PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[JewelZee]

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.

Agreed. Myself I've never leaned heavily into the incompetence angle. Nor do I subscribe to the idea of the panel being biased. But I am 100% convinced that the Prem have come from a bad place.

City have had no other choice but to treat it seriously. They know full well the intent and craft of their accusers...

 

[meltonblue]

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.

That’s been exactly my interpretation from the start too.

 

[johnny crossan]

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.

Agree 100% - at root the PL action against City is just another example of a US cartel attempting to protect its revenue streams by seeking to legitimize their corrupt practices through the courts.

 

[Cityfan1977]

Agree 100% - at root the PL action against City is just another example of a US cartel attempting to protect its revenue streams by seeking to legitimize their corrupt practices through the courts.

Dont forget Henry asking throgh the media "what was the second highest bit"
When we agreed the Etihad deal.
It was not his to talke about others team contracts.
I knew from that moment that Liverpool was against City but I never thought they would go this far.

 

[ufo]

I’d say we were being protectionist.

More like human nature but that was morally , professionally and ethically wrong in anyway you slice it. We have those tendencies in us instinctively to be a protectionist

 

[slbsn]

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

I’d say it surely is both. They are obviously connected to each other.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

Disagree. This "technical debate about FMV" is nothing to do with the seriousness of the main allegations.

Nobody has ever said, afaik, that the allegations about sponsorship income, if they are based on the 2020 UEFA charges as we all suspect, are anything other than very serious.

There are also some less serious allegations, such as Mancini and Touré for example. I just happen to believe the investigation also looked at the related party nature of the AD sponsors, leading to the inclusion of a related party reference in the first tranche of alleged breaches and the alleged breach of 2018:E54 in the FFP tranche.

None of that takes anything away from the seriousness of the allegations around sponsorship income or the difficulty the PL will have in proving them. That is the same as it ever was.

That said, it seems to be confusing some people, so best to park it, I think. We will see soon enough, anyway.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I’d say it surely is both. They are obviously connected to each other.

No doubt you're right, you know a great deal more about this than I do.

What I do know is that if I were accused of murder, I'd take it seriously regardless of the paucity of evidence.

 

[CC1]

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.

Which charges in particular are you worried about - & how worried are you?

 

[deano ou812]

So basically the premier league are looking and hoping to find something that most likely isn’t there,yet the whole process still has to go through from start to finish..

 

[The perfect fumble]

So basically the premier league are looking and hoping to find something that most likely isn’t there,yet the whole process still has to go through from start to finish..

The process is the punishment.

 

[ancoats]

Because there is no evidence of cheating I’m afraid

True..
But because nobody dares question United accounts they always will get away with it, but allowing £40million in allowances for Covid 19 is crazy when others had been turned down or only claimed around £2 million, other clubs' allowances per week to United is not £2million a week,

Quick Question Stefan...

The Legal fees City has been involved in like the PSR win and Now the 115 charges can City put them in the allowances like United did with the sale of shares, I would like to know how much legal fees City have had over the last season

 

[deano ou812]

The process is the punishment.

Exactly and the after effects from it with the media wanting their pound of flesh regarding well we’ll spin it as them being guilty anyhow..

 

[slbsn]

Disagree. This "technical debate about FMV" is nothing to do with the seriousness of the main allegations.

Nobody has ever said, afaik, that the allegations about sponsorship income, if they are based on the 2020 UEFA charges as we all suspect, are anything other than very serious.

There are also some less serious allegations, such as Mancini and Touré for example. I just happen to believe the investigation also looked at the related party nature of the AD sponsors, leading to the inclusion of a related party reference in the first tranche of alleged breaches and the alleged breach of 2018:E54 in the FFP tranche.

None of that takes anything away from the seriousness of the allegations around sponsorship income or the difficulty the PL will have in proving them. That is the same as it ever was.

That said, it seems to be confusing some people, so best to park it, I think. We will see soon enough, anyway.

Now I am really confused. E.54 is not referenced in the charges press release aside from within the breach of the entire PSR sections from 2015/16 to 2017/18 but not 13/14 or 14/15. In fact, if there was a distinct alleged breach of FMV why is there no charge on a breach of E.53 from 2013/14 or the equivalent E.54 from 2014/15. That could easily have been added to the charges in bullet 1 or in bullet 4. It is notable that it is not there.

 

[slbsn]

True..
But because nobody dares question United accounts they always will get away with it, but allowing £40million in allowances for Covid 19 is crazy when others had been turned down or only claimed around £2 million, other clubs' allowances per week to United is not £2million a week,

Quick Question Stefan...

The Legal fees City has been involved in like the PSR win and Now the 115 charges can City put them in the allowances like United did with the sale of shares, I would like to know how much legal fees City have had over the last season

I think most are outside the key reporting entity and I think excluded anyway. But City have plenty of PSR capacity anyway

 

[slbsn]

Which charges in particular are you worried about - & how worried are you?

Not worried about them but the serious charges allege widespread false accounting for a decade and that many people have conspired. I’m not worried aside from the seriousness of the allegations

 

[CC1]

Not worried about them but the serious charges allege widespread false accounting for a decade and that many people have conspired. I’m not worried aside from the seriousness of the allegations

Thanks Stefan

 

[flb]

sorry i’m religious person and only smoke holy basil .

You’re on some seriously strong shit mate , you’re a funny one though !

 

[marco]

Not worried about them but the serious charges allege widespread false accounting for a decade and that many people have conspired. I’m not worried aside from the seriousness of the allegations

if there was any proof would we not have been raided by Greater Manchester Police or HMRC by now and our offices striped of the computers and hard drives, i would have thought it would be the duty of the PL to report to the correct authorities before any in house investigation, if thats correct i can only asume they 'the PL' have nothing to report

 

[slbsn]

if there was any proof would we not have been raided by Greater Manchester Police or HMRC by now and our offices striped of the computers and hard drives, i would have thought it would be the duty of the PL to report to the correct authorities before any in house investigation, if thats correct i can only asume they 'the PL' have nothing to report

No I don’t think that’s a good assumption.