PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
Red Football Ltd IS registered in the UK and that's the company whose accounts are submitted to the PL.

What we don't know is quite how much of its operating costs have been farmed out to the Caymans based company, whose accounts are not being submitted to the League.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a similar accusation levied at City for charging CFG for football services and having a sig ificsnt number of staff employed by CFG?
 
Damocles said:
Wasn't there a similar accusation levied at City for charging CFG for football services and having a sig ificsnt number of staff employed by CFG?
Click to expand...

Yes, though whether that forms part of the charges being discussed - amongst other issues - in this thread remains to be seen.

What can be said is that there is a reasonable business case for centralising certain operating costs (eg scouting or broader administrative costs) when you are part of a multi-club entity. There is a reasonable basis for saying in other words that those costs benefit the entire group and should therefore be borne by the entire group.

I'm not sure how United manage to justify almost £100m of debt being shouldered by the parent club rather than the UK subsidiary when the number of clubs in the United Football Group is currently 1.
 
Chris in London said:
Red Football Ltd IS registered in the UK and that's the company whose accounts are submitted to the PL.

What we don't know is quite how much of its operating costs have been farmed out to the Caymans based company, whose accounts are not being submitted to the League.
Click to expand...

I'm not an accountant but this just seems like a blatant fiddle.
 
Chris in London said:
Yes, though whether that forms part of the charges being discussed - amongst other issues - in this thread remains to be seen.

What can be said is that there is a reasonable business case for centralising certain operating costs (eg scouting or broader administrative costs) when you are part of a multi-club entity. There is a reasonable basis for saying in other words that those costs benefit the entire group and should therefore be borne by the entire group.

I'm not sure how United manage to justify almost £100m of debt being shouldered by the parent club rather than the UK subsidiary when the number of clubs in the United Football Group is currently 1.
Click to expand...
CFS & CFM took staff (and their wages) out of MCFC accounts. There were accusations that we were 'fiddling the books' but these were completely unfounded as these entities charged the CFG clubs for their services, with the intention that they became self-sufficient.

They haven't achieved that so far but they still cross-charge, with City sustaining the bulk of that. So wages reduced but operating costs increased. I think there was a net gain to MCFC of a couple of million but that represented services provided to the other CFG clubs, rather than City bearing the full cost.

In any case UEFA amended FFP rules to include these entities in our reporting perimeter, although ensuring any double counting of revenue or expenses was excluded. Also, a few years ago City largely brought one of the entities back in-house.
 
Last edited:
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