PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Excellent as always.
Laughing at the Lord Pannick reference because only last night I had exactly the same thought :).

The errant poster has argued his version of the law previously and, IIRC, all of slbsn, you, Chris in London, halfcenturyup, PB, GDM and others have pushed back on it. None of whom can be considered hapless juniors IMO. Except halfcenturyup of course who always defers to you all but challenges everyone with his great range of questions.

I for one completely agree with halfcenturyup that the best analysis of this is on here and here alone and so grateful for the input.
Click to expand...

Not commenting on myself, but, yes, in my rush to make a point through exaggeration, I did maybe underestimate the contributions of a lot of other excellent posters. Apologies for that.

I'll just make another point, though it'll have to be hurried given work stuff I've now got going on today. If they really are looking at the related party stuff again, that would surely be great news for City. Remember, all the accusations of misstating sponsorship and other monies referred to us having done so "in bad faith".

I don't really see that the argument we should have declared Abu Dhabi sponsors as related parties is going to be persuasive at all. Even if it is, though, it's surely a determination we've made with an honest belief it's true, relying on the counsel of our professional advisers. It just can't be credible that we've lied to the auditors down the years to cover up Mansour, Khaldoon and others bullying the likes of Etihad and Etisalat into agreeing inflated sponsorships when they're presumably predicated on what we reckon is a fair value anyway.

Thus I don't follow how the related parties point can be determined to be in bad faith. And in that case, it's a dispute over an accounting technicality and not an accusation of fraud, so any sanction would be minimal. Given that detractors in the game still talk about points deductions and the like, which couldn't result from a little dust-up over related parties, I still suspect the thrust has been an accusation of disguised equity funding, hopefully just not backed up with much in the way of compelling evidence.
 
If we get found guilty on even 1 charge then the narrative will be as expected.GUILTY,CHEATS,ONLY PAID THEM OFF ETC.
Jordan will be giving it large with his 'Nuances' on Talksport.
Buckle up and get the popcorn out.
 
petrusha said:
One more quick point. I saw @slbsn criticised on here last night for misrepresenting the seriousness of the case against City. Seems to be way back in the thread, where it much better placed, but such arrant nonsense really deserves to disappear altogether. Stefan is the Lord Pannick of the commentators on this thread (and elsewhere, too). The rest of us are mere hapless juniors with the odd valuable contribution to make but otherwise floundering slightly as we try to keep up.
Click to expand...
I saw this too and laughed. One of the best examples of ultracrepidarianism I've ever seen.

​

 
petrusha said:
I'm not quite following the initial part of the post. Unless I'm missing something, DPM in the UAE is a title that, in the 21st century there, has been conferred on people who are influential members of the Cabinet, either upon their appointment to their Cabinet role or later.

The four (not three) current incumbents are respectively President of the Presidential Court (Mansour), Minister of the Interior, Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence. They're all members of the Cabinet, and those roles arguably earned them the title DPM. Mansour has been in the Cabinet 5 years longer than he's held the DPM role. I don't see how one can mount a credible argument that he's not a member of the UAE government in those circumstances. Anyway, just a throwaway point. I don't really give a toss about that.

As far as what PwC's thought process was, here goes. The argument rested around the wording in IAS 24 that was copied over into UEFA's FFP rules as Appendix 10, applying to City's case in 2014. I don't have time to find the exact quotation, but it doesn't just cover influence achieved by common familial and business connections. There's also a catch-all wording about otherwise having an opportunity to exercise influence achieved otherwise and this is what PwC seized on, with their main evidence being the Etisalat sponsorship.

IIRC, they believed (I forget on what basis) that City had procured an increase in the Etisalat contract to take it above market value in the year that Mancini and his staff were dismissed. This was allegedly done with a view to keeping our losses for that year below a threshold figure where a sanction would have been triggered had we exceeded it. City had hoped at the time to avoid a sanction for the first FFP reporting period by deducting GBP 80 million or so of pre-2010 wages.

IIRC, PwC argued: (i) the above showed that City had the opportunity to influence Etisalat because it was impossible to contemplate that an arm's-length sponsor would agree to amend a contract that still had time to run so that it would pay more for the services received; (ii) that one could credibly infer that an Abu Dhabi publicly owned company had thus been influenced owing to the positions of Mansour, Khaldoon and Pearce in that Emirate; and (iii) if City had the opportunity to influence Etisalat on this basis, the same would apply to other AD sponsors.

NB - The above is from memory. If anyone ahs the time and inclination to go back and dig through it all (both in terms of the wording of IAS 24 and of PwC's arguments, please do. In the discussion below, meanwhile, I defer to accountants who know more about IAS 24 than I do.

However, I have been involved in various tax cases where there were related party issues. In other words, a tax authority relied on a statutory right to adjust the value of a related party transaction (RPT) that wasn't at fair market value and resulted in less tax being paid than should have been. My recollection is that it's necessary to demonstrate, for a transaction to qualify as an RPT, that not only does the opportunity to exist, but the fact of influence being exercised on more than just a one-off basis must also be present.

PwC's argument seemed weak to me in this event, as it appeared to be based on what in effect was a one-off request for a favour from mates being viewed as ongoing influence. City, I suspect, believed that PwC had prized supplying an analysis that would be palatable to their client, UEFA, over one in which the rules were outlined and applied properly and Cliff's comments suggest the club was prepared to litigate. Ultimately, UEFA didn't push the point and the settlement agreement treated the AD sponsors as non-related.

One more quick point. I saw @slbsn criticised on here last night for misrepresenting the seriousness of the case against City. Seems to be way back in the thread, where it much better placed, but such arrant nonsense really deserves to disappear altogether. Stefan is the Lord Pannick of the commentators on this thread (and elsewhere, too). The rest of us are mere hapless juniors with the odd valuable contribution to make but otherwise floundering slightly as we try to keep up.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Petrusha, for enlightening me for the first time on PWC’s argument. I wonder if PL has presented this to the panel. It seems to me to be a huge fuss about nothing.
As for Mansour being a member of the gov, you have to look at the role of the cabinet. Words in the English version of the UAE constitution do not have the same meaning as you would expect.
The UAE cabinet, described as the supreme sovereign body, has one function: to give formal approval to legislation passed by the Executive Council. It does the same as our king when he says or writes (if he still does) “Le Roi le veult.” and signs an act. Doing that does not make Charlie a member of the gov. Mansour is not a member of the Executive Council of UAE.
There was nothing published here when Mansour received his latest grand title of Vice President, so I don’t know whether it elevates his status from what I call ‘super civil servant’.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
I get your sentiment but the situation with city is very different from other teams who are/were relevant.

Yes, there is some fan/media coverage (both positive and negative) simply because we have been the best team (similar to the rags and the ABU- Anyone But United years ago), people get frustrated and jealous of successful teams.

That's the normal side of sports psychology. Then there is the 'not so normal' side that only city have been served with. The side that has been shamefully allowed to fester and evolve by the very authorities that should be treating all of its members equally.

What city have faced is a highly organised and successfully orchestrated smear campaign against every aspect of the club, led by a group of clubs who's absolute intention was/is to run us out of the league simply because we came and took the limelight and treasures away from them.

Rather than upping their game on and off the field, they chose to focus all of their efforts on colludiing with the media, hackers and any authorities that would listen to make our name mud.

I struggle to understand how any city fan cannot see this is clear and obvious.

Prime example from the BBC this weekend, who according to the below snippet from their own editorial guidelines, SHOULD be totally and utterly impartial....

"The BBC is committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences."

Just listening to their polarised news coverage of this weekend's City and dipper results proves this to be absolute tripe.

City WON against a really well organised Orient side who played out of their skins, we HAD TO field a patchwork quilt of a side made up of youngsters, partially fit players and players who have played very few games.

The dippers LOST against a Plymouth side who were equally as well organised, they CHOSE to play a complete young side to focus on other competitions, or because they assumed it would be enough.

The BBC News Radio coverage of the two results couldn't be any different.

For our game, they led with an interview from their players and manager, they then talked about how great Orient played, how wonderful their goal was, how great their fans were, how we scraped through, the difference in squad costs and the difference in league positions. They didn't make any reference to the fact that our starting line up contained virtually no first team starters, they didn't even mention who scored our goals. If you'd listened cold you'd believe Orient won.

For their game, they briefly mentioned Plymouth, made zero reference to either squad costs or league position differences. They made no reference to how well Plymouth played or how poor the dippers were. What they chose to do was make it VERY clear that they had played a complete youth team and in effect this was a choice by them to lose the game. They interviewed no Plymouth players or coaching staff, choosing instead to let Slot explain that he had chosen to chose all youth players and this was the reason for the defeat.

The general tone of the city peice was very downbeat towards city, whereas the dippers piece just seemed carefully editted to ensurena positive slant. The fact that their proper treble and quadruple chances are gone was never mentioned that once by the way.

If you look and listen, the agenda is there as clear as day.
Click to expand...

Don’t know how long you’ve been on here but a few years back we had a thread called “the agenda thread”.

Those of us blessed with a brain were pointing this kind of stuff out on a daily basis.

It’s been going on since Mansour piped up with his big plans.

As you allude, clear as day and organised with military precision.
 
Oldham Exile said:
I spent the next 40 mins putting the CITY case - which I was able to do thanks to this thread

In the end I do not think that I convinced anyone and everybody just moved on to a different subject to save argument
Click to expand...
You'd have stood more chance of convincing a church congregation that their Holy sky fairy didn't exist, or convincing a certain political cult that their orange leader is actually deranged.

Football is as tribal & devisive as politics & religion, & few fans are willing to even consider an alternative view which contradicts their doctrine.

The media do what's necessary to attract viewers or readers. Many rival fans are happiest believing anything that raises a talking point in the pub or allows them to sleep more soundly at night.

I too have had several exchanges with opposition fans, & when I begin unloading the empirical, independently verified, fact checked evidence, you soon see them zone out.

They live by hyperbolic headlines. They don't do detail. They want simple explanations to complex issues, & the few who do scratch the surface are usually in pursuit of information which merely confirms their bias.

However, on a few rare occasions, I've had some who after being shown compelling evidence, have admitted they had serious doubts about the PL & UEFA's accusations against us, which is probably the best I could hope for.

The clincher for me is agreeing with them that City are being accused of many serious crimes including fraud, money laundering & tax evasion. Once they step into that trap I then deliver the killer blow of "So where are HMRC, the police, the SFO & Companies House?" Why are they sat around & not acting, when they MUST be aware that serious crimes amounting to hundreds of millions have been allegedly committed by Manchester City?

It's at the point that reality starts to hit them. There's no fuckin chance that with all these football investigations into City that the relevant authorities haven't already poked around. They're legally duty bound to do so, so why (to our knowledge) haven't they? Few rational people can get beyond that bullshit ending point, hence why I'm comfortable with our situation.
 
petrusha said:
I'm not quite following the initial part of the post. Unless I'm missing something, DPM in the UAE is a title that, in the 21st century there, has been conferred on people who are influential members of the Cabinet, either upon their appointment to their Cabinet role or later.

The four (not three) current incumbents are respectively President of the Presidential Court (Mansour), Minister of the Interior, Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence. They're all members of the Cabinet, and those roles arguably earned them the title DPM. Mansour has been in the Cabinet 5 years longer than he's held the DPM role. I don't see how one can mount a credible argument that he's not a member of the UAE government in those circumstances. Anyway, just a throwaway point. I don't really give a toss about that.
Click to expand...

The DPM is a largely ceremonial role in a largely ceremonial Cabinet. Sheikh Mansour received this role based on order of birth. And there's 5 rather than 4 DPMs as they give it to people for no reason. The latest appointments were as an olive branch after stealing the Vice Presidency from Dubai (which is a role that actually does something) against their constitution and as punishment for the Dubai bailout.

The President and Federal Supreme Council is the actual power. The Federal National Council and the Council of Ministers are not "real" Governmental bodies as we would classify them. They exist to do whatever the FSC decides.

I'm sure any legal body would classify DPM as a Governmental role because the UAE pretends it's a real Governmental role but it's not in reality, so they can't give the game away.
 
Last edited:
Didsbury Dave said:
I saw this too and laughed. One of the best examples of ultracrepidarianism I've ever seen.

​

Click to expand...

Great word that I had to look up :)

To save time for anyone else:

"An ultracrepidarian is someone who offers opinions or advice on a subject they don't have much knowledge about. The word is often used to describe someone who is presumptuous or speaks as an authority on a topic they are not well-versed in.
 
KS55 said:
The UAE cabinet, described as the supreme sovereign body, has one function: to give formal approval to legislation passed by the Executive Council. It does the same as our king when he says or writes (if he still does) “Le Roi le veult.” and signs an act. Doing that does not make Charlie a member of the gov. Mansour is not a member of the Executive Council of UAE.
There was nothing published here when Mansour received his latest grand title of Vice President, so I don’t know whether it elevates his status from what I call ‘super civil servant’.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I might have been guilty of being swayed by our old friend Nicholas McGeehan, who's clearly a bad-faith actor but whom I did think I could trust in terms of factual information about the functioning of the UAE government. I suppose people who lie about some things can't be trusted to tell the truth at all, even if there's little to be gained by lying in the case at hand. Thanks to @Damocles also for the later post when I'd just finished writing this one.

I still don't quite get how you can throw around Cabinet posts that don't really mean anything, but it's up to me to go off and read up about it. Cheers.
 
Keeper! said:
In the UK media it maybe but that's for many reasons , mainly who runs the media and the ethnicity of our owners.

The UK is a rapidly fading power, desperately trying to hold on to the days of the Empire, the fact is we are a broken nation, living on past glories and bitter and twisted at the new wealth and power of the east.

The fact remains we have been charged, the evidence given and we await a verdict, once given let's see and see what the consequences are for all sides.

If as we expect and we are cleared, if the UK media don't change tact, they may well be in for serious implications and rightly so.
Click to expand...
I've got a good idea, let's give away the Chagos islands and hurry things along.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Don’t know how long you’ve been on here but a few years back we had a thread called “the agenda thread”.

Those of us blessed with a brain were pointing this kind of stuff out on a daily basis.

It’s been going on since Mansour piped up with his big plans.

As you allude, clear as day and organised with military precision.
Click to expand...
Yes mate. I remembered that well.

It amazes me that, apart from those who actually choose to live the lie, people can't see it plain as day.

Literally any day of the week, all you need to do is take a look at a news aggregation site like NewsNow, filter between say City and the dippers and compare the headlines and stories from the major players like the Fail, BBC, Guardian etc etc. Or just watch skysports on a matchday. Maybe even get out a pen and paper and just make a few notes of what you see. If not clear already, that should do the trick for those who need convincing of the agenda.

Shit, the fact that for the majority of the media and oppo fans we are already guilty of something that we have not been convicted of, on a subject they really know nothing about, it's all the proof needed to show the agenda against us.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
Yes mate. I remembered that well.

It amazes me that, apart from those who actually choose to live the lie, people can't see it plain as day.

Literally any day of the week, all you need to do is take a look at a news aggregation site like NewsNow, filter between say City and the dippers and compare the headlines and stories from the major players like the Fail, BBC, Guardian etc etc. Or just watch skysports on a matchday. Maybe even get out a pen and paper and just make a few notes of what you see. If not clear already, that should do the trick for those who need convincing of the agenda.

Shit, the fact that for the majority of the media and oppo fans we are already guilty of something that we have not been convicted of, on a subject they really know nothing about, it's all the proof needed to show the agenda against us.
Click to expand...
Clear and organised mate.
 
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