PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

Surely the Premier League can’t just retrospectively declare that Etihad are a Related Party. That would be some serious straw-clutching. Even UEFA didn’t pursue that one too much but at least when they were in discussions with City about it, it was being done in real time.

There are clear situations where two or more entities are related parties. As I've mentioned before, two companies that did business together where a husband and wife were respectively executive directors of the two companies.

When John Wardle was chairman, he was a related party to City. NYCFC is a related party, as are the other CFG clubs. Basically the definition is where a person, or close relative of that person is related to the reporting entity, including being part of a group of companies or a joint-venture.

But there's a subjective element to it as well. Who exactly is "a close relative" for example? What does "related" mean in practice?

The situation is that Sheikh Mansour is Sheikh Mohammed's brother, and the latter is the ruler of Abu Dhabi, which has a state-owned airline. But there's a number of questions to be answered to establish whether there's a related party relationship between any of those and City.

Sheikh Mansour and City are almost certainly related parties, as he's the ultimate controlling shareholder. But it still might depend on how much day-to-day influence he has over us. Maybe not that much but let's assume he is a related party.

Are he and Etihad related parties then? Almost certainly not. Although he's a member of the ruling family, and his brother is the ruler, it's hard to see how they could be seen to exercise influence over Etihad's day-to-day decisions. The Open Skies case document seemed to be pointing out to Sheikh Mohammed that the Etihad sponsorship of City was mostly covered by central funds. The inference in that case is that he didn't know.

City have never declared Etihad to be a related party, and that's been (presumably) agreed by the auditors. But the PL lawyers and other experts may take a different view, as UEFA's representatives apparently did in 2014. The relevant accounting standard (IAS 24) is clear up to a point, but can be interpreted very subjectively after that. So it's one view against another, pretty well similar to someone saying one player had a good game and someone saying they didn't.

But, to make the point yet again, it's irrelevant whether Etihad is or isn't a related party as long as their sponsorship is deemed to be market value. I still think the PL have picked a strange hill to make a stand on here.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It isn’t why UEFA didn’t challenge but let’s say the PL do show it was a related party and that it should have been fair valued.

It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate, in 2024, that the 2016/17 contract was, say £10m too high. And to what end - on any case Related Party is subjective and City’s auditor clearly and consistently has disagreed with PwC and the allegations made by the PL including in 2023/24. So the PL would have won on a non-concealed, highly subjective point with a consequence that they can subjectively try to adjust an old sponsorship that the CAS decision says UEFA accepted was FMV and that was also found to be FMV in 2014 by UEFAs expert. It’s really very unlikely and if this is the fall back position (ie an alternate argument if their main fraud argument fails), I’d expect the panel to be less than impressed and to dismiss it.

Fair enough. I'm not arguing that they will be able to prove it, or that it is a fall-back position, just that there are bits and pieces pointing to these issues being included in the allegations. As with everything else, we will see soon enough :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

And to what end - on any case Related Party is subjective and City’s auditor clearly and consistently has disagreed with PwC and the allegations made by the PL including in 2023/24.

And as you've correctly said previously, knowing that it's one of the contentious issues in the PL charges, BDO will have wanted to be doubly, trebly sure about whether Etihad (or any other AD-based sponsor) was a related party or not.

I'd be amazed if they didn't take external advice over this.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Superb takedown of Herbert. Post of the year IMO.

Only another 364 days to outdo him ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Last time I heard anyone use the phrase "outright mendacity" was Leonard Sachs.

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

 

[Stoned Rose]

There are clear situations where two or more entities are related parties. As I've mentioned before, two companies that did business together where a husband and wife were respectively executive directors of the two companies.

When John Wardle was chairman, he was a related party to City. NYCFC is a related party, as are the other CFG clubs. Basically the definition is where a person, or close relative of that person is related to the reporting entity, including being part of a group of companies or a joint-venture.

But there's a subjective element to it as well. Who exactly is "a close relative" for example? What does "related" mean in practice?

The situation is that Sheikh Mansour is Sheikh Mohammed's brother, and the latter is the ruler of Abu Dhabi, which has a state-owned airline. But there's a number of questions to be answered to establish whether there's a related party relationship between any of those and City.

Sheikh Mansour and City are almost certainly related parties, as he's the ultimate controlling shareholder. But it still might depend on how much day-to-day influence he has over us. Maybe not that much but let's assume he is a related party.

Are he and Etihad related parties then? Almost certainly not. Although he's a member of the ruling family, and his brother is the ruler, it's hard to see how they could be seen to exercise influence over Etihad's day-to-day decisions. The Open Skies case document seemed to be pointing out to Sheikh Mohammed that the Etihad sponsorship of City was mostly covered by central funds. The inference in that case is that he didn't know.

City have never declared Etihad to be a related party, and that's been (presumably) agreed by the auditors. But the PL lawyers and other experts may take a different view, as UEFA's representatives apparently did in 2014. The relevant accounting standard (IAS 24) is clear up to a point, but can be interpreted very subjectively after that. So it's one view against another, pretty well similar to someone saying one player had a good game and someone saying they didn't.

But, to make the point yet again, it's irrelevant whether Etihad is or isn't a related party as long as their sponsorship is deemed to be market value. I still think the PL have picked a strange hill to make a stand on here.

Nunes was shit I’m not arsed what anyone else thinks.

 

[117 M34]

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

Might have heard him in the away end at anfield then

 

[mexico1970]

Interesting!
Did he say where this free money comes from.

Just that big business can just print free money and that the rags can't fail because the govt wont allow it.

The rags run on debt and it doesn't matter how much, that kind of shit.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

The first two rumours came from City fans.

Relax lads, I’m just saying that I’m not as confident as I was a few months ago. Who knows what will happen. I know that it’s all rumour.

It appears on here if you aren’t 100% confident that we’re going to be found not guilty of all charges and singing off that hymn sheet, that you get shouted off the place.

1 - if I’m pessimistic (naturally) it isn’t going to affect the outcome
2 - I just hope we all aren’t being over confident and setting ourselves up for a big shock
3 - happy new year

I’m a Dublin blue and haven’t a clue how this will go down, but on balance of probability I’ll side with the positive. That’s due to the evidence we are aware of.
I don’t trust the PL but have to trust the process is fair and objective.

 

[RayCTID]

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

I thought he was Labour's Spin Doctor?

 

[mike1923]

The Rag loving football media are getting more and more desperate by the day.

View attachment 141802

Quality. So we’ve gone from guilty of fraud to guilty of having some some big words in our contracts

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

I don't recall "You are orally men?" featuring in the Good Old Days. It wasn't that kind of show!

 

[Paladin]

I'd still like to know why a supposedly independent non-executive director was burning the midnight oil over an operational issue, when a NED is supposed to be detached from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

And that's yet another example of getting an honour just for doing the job you're supposed to be doing.

Sounds like an honour for doing the job she was NOT supposed to be doing.

 

[Mifred]

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

Maybe get a job as a waiter in a hotel

 

[Champions again in 2012]

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

Wasn't that Andrew Sachs?

 

[Brendan110_0]

I think it’s a different point. United convinced the PL as to £40m of Covid costs via an audited statement. Whilst i struggle to see how they got £40m, I don’t think it’s case of hiding things - it’s a case of convincing the PL and making specific representations. It will have reconciled to their audited numbers as it was extracted from them.

So their audited accounts are OK but ours aren't (according to PL). Rug, lift, sweep, forget.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Wasn't that Andrew Sachs?

Russell Brand will know.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Wasn't that Andrew Sachs?

Oh dear.

 

[Dodge]

I doubt it. He was from Barcelona and could barely speak English.

Very good.

 

[KS55]

You have to have good grounds to launch an investigation, is my understanding. Unless there's another Der Spiegel-type article about the financial dealings of another club, there are no grounds.

Having said that though, any club whose owners' accounts are filed in a tax haven should definitely be investigated. Any responsible regulator would want to know about any debt not declared via publicly filed accounts, in order to ensure that the club was at no risk should something happen.

My view is that all PL clubs should be companies, partnerships, charities, or trusts registered in the UK. Domiciling in a tax haven is just an attempt to gain financial advantage.