

Read the sticky.

 

[Lord Blue]

if you can’t be bothered to read the thread I can’t be bothered engaging in further exchanges with you - bye. You’re on ignore - yayyyyyy

I’ve used that button twice today. It’s brilliant. Wish I could prevent them seeing my posts too.

 

[Mancini’s Pastilles]

I'll still take winning this case over winning anything else this season but fucking Christ the decision better come quick so I can give less of a fuck about results like today

Decision aint coming anytime soon and then when it does come an appeal will be lodged which will bring it to around mid 2026

 

[IrishBloodEnglishHeart]

I’ve used that button twice today. It’s brilliant. Wish I could prevent them seeing my posts too.

If you’ve had to use it twice, then possibly time to look in the mirror?

 

[Micky Blue]

Haha, FFS - hardly academic sources or financial experts are they? Pinto is a convicted fraudster that has already been shown to manufacture 'evidence'. I imagine city's submitted accounts will be used instead of that load of tabloid fodder you are leaning on.

Isn’t Pinto also in protective custody because he allegedly hacked then tried to blackmail a Maltese Mafia family?
He’s got no credibility.
Would probably go in our favour if any of this specimens illegally hacked documents were used as evidence.

He’s made a lot of enemies. I hope it was worth it for him.

 

[Damanino]

we need our irrefutable proof to work its magic. have to say I got it from rival fans that if we had irrefutable proof the case would have closed long time ago and have a feeling there is bit of truth in that. maybe its not as irrefutable to squash most charges as we hoped so.

 

[bluwes]

we need our irrefutable proof to work its magic. have to say I got it from rival fans that if we had irrefutable proof the case would have closed long time ago and have a feeling there is bit of truth in that. maybe its not as irrefutable to squash most charges as we hoped so.

That’s not how the system works. The PL present their evidence and we then produce ours and then the panel decides

 

[Keith Moon]

Even in the unlikely event that there is new information, it still has to be shown that we have broken the regs in a serious way. Pinto’s first effort did not achieve that and it is highly unlikely that his second effort is more cogent. (Why would he have kept the best till last?)
I have no qualms about Pinto; only a new source could derail us and, as Stefan has pointed out, the soft signals suggest that the club is still confident. (I wonder what the soft signal Stefan is keeping to himself is all about.)

Regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information, there must be something new to back them up. It would be crazy if it were just a re-run of CAS based on the same evidence.

Don’t think Pinto (or whoever really hacked City) analyzed the data; that was mainly done by DS and the 60 journalists in the EIC. The documents published by DS after the CAS ruling either come from new data or they’ve gone through the old material once again.

Up to 2018, Pinto shared a total of 3.4 terabytes of data with DS. In 2020, he struck a deal to avoid prison and provided Portuguese authorities with a total of 17.5 terabytes of information. This confirms that there are another 14.1 terabytes of data that DS/EIC (hopefully) never got their hands on.

..and I completely agree; there are no signs of concern from the club or the owners, which is reassuring.

 

[Lost for words]

He’s poncing a career talking up the narrative he has plenty more on City. Following CAS, Der Nazi published a load more shit on City, no doubt if we are cleared they will do the same again.

Unfortunately it was our own fault by accepting a 'pinch' at CAS when we really should have cleared the decks and gone for Pinto and that rag 'newspaper '. All that's happened since is City left an issue that was allowed to fester.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Question. - what’s the Fordham stuff?

Fordham was a company that paid image rights to some players. It was originally a subsidiary of City but was set up as a separate company in 2013.

We sold the rights to them in order to increase revenue in the 2012/13 season. By doing that we thought we'd escape punishment when we failed the first FFP assessment, which was based on the 2012 & 2013 accounts.

Fordham then paid image rights to some players and were seemingly reimbursed by ADUG for those. It seems UEFA became aware of this around 2015 and spoke to us about it and the arrangement was wound down ended a couple of years later. Fordham was then put into voluntary liquidation.

We didn't have to show them in our accounts so that's not an issue in itself. The issue is, I suspect, whether we reported the Fordham payments to the PL & UEFA. We don't know the exact nature of the charges here though. My suspicion is that UEFA could see they weren't reported, which is why they approached us.

I'm guessing here but it's possible we were able to show that there was a grey area and we weren't necessarily acting outside FFP. The reason I think that is that no charges were ever brought over this. Had we been clearly acted against the letter of FFP then I'm sure we would have faced UEFA charges. However we seemingly agreed to wind the arrangement up.

So while Fordham seemingly decreased our wage expenses we didn't do it for that reason. We did it to bring money in. I suspect it may well have been the most complex of the various charges heard by the IC. It will be interesting to see the evidence presented and the reasoning for the outcome.

My confidence in the outcome is due to the fact that UEFA knew about it well before Der Spiegel but we never faced charges even when we know they were out to get us under any pretext. But I also suspect that if there are any chinks in our legal armour, this is where they might be.

 

[Keith Moon]

Point 1 I am not sure your first point is correct but regardless City will know what’s going on and will have had to disclose everything both at CAS and to the Panel. We were cleared at CAS so I don’t see the issue.

Point 2 They won’t have anything new that’s not been disclosed. We had full disclosure at CAS and will have had to do the same at the panel regardless of what Pinto footy leaks etc might have had. Same as above

Pinto is no big deal your comments about him keep making no sense one minute he is a big threat. The next is he won’t hand everything over for fear of being taken out.

To the final point there won’t be more info especially with the authorities if there was we would know by now.

There would be raids on City the PL investigation would be on pause etc.

You seem like a genuine blue but your comments make no sense.

Worse than that you seem to expect us or even want us to fail on top of that you seem to think the owners have done something wrong and also that they are a threat to pinto life.

If you think all this are you still supporting the club ?

I think we are all bored of your posts now

Well, if you highlight a problem, some people will question if you’re a Blue. People are on this thread for good news. If you think I’m a bore, a Rag, or both, just hit the ignore button.

I want us to be cleared of all charges—it would mean more to me than winning the league.

I don’t think our owners pose a threat to Pinto’s life, but he also hacked criminal networks, so there’s a reason he’s in witness protection.

Regarding our owners/management, I would be surprised if they hadn’t explored every possible avenue to bypass the cartel’s financial “fair play” regulations.

I’m writing from an outsider’s perspective. City knows all the charges; we don’t, but that doesn’t stop us from speculating.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fordham was a company that paid image rights to some players. It was originally a subsidiary of City but was set up as a separate company in 2013.

We sold the rights to them in order to increase revenue in the 2012/13 season. By doing that we thought we'd escape punishment when we failed the first FFP assessment, which was based on the 2012 & 2013 accounts.

Fordham then paid image rights to some players and were seemingly reimbursed by ADUG for those. It seems UEFA became aware of this around 2015 and spoke to us about it and the arrangement was wound down ended a couple of years later. Fordham was then put into voluntary liquidation.

We didn't have to show them in our accounts so that's not an issue in itself. The issue is, I suspect, whether we reported the Fordham payments to the PL & UEFA. We don't know the exact nature of the charges here though. My suspicion is that UEFA could see they weren't reported, which is why they approached us.

I'm guessing here but it's possible we were able to show that there was a grey area and we weren't necessarily acting outside FFP. The reason I think that is that no charges were ever brought over this. Had we been clearly acted against the letter of FFP then I'm sure we would have faced UEFA charges. However we seemingly agreed to wind the arrangement up.

So while Fordham seemingly decreased our wage expenses we didn't do it for that reason. We did it to bring money in. I suspect it may well have been the most complex of the various charges heard by the IC. It will be interesting to see the evidence presented and the reasoning for the outcome.

My confidence in the outcome is due to the fact that UEFA knew about it well before Der Spiegel but we never faced charges even when we know they were out to get us under any pretext. But I also suspect that if there are any chinks in our legal armour, this is where they might be.

Good summary as always.

I had wondered if UEFA didn't pursue things like Fordham, related parties and fair values of sponsorships in 2019 because these had all been included as part of the 2014 settlement.

The PL has no such restriction, of course, which is why I get the impression they will have looked at all those areas in the hearing (also because of the emphasis placed on related parties, fair values and the 115 case in their APT defence).

As for the risk, I would imagine the club could provide legal and tax clearances to support the scheme, but what we don't know is if the monies paid by ADUG were reimbursed by the club one way or another, through fee charges from CFG for example. In the same way we don't know if the payments to Touré's agent were reimbursed.

It will be interesting to finally fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

 

[eastlandsblue]

Well, if you highlight a problem, some people will question if you’re a Blue. People are on this thread for good news. If you think I’m a bore, a Rag, or both, just hit the ignore button.

I want us to be cleared of all charges—it would mean more to me than winning the league.

I don’t think our owners pose a threat to Pinto’s life, but he also hacked criminal networks, so there’s a reason he’s in witness protection.

Regarding our owners/management, I would be surprised if they hadn’t explored every possible avenue to bypass the cartel’s financial “fair play” regulations.

I’m writing from an outsider’s perspective. City knows all the charges; we don’t, but that doesn’t stop us from speculating.

If the PL had one magic bullet, don’t you think they’d have fired it. Instead of sensationalising with 115

The case was pushed through by the cartel, who probably promised the PL funds to fight us. It’s all being done to damage our brand. Which seems to be failing from where I stand. And to show the independent regulators that they were the right people to run this league

Mark my words. This will all end, with City getting a massive fine for failing to cooperate

 

[slbsn]

So what do you mean is nonsense?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

You fundamentally misunderstand the way the disclosure process will have worked. The PL will have been entitled to (and received) documents from City and, in some circumstances (say where that party consented or was giving a witness statement) from a third party. To the extent the PL became aware of documents from the hacks (they weren't leaks) the PL would have put City on the spot to produce those documents in original form and cast doubt on City's disclosure process where such documents had not been previously shared.

But all of this is now irrelevant - the hearing has happened, thousands of documents would have been disclosed and used in that hearing. It is highly unlikely that Pinto has kept the really juicy stuff back or that the EIC didn't have all the data to search anyway. But it is irrelevant anyway because nobody will be listening to any party trying to bring further documents into play post the decision.

 

[Maly]

Fordham was a company that paid image rights to some players. It was originally a subsidiary of City but was set up as a separate company in 2013.

We sold the rights to them in order to increase revenue in the 2012/13 season. By doing that we thought we'd escape punishment when we failed the first FFP assessment, which was based on the 2012 & 2013 accounts.

Fordham then paid image rights to some players and were seemingly reimbursed by ADUG for those. It seems UEFA became aware of this around 2015 and spoke to us about it and the arrangement was wound down ended a couple of years later. Fordham was then put into voluntary liquidation.

We didn't have to show them in our accounts so that's not an issue in itself. The issue is, I suspect, whether we reported the Fordham payments to the PL & UEFA. We don't know the exact nature of the charges here though. My suspicion is that UEFA could see they weren't reported, which is why they approached us.

I'm guessing here but it's possible we were able to show that there was a grey area and we weren't necessarily acting outside FFP. The reason I think that is that no charges were ever brought over this. Had we been clearly acted against the letter of FFP then I'm sure we would have faced UEFA charges. However we seemingly agreed to wind the arrangement up.

So while Fordham seemingly decreased our wage expenses we didn't do it for that reason. We did it to bring money in. I suspect it may well have been the most complex of the various charges heard by the IC. It will be interesting to see the evidence presented and the reasoning for the outcome.

My confidence in the outcome is due to the fact that UEFA knew about it well before Der Spiegel but we never faced charges even when we know they were out to get us under any pretext. But I also suspect that if there are any chinks in our legal armour, this is where they might be.

Weren’t there lots of other clubs doing similar with image rights?

If so, I’d always assumed if they came after us for that, they’d also have to go after a whole host of clubs?

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Weren’t there lots of other clubs doing similar with image rights?

If so, I’d always assumed if they came after us for that, they’d also have to go after a whole host of clubs?

Think the rags were doing something similar but doing it to avoid paying tax. The whole idea of selling the image rights for a lump sum to add to accounts on one year, how is that any different to Chelsea selling a hotel to themselves which the PL didn’t have any issue with?

 

[richards30]

I’m starting to fall into the trap that the charges as well as injuries are playing on the players mind and it’s going to be interesting to see how or even if the club invest in new players in January

 

[johnevans]

You fundamentally misunderstand the way the disclosure process will have worked. The PL will have been entitled to (and received) documents from City and, in some circumstances (say where that party consented or was giving a witness statement) from a third party. To the extent the PL became aware of documents from the hacks (they weren't leaks) the PL would have put City on the spot to produce those documents in original form and cast doubt on City's disclosure process where such documents had not been previously shared.

But all of this is now irrelevant - the hearing has happened, thousands of documents would have been disclosed and used in that hearing. It is highly unlikely that Pinto has kept the really juicy stuff back or that the EIC didn't have all the data to search anyway. But it is irrelevant anyway because nobody will be listening to any party trying to bring further documents into play post the decision.

Excellent summary, thank you.

As with Prestwich Blue's recent, educative contribution reviewing the 'Fordham Thingy' and its place in this tiresome, money-driven process cooked up by the self-interested Red Cartel and its European allies, thank goodness there's an adult or two in the room..

 

[M18CTID]

So what do you mean is nonsense?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

Mate, you need to let it go. While Pinto is the reason we’re in this position, he’s a fucking clueless **** who thinks our e-mails can only be interpreted one way to suit his own twisted agenda. His lawyer can’t even bring himself to accept the decision of the highest sporting arbitration court in the world so I don’t give a fuck about any “fresh” material he may or may not have handed over as I’ve little doubt that it will simply be the same bollocks that CAS laughed out of court. Fuck Pinto and fuck all those who sail in him.