PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

In what capacity?

Acting for UEFA

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.

I think it is because as City fans we know a little more about it. Rival fans aren't bothered about educating themselves on the matter, they believe we are guilty because of the media whirlwind behind it all. Because there is no articles about us potentially being innocent and many articles that talk about our punishments. Because the likes of talksport provide misinformation, like when Stefan was on early in the case he said we could get relegated but his belief is we won't be found guilty. The headline read "financial football expert claims man city could get relegated"

When you talk to other fans their conclusion is based on misinformation. They say we got away with CAS because it was all time barred, they tell us we was still guilty because we got fined. They aren't remotely bothered about any form of truth because they need us to be guilty to ease their pain. We on the other hand look into it in more detail, we listen to the clubs views. We have to believe we will be in the clear from what we know, other fans have to believe the opposite.

 

[Bluewonder]

Acting for UEFA

They were always going to say what UEFA wanted to hear, then.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.

99% of rival fans have no fucking idea what they are talking about whether they are "impartial" or not. I do. As I said, you don't have to believe me. I don't care if you do or not, tbh.

The "impartiality" of other City fans I can't vouch for, and I don't know why you are asking me to. I can vouch for mine.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.

But that was true of Hillsborough and look how that turned out…

 

[surprisedbygrass]

Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.

I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.

Agree .

 

[horlock_was_super]

It’s riveting.

Wouldn’t that be The Riveters Magazine though?

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Surely the prospectus won't be treating the Etihad / City relationship any differently than has happened in 15 years worth of accounts? It may be explained in more detail, but the classification will surely be the same?

Agree there can be a discussion around the related party nature of Etihad, and I, for one, think that was one of the allegations, but I guess they would have to have some pretty strong arguments to override the interpretation of the club's and Etihad's auditors? And I just don't see them having that.

(And is it right to say that UEFA concluded Etihad was related in 2014? The Investigatory Chamber considered it so but it was all settled before it went to the Adjudicatory Chamber. And in 2019 it wasn't raised again despite the new sponsorship "evidence").

My thoughts as well.

To add some more context, based on the DS leaks City weren't very happy with the PwC findings. According to DS, City wrote to to UEFA "The PwC Report is seriously flawed in that it contains numerous erroneous interpretations of the Regulations, false assumptions of fact, errors of law and erroneous conclusions," read the reply. The lawyers demanded that the PwC auditors revise or delete large sections of their report. PwC refused, which further enraged the Manchester City attorneys.""

Simon Cliff was then quoted in an internal document headed Possible Legal Actions "a lawsuit (against PwC) "could destroy the entire organization within weeks." He went on: "If PWC was under threat, you could then imagine them suing UEFA for damages and, if they collapsed, all their creditors suing UEFA too."

I suspect UEFA didn't go near the related party issue in 2019 because they didn't want to open up a can of worms AND they already had in place the new rule introduced in 2015 aimed at us amongst others and capping Abu Dhabi sponsorship:

From 15/16 onwards IF our Abu Dhabi commercial revenue exceeded 30% of the clubs total revenues then our Abu Dhabi sponsorships (declared as non-related) would be treated as related and assessed for fair value. A light version of APT if you like.

 

[blueste41]

If this were Manchester United or Liverpool, I would absolutely be certain of their guilt. The only thing is, it will NEVER be Manchester United or Liverpool.

Very impartial!
Thank you for proving my point though ;)

 

[ChicagoBlue]

If it wasn’t their intention then what did they possibly think could happen? The end outcome would either be destroy City & tarnish the league reputation or simply tarnish the league reputation.

There was no benefit for an independent competition to do what they’ve done with nothing more than innuendo as evidence.

The fear, being expressed by a few clubs who saw the writing on the wall, is that City are leveraging relationships to enhance their revenues in ways these other clubs are unable to.

In addition, by being the massively successful halo club of the global City Football Group, they are further enhancing their promotional status and thus finding ways to pull away from other clubs in their commercial activities.

Because onfield and TV revenues do not create a significant financial delta, these commercial revenues are what is creating the gulf and have elevated City into the highest echelons of football in financial terms.

Some clubs look at this and say, quite openly, that because they’re not a legacy club with a built in global financial reach, that inflated commercial revenues are being used to vault City into the highest tier.

Rhetorically, this is absolutely all true. City are not a European “legacy” club, BUT they’ve been a commercial success in the CL for over a decade now, including semi-finals and Finals, including one CL Final victory. This has been huge.

Add to that, City have not been out of the Top 2 in the Premier League since forever, with the exception of Pep’s first season when we were a “woeful” 3rd place. Again, massive PL revenues based on position AND a large share of the TV contract revenues.

Concurrent with those activities, City have courted the world’s of social media and eSports universe to levels that had never been seen before, with their own in-house media winning awards and even having their output being bought by Netflix. Plus, we were the first Premier League team to make the Amazon “All or Nothing” transition to soccer. These things all add to the global brand recognition.

Add to this an Academy and other stadium construction projects that, while they do not DETRACT from FFP/PSR cost metrics, DO ADD significant revenues to those same metrics, and you have created multiple, concurrent revenue streams that are outpacing other clubs, by either being first to market or simply doing it better, all while the global fan base grows exponentially.

Point in fact, yesterday, I was walking through Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris and encountered a large group of Chinese tourists. The ladies all had their premium branding clearly visible and their large rolling suitcases, and there was a young lad, about 10 years old, wearing a Man City hat with the badge clearly visible. As I walked by I said , “Man City!” while pointing at the hat and giving him a thumbs up. I have no idea how much English he knew, but he understood those two words and the thumbs up! He smiled at this stranger in uniform and gave me a thumbs up!

Throughout his entire lifetime, that Chinese kid has only known Man City as the BEST TEAM IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE AND ONE OF THE BEST TEAMS IN EUROPE!! People forget that not everyone remembers Shankly, or Ferguson or Wenger, but EVERYONE ALIVE who knows anything about football knows Pep and Man City…and THAT is worth a fortune to a global brand wanting eyes on their name and products.

There is a reason Heineken sponsors UEFA CL games, even though there’s no alcohol!
EYES = $$$$$!

Jamie Carragher, financial guru though he may be, can say we are cheating a million times on TV or the internet, but THE MONEY has spoken and City really are a BFD in the world of global football, and thus can command global football revenues from their marketing endeavors.

City have used aggressive marketing tactics in a manner that target the real global market, where the 12-35 year old cohort not only spends a fortune, but develops the next generation of fans. Success on the field, seen across the globe, does that and Spitter will know how powerful that is because many football fans across the world now know who Plymouth Argyle are!!!

 

[halfcenturyup]

If it wasn’t their intention then what did they possibly think could happen? The end outcome would either be destroy City & tarnish the league reputation or simply tarnish the league reputation.

There was no benefit for an independent competition to do what they’ve done with nothing more than innuendo as evidence.

I have said a few times I think the PL has been manipulated into a position where they really had no choice but to proceed in February 2023. I know other people disagree, and that's fine, and I recognise it may be bollocks.

I never said, though, that they have nothing more than innuendo. I am sure they will have some evidence but it will be insufficient to prove the allegations to the standard required. Especially against the club's counter-evidence.

I also think the judgment will be written in a way that recognises the club had a case to answer (not as a mitigation, but because it's true) and the PL will again somehow win the narrative war so the fallout will be minimal.

Anyway, we will see soon enough.

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

The fear, being expressed by a few clubs who saw the writing on the wall, is that City are
leveraging relationships to enhance their revenues in ways these other clubs are unable to do.

In addition, by being the massively successful halo club of a global football group, they are further enhancing their promotional status and thus finding ways to pull away from other clubs in their commercial activities.

Because onfield and TV revenues do not create a significant financial delta, these commercial revenues are what is creating the gulf and have elevated City into the highest echelons of football in financial terms.

Some clubs look at this and say, quite openly, that because they’re not a legacy club with a built in global financial reach, that inflated commercial revenues are being used to vault City into the highest tier.

Rhetorically, this is absolutely all true. City are not a European legacy club, but they’ve been a commercial success in the CL for over a decade now, including semi-finals and Finals, including one CL Final victory. This has been huge.

Add to that, City have not been out of the Top 2 in the League since forever, with the exception of Pep’s first season when we were a “woeful” 3rd place. Again, massive PL revenues based on position AND a large share of the TV contract revenues.

Concurrent with those activities, City have courted the worlds of social media and esports to levels that had never been seen before, with their own in-house media winning awards and even being bought by Netflix. Plus, we were the first Premier League team to make the Amazon “All or Nothing” transition.

Add to this an Academy and other stadium construction projects that, while they do not DETRACT from FFP/PSR cost metrics, DO ADD significant revenues to those same metrics, and you have multiple, concurrent revenue streams that are outpacing other clubs, by either being first to market or simply doing it better, all while the global fan base grows exponentially.

Point in fact, yesterday, I was walking through Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris and encountered a large group of Chinese tourists. The ladies all had their premium branding clearly visible and their large rolling suitcases, and there was a young lad, about 10 years old, wearing a Man City hat with the badge clearly visible. As I walked by I said , “Man City!” while pointing at the hat and giving him a thumbs up. I have no idea how much English he knew, but he understood those two words and the thumbs up! He smiled at this stranger in uniform and gave me a thumbs up.

Throughout his entire lifetime, that kid has only known Man City as the BEST TEAM IN THE THE PREMIER LEAGUE AND ONE OF THE BEST TEAMS IN EUROPE!! People forget that not everyone remembers Shankly, or Ferguson or Wenger, but EVERYONE ALIVE who knows anything about football knows Pep and Man City…and THAT is worth a fortune to a global brand wanting eyes on their name.

There is a reason Heineken sponsors UEFA CL games, even though there’s no alcohol! EYES = $$$$$!

Jamie Carragher, financial guru though he may be, can say we are cheating a million times on TV or the internet, but THE MONEY has spoken and City really are a BFD in the world of global football, and thus can command global football revenues from their marketing endeavors.

City have used aggressive marketing tactics in a manner that target the real global market, where the 12-35 year old cohort not only spends a fortune, but develops the next generation of fans. Success on the field, seen across the globe, does that and Spitter will know how powerful that is because many football fans across the world now know who Plymouth Argyle are!!!

BFD? Big fucking deal?

 

[blueste41]

I have said a few times I think the PL has been manipulated into a position where they really had no choice but to proceed in February 2023. I know other people disagree, and that's fine, and I recognise it may be bollocks.

I never said, though, that they have nothing more than innuendo. I am sure they will have some evidence but it will be insufficient to prove the allegations to the standard required. Especially against the club's counter-evidence.

I also think the judgment will be written in a way that recognises the club had a case to answer (not as a mitigation, but because it's true) and the PL will again somehow win the narrative war so the fallout will be minimal.

Anyway, we will see soon enough.

How soon, have we any idea at all?

 

[nmc]

Acting for UEFA

My understanding is that UEFA have not pursued the whole Etihad - related party issue simply because they considered the sponsorship FMV - so it would be surprising if we were now told the PL does not consider the Etihad sponsorship FMV for the years covered by these charges ( there seems to be no evidence that Etihad’s level of sponsorship was out of line with other top six clubs during this period). I seem to recall @Prestwich_Blue may know better - but discussions with UEFA re Etisalat resulted in City agreeing to voluntarily cap the level of the sponsorship with this sponsor - from memory that may have been the case for another minor sponsor too.

 

[Lord Blue]

Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.

Curious as to where you get your statistics from? I know plenty of none city fans that either think we’re not guilty or profess not to know either way. The ones that think we’re guilty tend to be direct rivals. In my experience. I live in south London so I’m not surrounded by blues.

 

[cheekybids]

I have said a few times I think the PL has been manipulated into a position where they really had no choice but to proceed in February 2023. I know other people disagree, and that's fine, and I recognise it may be bollocks.

I never said, though, that they have nothing more than innuendo. I am sure they will have some evidence but it will be insufficient to prove the allegations to the standard required. Especially against the club's counter-evidence.

I also think the judgment will be written in a way that recognises the club had a case to answer (not as a mitigation, but because it's true) and the PL will again somehow win the narrative war so the fallout will be minimal.

Anyway, we will see soon enough.

I think at times we look at the premier league just as an organisation rather than the people within that organisation & their motives.

Mistry & Fyfield come across as people who are working in the premier league on behalf of Arsenal & Sky. Masters was given the nod after a meeting with Rags & Dippers.

Very much like Parry & Gill at UEFA, they clearly work on behalf of Rags & Dippers.

Would it have caused any concern to the Rags, Dippers, Arsenal & Sky if City were thrown out of the league?

As far as I’m concerned these people have not had their premier league hats on whilst working for the premier league. The only possible explanation is incompetence & incompetence is a foil for corruption.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

BFD? Big fucking deal?

I’m sorry, that might be a more American thing, as Biden was caught on an open mike saying that to Obama when The Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) passed the Congress!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

My understanding is that UEFA have not pursued the whole Etihad - related party issue simply because they considered the sponsorship FMV - so it would be surprising if we were now told the PL does not consider the Etihad sponsorship FMV for the years covered by these charges ( there seems to be no evidence that Etihad’s level of sponsorship was out of line with other top six clubs during this period). I seem to recall @Prestwich_Blue may know better - but discussions with UEFA re Etisalat resulted in City agreeing to voluntarily cap the level of the sponsorship with this sponsor - from memory that may have been the case for another minor sponsor too.

I agree it didn't really need to pursue the related arty issue partly because they decided the Etihad contract was broadly FMV, so whether it was a related party or not made no practical difference.

My view at the time was that the smart course of action might have been to accept Etihad was a related party, in which case there would be no case to answer around disguised equity investment because FFP allowed owners to sponsor their clubs via commercial contracts (as long as they were FMV).

Also see the post from @Pablo ZZZ Peroni above. PWC's view was very questionable and could easily have been challenged. I doubt it was a fight UEFA really wanted.

 

[blueste41]

Curious as to where you get your statistics from? I know plenty of none city fans that either think we’re not guilty or profess not to know either way. The ones that think we’re guilty tend to be direct rivals. In my experience. I live in south London so I’m not surrounded by blues.

Start with any City story the BBC allow comments on!
Then try any and all social media.
I think your the none City fans you know are lying to you!

 

[bluealf]

Start with any City story the BBC allow comments on!
Then try any and all social media.
I think your the none City fans you know are lying to you!

There are three big X accounts that back City, A Newcastle fan, an Everton fan and a WHU fan, plenty of comments in those threads suggest that 'other' fans think we are getting turned over by the red cartel.

You might want to clarify the bolded bit