PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

manimanc said:
www.skysports.com

Man Utd's £900m adidas kit deal could be terminated if club are relegated from Premier League - Paper Talk

Plus: Fulham fear Marseille will renew their interest in signing Andreas Pereira; Tottenham are considering delving into the transfer market to sign a new goalkeeper; Aston Villa have recalled Lewis Dobbin from his season-long loan at West Bromwich Albion
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com

Any debate about the amount?

Fair value?

Another free pass for them pricks.
Click to expand...
Ye. But it’s manchesh yernited we’re talking about
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Not at all.

Just irritated that PB was was forcibly arguing Open Skies stuff again as a matter of fact when it's not imo for the reasons stated.
Click to expand...
I take your point, and having re-read the CAS decision, it's clear I misunderstood that the 'central funds' referred to were actually Etihad's not Abu Dhabi's. But that doesn't mean that the Booz Allen document is necessarily 100% incorrect. Neither you nor I know what the full truth is.

The statements that Etihad provided the sponsorship out of its own liquidity, and that ADEC took care of the funding for the Etihad sponsorship could both potentially be true. Tony Douglas, who was then Group CEO of Etihad said that money was available to Etihad from its shareholder, banks and other commercial partners. But he also said no money came from ADUG or Sheikh Mansour himself. So he's not specifically ruling out money coming from central sources & CAS said they were unable to establish whether that was the case or not.

If I give someone £100 and they then go out and spend £100, they've done that out of their own liquidity. If I spend £100 on a present for someone, that's come out of my funds, directly for their benefit.

CAS established that all the sponsorship money came to City directly from Etihad, albeit from different budgets, and none came from ADUG.
 
slbsn said:
The case (and the most serious allegation) is predominantly about Etihad and disguised equity. I am surprised this is still debated - both the club and PL would have guided the media away from that suggestion. Can the PL prove it? Did it happen as alleged? I doubt it. We will see.

I just don't get the idea this is about whether these parties are actually related parties or not and as I have said if that is some kind of argument in the alternative, it will fail.

PS I’m not saying the “was Etihad a related party” won’t be an issue on the issues list (I would expect the lawyers on the PL side to consider it a distraction) but I’m saying in the context of the main allegations, the point goes nowhere.
Click to expand...
I think we're pretty well in agreement on this. Whether Etihad is or isn't a related party has no bearing on the sponsorship itself, which has to be at FMV regardless. And that's never been challenged.

Looking back at the CAS document though, they said that the issue about related parties was that if Etihad et al were deemed to be related, then we could be held to have misreported this in our financial statements.

The reason I thought it was a strange hill to fight a battle on was that any attack on the valuation of the sponsorship seems doomed to fail. Any attempt to prove that it was disguised equity funding seems doomed to fail. The only avenue of attack therefore is that it was a related party, which is corroborated by the background to the APT case, where clubs felt we were misreporting this.

But even if that is the case (and neither of us believe it is) that's certainly not going to lead to any sporting penalties such as points deductions.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I think we're pretty well in agreement on this. Whether Etihad is or isn't a related party has no bearing on the sponsorship itself, which has to be at FMV regardless. And that's never been challenged.

Looking back at the CAS document though, they said that the issue about related parties was that if Etihad et al were deemed to be related, then we could be held to have misreported this in our financial statements.

The reason I thought it was a strange hill to fight a battle on was that any attack on the valuation of the sponsorship seems doomed to fail. Any attempt to prove that it was disguised equity funding seems doomed to fail. The only avenue of attack therefore is that it was a related party, which is corroborated by the background to the APT case, where clubs felt we were misreporting this.

But even if that is the case (and neither of us believe it is) that's certainly not going to lead to any sporting penalties such as points deductions.
Click to expand...

But it would be absolutely crushing from a PR point of view. Would it not?

Don't get me wrong. It would be a difficult win for the PL but I am not sure we should just be disregarding its importance as an issue.
 
halfcenturyup said:
But it would be absolutely crushing from a PR point of view. Would it not?

Don't get me wrong. It would be a difficult win for the PL but I am not sure we should just be disregarding its importance as an issue.
Click to expand...
Anything that goes against City will be bad for PR. That’s the nature of the beast. But they have already had UEFA believe Etihad to be related and the accounts never changed. City would therefore continue to present Etihad as not related. So there would be highly esoteric technical accounting discrepancy for football fans to debate. I wouldn’t worry about it and don’t think it’s going to happen.
 
jrb said:
You'll have to scroll through add after add to read the full article, if you can be arsed?

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Premier League CEO Masters scores huge own goal with two Man City blunders

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has given a wide-ranging interview that conveniently avoided the most important issue he faces this year: Manchester City.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Click to expand...
Hopefully the podcast is because he feels the need to get on the personal PR front because of some potential risks to his personal PR in 2025
 
jrb said:
You'll have to scroll through add after add to read the full article, if you can be arsed?

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Premier League CEO Masters scores huge own goal with two Man City blunders

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has given a wide-ranging interview that conveniently avoided the most important issue he faces this year: Manchester City.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Click to expand...
Brilliant article.

Not one word about city and the 115.

Someone is trying to deliberately NOT mention the hiding they have gotten over this at the tribunal.

He couldn’t help himself saying something if we had been found guilty of fraud. His rag/dip paymasters wouldn’t allow it.

This is good news. Softly softly catchy monkey -:)
 
wolviedinho said:
Brilliant article.

Not one word about city and the 115.

Someone is trying to deliberately NOT mention the hiding they have gotten over this at the tribunal.

He couldn’t help himself saying something if we had been found guilty of fraud. His rag/dip paymasters wouldn’t allow it.

This is good news. Softly softly catchy monkey -:)
Click to expand...

First time no one asked “whatabout Citeh” & as this seems a coordinated interview if it was looking bad for City they’d have got a dig in.

This **** needs putting in front of select committee & that May Fyfield the lying **** will be giving her MBE back like the post office Witch.
 
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