PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

I think you've got a blind spot on this, which stems from your seeming belief that the PL is acting rationally and independently in this matter, and there's no malicious intent on the part of certain clubs in these charges.

I'd agree that if the PL were acting in the way you seem to believe, there would be no particular reason to go down this route as there seems to be little or no mileage in it. But, as I've said before, one of the key elements revealed in the APT case verdict was that other clubs felt we were misreporting related parties. And the senior club official who said to me (referring to the UEFA charges) "We know who's behind this. It's the US-owned clubs and there's a geopolitical element". And that's verbatim.

I suspect they took their cue on this from CAS, who mentioned this in their verdict. There's a clear theme or linkage here but you've naysayed this when it's been brought up previously. But perhaps I've got a blind spot on this and its confirmation bias. We'll only know for sure when the IC publishes its findings.

But if there's a dead body found, having died from stab wounds, and there's a knife next to the body covered in the victim's blood and the wounds are consistent with being inflicted by the knife that's next to the body, the first assumption will be that this knife was used to kill that person.

If we go back to the PL's press release of the charges (ignoring the fuck-up over some of the rules we'd been charged with breaching) it specifically says "...sponsorship revenue and related parties". I'd say that's a fairly clear indicator that the issue of RPs is a large part of this.

Where we clearly do agree on this, is that if that's the best they've got, they're pretty desperate and aren't likely to be successful. But again, that presupposes that their main intention is to uphold their rules, which they believe we've driven a coach and horses through, rather than drag our name through the mud and win any little point that will give our enemies some ammunition to level the cheating accusations.

And you're of course right that some of the charges precede the PL's introduction of rules around presenting accounts that meet regulatory and other accepted reporting standards. But IAS 24 (and its predecessors) has been in existence since before I started my accountancy training. So the more subjective rule of acting with utmost good faith (i.e. not meeting longstanding accounting standards) could be used in this respect prior to 2013/14, as it clearly seems to be.

You're right that there seems to be little mileage in these avenues of attack on FMV and Related Parties. And that leads to you saying that you don't think this is the substance of the charges. But some of us, rightly or wrongly, believe these charges aren't about substantive and material issues of accounting. Including the Mancini contract, that we both agree is a complete red herring, surely reinforces that.

Call me cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot, whatever. But, in my opinion, this is about landing any little blow on us they can, even some minor and insignificant thing that our detractors can hang their hat on and say "We told you so. They're cheats" regardless of whether it brought us any material or sporting benefit at all. And even if they fail in that, they've succeeded in throwing enough mud that people will say that regardless of the evidence or outcome.

Last answer on this.

I’m afraid that the idea this whole thing has been some kind of half arsed prosecution or process is just wishful thinking.

If only these charges were about whether a party was related. I suspect the use of related there is a natural consequence of the main charge. If actually only £8m was Etihad and the whole thing was orchestrated by SM then inevitably Etihad was a RP because it would have been found that SM had controlled the whole thing. Your argument (and few others) seems to have the RP as a distinct main charge. That’s the disagreement - sadly I’m pretty certain the charges are simply far more serious than that. Hopefully you are right and they just ran a 12 week hearing to try and prove a highly subjective accounting point where evidence exists that even if RP, the main sponsor was FMV. Clearly, pretty unlikely even if the PL are as incompetent as you insist.

 

[JewelZee]

We never seem to discuss how passive/defensive our arguments were during the hearing. A highly aggressive rebuttal of the charges would need to be backed up with more evidence than the Arsenal letter, hateful nine letters, the New York photo and the David Gill speech, wiped from the web but no doubt City have. Add to that the anonymous YT attack video with millions of hits, Master's infamous remarks about regimes coming and going and Parry's public statement that certain historical clubs have earned the right to be more 'influential' than 'smaller' clubs. Clubs like us and PSG were allowed to be taken over by their current owners but subsequently competing clubs regret this ever happened. No doubt the same applies to NUFC now. If we have made direct verifiable assertions the PL are governing the game on behalf of competitor clubs, which I personally believe, the next media shit storm is on the way. You know the trope, "if you don't like the rules why don't you just sell up and leave". If the panel choose not to document our assertions we will never know unless we come out fighting in public. It wasn't me or any other poster on here who said there is a clear and organised campaign of attack against us at every level, regulatory, legacy media, social media and fan groups etc it was our Chairman, Khaldoon Mubarak.

How would you know how passive or defensive we were during the hearing? Just asking...

 

[halfcenturyup]

The difference is one is highly subjective, well trodden publicly and clearly time barred. The other is sufficiently serious (very) and concealed to be capable of breaching the SoL. Furthermore, it is something worth pursuing - a disagreement on RP is not and, if it was, you have failed to address why they waited 10 years to pursue and haven't pursued the ongoing "breach" all founded on the same factual background. Of course you can believe what you like but you haven't addressed any of the questions including how you prove the subject RP point, how you now demostrate the FMV of 10 year old deals with good clarity.

PS related party and FMV only commenced in the PL rules in 2013-14 so "related party" couldn't relate to any charge for any year prior to that.

Fair point about the Etihad funding, but I think you are coming at this from a different PL angle to me.

Unless I am mistaken, you think, quite reasonably, the PL came to the referred allegations based on the seriousness of the charges, the potential financial impact and there being a good likelihood of success.

I think they simply came to the referred allegations based on a list of unresolved issues arising from the leaked documents and from all the previous UEFA investigations. Otherwise, I find it hard to explain the Mancini allegation, for example, which must have a low likelihood of success, is immaterial, most probably time limited and is hardly serious at all in comparison to, say, the Etihad funding.

Tbh, I didn't address your other points because I didn't think they were relevant to my point. But if you are really interested, here we go.

You know the RP definitions. Imo, the PL will have been looking for evidence that Mansour, or a close member of his family, has significant influence, directly or indirectly, over the operations of Etihad. That evidence could come in many forms, it could have come from the investigation. Any suggestion would just be complete speculation. But it could exist and it could have just come to light recently. Less conspiratorially, it's just as likely I suppose, that the club's counter-evidence wasn't sufficient to satisfy their experts.

As for FMV, that has no effect on the accounts of course, the only change in the accounts from a change in RP designation would be an additional note disclosure. And, of course, you are right that FMV only comes into play in the PL rules with FFP. I know that. Practically, though, I imagine UEFA still have their valuations from 2014 and, presumably, 2019. But again, I am not that bothered about the financial impact. I would be more worried by the reputational fall-out. The state-owned narrative would be relentless. Actually, if I was a conspiracist, I would say that's the point. Luckily, I'm not.

And anyway, as I said, I doubt it will get that far.

 

[johnny crossan]

Last answer on this.

I’m afraid that the idea this whole thing has been some kind of half arsed prosecution or process is just wishful thinking.

If only these charges were about whether a party was related. I suspect the use of related there is a natural consequence of the main charge. If actually only £8m was Etihad and the whole thing was orchestrated by SM then inevitably Etihad was a RP because it would have been found that SM had controlled the whole thing. Your argument (and few others) seems to have the RP as a distinct main charge. That’s the disagreement - sadly I’m pretty certain the charges are simply far more serious than that. Hopefully you are right and they just ran a 12 week hearing to try and prove a highly subjective accounting point where evidence exists that even if RP, the main sponsor was FMV. Clearly, pretty unlikely even if the PL are as incompetent as you insist.

I prefer your more optimistic mode ;-)

City have remained confident even throughout the hearing. Not sure if the PL has.

 

[slbsn]

Fair point about the Etihad funding, but I think you are coming at this from a different PL angle to me.

Unless I am mistaken, you think, quite reasonably, the PL came to the referred allegations based on the seriousness of the charges, the potential financial impact and there being a good likelihood of success.

I think they simply came to the referred allegations based on a list of unresolved issues arising from the leaked documents and from all the previous UEFA investigations. Otherwise, I find it hard to explain the Mancini allegation, for example, which must have a low likelihood of success, is immaterial, most probably time limited and is hardly serious at all in comparison to, say, the Etihad funding.

Tbh, I didn't address your other points because I didn't think they were relevant to my point. But if you are really interested, here we go.

You know the RP definitions. Imo, the PL will have been looking for evidence that Mansour, or a close member of his family, has significant influence, directly or indirectly, over the operations of Etihad. That evidence could come in many forms, it could have come from the investigation. Any suggestion would just be so complete speculation. But it could exist and it could have just come to light recently. Less conspiratorially, it's just as likely I suppose, that the club's counter-evidence wasn't sufficient to satisfy their experts.

As for FMV, that has no effect on the accounts of course, the only change in the accounts from a change in RP designation would be an additional note disclosure. And, of course, you are right that FMV only comes into play in the PL rules with FFP. I know that. Practically, though, I imagine UEFA still have their valuations from 2014 and, presumably, 2019. But again, I am not that bothered about the financial impact. I would be more worried by the reputational fall-out. The state-owned narrative would be relentless. Actually, if I was a conspiracist, I would say that's the point. Luckily, I'm not.

As anyway, as I said, I doubt it will get that far.

I don’t think any of that is very convincing. The main charges are the very serious allegations from the CAS case rather than whether the accounts needed more detailed RP notes. Surely you must see how unlikely it is.

And you haven’t addressed why wait 10 years to pursue RP? Or why not pursue since 2018? Or why not just a nice simple discrete charge about those issues? Or how City would be in possession of any of the documents showing the inner workings of Abu Dhabi or why any of it matters given we know that UEFAs own position was that Etihad was FMV. Honestly, the idea the PL never had any grounds to investigate the more serious matters or that it’s all trivial is just obviously wrong. Both parties would have guided that media away from the serious stuff years ago.

Last reply as going round in circles

 

[slbsn]

I prefer your more optimistic mode ;-)

My positions aren’t contradictory. It’s serious but City are confident. Honestly I’ve got no idea how anyone can think a 10-12 week hearing with 16 barristers is anything but a very serious process. I think some people have deluded themselves into thinking it’s all just theatre.

 

[johnny crossan]

My positions aren’t contradictory. It’s serious but City are confident. Honestly I’ve got no idea how anyone can think a 10-12 week hearing with 16 barristers is anything but a very serious process. I think some people have deluded themselves into thinking it’s all just theatre.

Notwithstanding, I persist in being encouraged by your detection of soft signals from so far unspecified sources!

 

[halfcenturyup]

So - looking at latest posts from @slbsn @ @Prestwich_Blue - it’s looking less and less positive. The technical detail goes over the head of most people so in simple terms - are we done?

Not at all. The allegations are serious but difficult to prove. Same as always. Don't confuse discussion for conclusion ....

 

[Sofiablu]

I spend a lot of time reading this thread but don’t post very often. However today I’m giving it a go. I particularly want to address the viewpoint of some, which I think is flawed and that is the trust in the legitimacy of the case against City and why the case was launched.
I don’t have the legal or accounting background of some on here, although I do have experience in 2 areas, that I think can throw a little light on some matters. Firstly I have run a successful business, in a field that was highly competitive and self regulated. Secondly within that field I was an elected member of the board that regulated the industry in question and also a member of the panel that wrote the rule book . I won’t be naming the industry.
I know from personal experience how the rules and regulations can easily be influenced by individuals and individual businesses. I also know how the executive of an industry can be completely manipulated by the more powerful organisations it is supposed to represent and regulate. It’s so easy for me to see parallels with the way the PL is run and the industry I was involved in.
Admittedly the industry isn’t as big as football but it impacted on almost every person in the U.K.
I’ll give one small example of what I mean. A newcomer to the industry came up with a new way of doing business. This immediately threatened the business model of my company and others. To stop this newcomer in its tracks we changed the rules under which business could be done. We did this by seeking help from other board members we’d worked with in the past and collectively put pressure on the executive to act.
We also went to the government department associated with our industry and via our contacts there persuaded them that the newcomers business methods were in breach of government regulations, this was highly debatable but we’d worked with the people in charge for years and had close business relationships with them. We persuaded them the newcomers methods were going to be more trouble than they were worth and they acted accordingly.
Once we’d changed the rules and persuaded government to act we then attacked the integrity of the newcomer business with their clients and they soon gave up and went away.
The point I’m, probably badly, trying to make is that businesses protect their own interests and that in many fields, including I believe football, specific interests can easily be portrayed as “looking after the interests of all parties”. Also it’s so easy for big players to influence any self regulated industry.
Obviously there’s a lot more to the scenario above but I’m aware I’ve already rambled on.
PS I’m not proud of what we did but want people without experience of business to understand how the world can work.

 

[slbsn]

Not at all. The allegations are serious but difficult to prove. Same as always. Don't confuse discussion for conclusion ....

The more this is just about some technical debate about FMV the less serious it is.

 

[1961_vintage]

I spend a lot of time reading this thread but don’t post very often. However today I’m giving it a go. I particularly want to address the viewpoint of some, which I think is flawed and that is the trust in the legitimacy of the case against City and why the case was launched.
I don’t have the legal or accounting background of some on here, although I do have experience in 2 areas, that I think can throw a little light on some matters. Firstly I have run a successful business, in a field that was highly competitive and self regulated. Secondly within that field I was an elected member of the board that regulated the industry in question and also a member of the panel that wrote the rule book . I won’t be naming the industry.
I know from personal experience how the rules and regulations can easily be influenced by individuals and individual businesses. I also know how the executive of an industry can be completely manipulated by the more powerful organisations it is supposed to represent and regulate. It’s so easy for me to see parallels with the way the PL is run and the industry I was involved in.
Admittedly the industry isn’t as big as football but it impacted on almost every person in the U.K.
I’ll give one small example of what I mean. A newcomer to the industry came up with a new way of doing business. This immediately threatened the business model of my company and others. To stop this newcomer in its tracks we changed the rules under which business could be done. We did this by seeking help from other board members we’d worked with in the past and collectively put pressure on the executive to act.
We also went to the government department associated with our industry and via our contacts there persuaded them that the newcomers business methods were in breach of government regulations, this was highly debatable but we’d worked with the people in charge for years and had close business relationships with them. We persuaded them the newcomers methods were going to be more trouble than they were worth and they acted accordingly.
Once we’d changed the rules and persuaded government to act we then attacked the integrity of the newcomer business with their clients and they soon gave up and went away.
The point I’m, probably badly, trying to make is that businesses protect their own interests and that in many fields, including I believe football, specific interests can easily be portrayed as “looking after the interests of all parties”. Also it’s so easy for big players to influence any self regulated industry.
Obviously there’s a lot more to the scenario above but I’m aware I’ve already rambled on.
PS I’m not proud of what we did but want people without experience of business to understand how the world can work.

Thanks for sharing. Would you say that you were in effect operating a cartel?

 

[JewelZee]

Last answer on this.

I’m afraid that the idea this whole thing has been some kind of half arsed prosecution or process is just wishful thinking.

If only these charges were about whether a party was related. I suspect the use of related there is a natural consequence of the main charge. If actually only £8m was Etihad and the whole thing was orchestrated by SM then inevitably Etihad was a RP because it would have been found that SM had controlled the whole thing. Your argument (and few others) seems to have the RP as a distinct main charge. That’s the disagreement - sadly I’m pretty certain the charges are simply far more serious than that. Hopefully you are right and they just ran a 12 week hearing to try and prove a highly subjective accounting point where evidence exists that even if RP, the main sponsor was FMV. Clearly, pretty unlikely even if the PL are as incompetent as you insist.

I agree the charges are far more serious but at the same time you've said yourself it would be very difficult for the Prem to basically prove that we've committed fraud. That being the case what are the Prem then up to? It does appear very plausible that they've gone big on a long shot while doing levels of damage all along the way. Based on everything we've been told by the subject matter experts, yourself included, regarding how difficult it would be for the Prem to prove the most serious charges why would anyone question the skepticism and cynicism of our supporters, myself included. As everyone uses their own experiences and instincts to form an opinion mine is that this whole thing stinks to high heaven of a targeted persecution. JM very strong O...

 

[slbsn]

I agree the charges are far more serious but at the same time you've said yourself it would be very difficult for the Prem to basically prove that we've committed fraud. That being the case what are the Prem then up to? It does appear very plausible that they've gone big on a long shot while doing levels of damage all along the way. Based on everything we've been told by the subject matter experts, yourself included, regarding how difficult it would be for the Prem to prove the most serious charges why would anyone question the skepticism and cynicism of our supporters, myself included. As everyone uses their own experiences and instincts to form an opinion mine is that this whole thing stinks to high heaven of a targeted persecution. JM very strong O...

Personally, I think the best thing to do is not to overdo the idea of PL bias or incompetence. In the scale of City’s defence team you can see City themselves took no chances and have treated it as seriously as possible.

 

[Sofiablu]

Thanks for sharing. Would you say that you were in effect operating a cartel?

I’d say we were being protectionist.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

How would you know how passive or defensive we were during the hearing? Just asking...

Apologies, poor English from me. I meant if we were purely passive and defensive. It will make a huge difference to the public reaction if we have gone all out attack with hard evidence the PL and the puppet Masters are governing on behalf of the red cartel competitor clubs. I think most people have assumed we were entirely defensive, they maybe wrong. I was trying to engage on the fallout of City, within the psuedo Judicial setting of the hearing, of accusing the governing body of corruption. So our counter attack would be as serious as the egregious charges we are facing.
it seems noone is biting, I'm off to the game, let's hope we have a BAU win today, see what I did there...

 

[Silva Citizen]

I've said it before & i'll say it again, this thread is bonkers, a good read but nonetheless, still bonkers.
The highs and the lows, the "we're fucked " to "we're innocent" posts from a multitude of posters.
The seemingly sound advice from a few posters with experience in this field to the insane ramblings of other posters.
None of us really knows how this will all end, we obviously all have our opinions but we're all completely in the dark in reality & haven't got a fucking scoobies what the final outcome will be.......8081 pages & counting shows that ha

I think most contributors or readers of this thread expect us to be found at least partially guilty at some point.
It’s not how well or not we have adapted to the rules that irks most of us, it is the fact the rules were put in place to hinder City’s progress at the behest of teams that historically mostly have had financial injections of there own.
I am at the point where I will celebrate our innocence or walk away from the game altogether.
The incessant fiddling with the rules, VAR, woke terraces, and the lack of physicality in todays game is all leading me away anyhow, this might just be the final nail for me and many more.
CTID

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I think most contributors or readers of this thread expect us to be found at least partially guilty at some point.
It’s not how well or not we have adapted to the rules that irks most of us, it is the fact the rules were put in place to hinder City’s progress at the behest of teams that historically mostly have had financial injections of there own.
I am at the point where I will celebrate our innocence or walk away from the game altogether.
The incessant fiddling with the rules, VAR, woke terraces, and the lack of physicality in todays game is all leading me away anyhow, this might just be the final nail for me and many more.
CTID

Bang on.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is not to overdo the idea of PL bias or incompetence. In the scale of City’s defence team you can see City themselves took no chances and have treated it as seriously as possible.

That might well be to do with the seriousness of the possible consequences, as much as, or rather than, the seriousness of the charges.

 

[asahartford1]

I’d say we were being protectionist.

Rag -:)

 

[CC1]

Not at all. The allegations are serious but difficult to prove. Same as always. Don't confuse discussion for conclusion ....

Cheers & thanks