PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Stoned Rose]

My memory isnt great, so possibly major fuck ups here, or obviously things recently discussed. Apologies in advance if so.

But didn't we bring about the APT case? If so, I ask what was the point.

What came out was the interest free loans not being included (amongst lots of other things). Could we argue that we went about our business trying to stay within the rules in good faith, like other teams have done, and yet everyone used different loopholes because the rules were garbage and poorly written?

It’ll have been done for a significant reason and may well account for at least some of the delay although they’ll be a few who’ll jump about and says it’s not related.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There's two issues I suspect. One relates to the same things UEFA charged us with (i.e. disguised equity investment via sham sponsorships). These allegations were dismissed by CAS and while the PL commission aren't bound by that ruling, it'd need some very significant new evidence to rule differently. The Etihad, Etisalat etc., sponsorships have been assessed as fair value by the PL and UEFA so I doubt that's part of it.

I do strongly suspect that the PL are going after the related parties issue, claiming that Etihad and the other Abu Dhabi sponsors are related parties. But I very much doubt this will succeed either and, even if they somehow did succeed in having some sponsors declared as related parties, that would merely involve a note in the accounts and would have zero impact on our financial position.

The impact of having to declare these as related parties would be that we'd probably have to declare the value of sponsorships with any partner deemed to be related.

So, in summary, these charges are a pile of horseshit, without any serious substance.

Something just occurred to me after writing that that hasn't occurred to me before. We've often thought that these charges have been driven by the cartel clubs, who forced the PL into bringing them, rather than the PL acting under its own initiative although we don't know that for sure as yet.

But the PL know what the value of our sponsorships are, as we've had to have them assessed under the APT rules. I suspect they don't care one little bit about whether Etihad, Etisalat or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsor is a related party. But the other clubs don't know what the sponsors pay, and they would be interested in knowing.

I may be reading too much into this but if the bolded bits are right, and some of the focus is specifically on related parties, then this definitely points to the cartel clubs being behind this, rather than it coming directly from the PL with no input from those clubs.

 

[Stoned Rose]

There is the score-draw (or slight City win) view on the outcome of the APT case in that:

City won on having the rules declared null and void and (eventually, we think) getting the mega-Etihad deal accepted;

and the PL won by having the need for APT rules confirmed as the RPT rules weren't effective enough (for the two reasons I mentioned - they were ex post rules and they relied on self-reporting). Part of the PL's justification for that referred to the 115 case which, I think, implies RPT and possibly ownership are part of the allegations.

Personally, I think the City APT win far outweighs the PL APT win, at least as far as City are concerned. But not everyone thinks that.

We absolutely bummed them in the APT case mate. The rules were declared unfair and unlawful.

 

[manimanc]

In Section 1, we are accused of knowingly submitting information relating to sponsorship revenue and related parties that did not provide a true and fair view of the club's financial position.

In Section 4, Rule E.54 states that the Premier League Board has the power to determine whether revenue from a Related Party Transaction has been recorded at Fair Market Value. If it concludes that it has not, the League can make an adjustment and substitute its own Fair Market Value assessment.

So my point, which has probably been done to death on here over the last three years, is that maybe the Premier League's case is simply that some or all of the Abu Dhabi-linked sponsors should have been treated as related parties, either because of ownership links or because of the influence figures such as Simon Pearce and Khaldoon Al Mubarak were alleged to have through their positions within the Executive Affairs Authority.

If that's the route they've gone down, then, just as we saw in the APT case, they may have instructed an external firm to assess whether the sponsorship deals were at Fair Market Value. Presumably that assessment didn't come back in City's favour, which then leaves City having to prove either that the companies were not related parties in the first place, or that even if they were, the deals were still at FMV.

Doesn't take much for you to start your ramblings.

Haven't you learnt from last time?

You are just repeating a load of tripe again.

 

[JewelZee]

In Section 1, we are accused of knowingly submitting information relating to sponsorship revenue and related parties that did not provide a true and fair view of the club's financial position.

In Section 4, Rule E.54 states that the Premier League Board has the power to determine whether revenue from a Related Party Transaction has been recorded at Fair Market Value. If it concludes that it has not, the League can make an adjustment and substitute its own Fair Market Value assessment.

So my point, which has probably been done to death on here over the last three years, is that maybe the Premier League's case is simply that some or all of the Abu Dhabi-linked sponsors should have been treated as related parties, either because of ownership links or because of the influence figures such as Simon Pearce and Khaldoon Al Mubarak were alleged to have through their positions within the Executive Affairs Authority.

If that's the route they've gone down, then, just as we saw in the APT case, they may have instructed an external firm to assess whether the sponsorship deals were at Fair Market Value. Presumably that assessment didn't come back in City's favour, which then leaves City having to prove either that the companies were not related parties in the first place, or that even if they were, the deals were still at FMV.

In Section 1, we are accused of knowingly submitting information relating to sponsorship revenue and related parties that did not provide a true and fair view of the club's financial position.

In Section 4, Rule E.54 states that the Premier League Board has the power to determine whether revenue from a Related Party Transaction has been recorded at Fair Market Value. If it concludes that it has not, the League can make an adjustment and substitute its own Fair Market Value assessment.

So my point, which has probably been done to death on here over the last three years, is that maybe the Premier League's case is simply that some or all of the Abu Dhabi-linked sponsors should have been treated as related parties, either because of ownership links or because of the influence figures such as Simon Pearce and Khaldoon Al Mubarak were alleged to have through their positions within the Executive Affairs Authority.

If that's the route they've gone down, then, just as we saw in the APT case, they may have instructed an external firm to assess whether the sponsorship deals were at Fair Market Value. Presumably that assessment didn't come back in City's favour, which then leaves City having to prove either that the companies were not related parties in the first place, or that even if they were, the deals were still at FMV.

Nah...

 

[Centurions]

There is the score-draw (or slight City win) view on the outcome of the APT case in that:

City won on having the rules declared null and void and (eventually, we think) getting the mega-Etihad deal accepted;

and the PL won by having the need for APT rules confirmed as the RPT rules weren't effective enough (for the two reasons I mentioned - they were ex post rules and they relied on self-reporting). Part of the PL's justification for that referred to the 115 case which, I think, implies RPT and possibly ownership are part of the allegations.

Personally, I think the City APT win far outweighs the PL APT win, at least as far as City are concerned. But not everyone thinks that.

I thought we won the 1st APT case and then agreed to disagree on the 2nd with a more than small chance that we only did so because they caved on something else important to us? Unless there were 3 cases, damned if I can keep track these days.

 

[Blue Mist]

I think we will be cleared of virtually all the charges but the one we will struggle on is charge 87, especially subsection b(i)

 

[BLOOMUEN]

There's two issues I suspect. One relates to the same things UEFA charged us with (i.e. disguised equity investment via sham sponsorships). These allegations were dismissed by CAS and while the PL commission aren't bound by that ruling, it'd need some very significant new evidence to rule differently. The Etihad, Etisalat etc., sponsorships have been assessed as fair value by the PL and UEFA so I doubt that's part of it.

I do strongly suspect that the PL are going after the related parties issue, claiming that Etihad and the other Abu Dhabi sponsors are related parties. But I very much doubt this will succeed either and, even if they somehow did succeed in having some sponsors declared as related parties, that would merely involve a note in the accounts and would have zero impact on our financial position.

The impact of having to declare these as related parties would be that we'd probably have to declare the value of sponsorships with any partner deemed to be related.

So, in summary, these charges are a pile of horseshit, without any serious substance.

It took you only seconds to arrive at your (most plausible) conclusion, detailed so eloquently in your last paragraph, so why are we still waiting for our exoneration?

 

[SilvaGods]

You are suggesting we have three Lords on the panel? \0/

3 Gay lords???…

 

[ufo]

In Section 1, we are accused of knowingly submitting information relating to sponsorship revenue and related parties that did not provide a true and fair view of the club's financial position.

In Section 4, Rule E.54 states that the Premier League Board has the power to determine whether revenue from a Related Party Transaction has been recorded at Fair Market Value. If it concludes that it has not, the League can make an adjustment and substitute its own Fair Market Value assessment.

So my point, which has probably been done to death on here over the last three years, is that maybe the Premier League's case is simply that some or all of the Abu Dhabi-linked sponsors should have been treated as related parties, either because of ownership links or because of the influence figures such as Simon Pearce and Khaldoon Al Mubarak were alleged to have through their positions within the Executive Affairs Authority.

If that's the route they've gone down, then, just as we saw in the APT case, they may have instructed an external firm to assess whether the sponsorship deals were at Fair Market Value. Presumably that assessment didn't come back in City's favour, which then leaves City having to prove either that the companies were not related parties in the first place, or that even if they were, the deals were still at FMV.

When a drummer sounds like a broken record

 

[citizen_maine]

The impact of having to declare these as related parties would be that we'd probably have to declare the value of sponsorships with any partner deemed to be related.

So, in summary, these charges are a pile of horseshit, without any serious substance.

Something just occurred to me after writing that that hasn't occurred to me before. We've often thought that these charges have been driven by the cartel clubs, who forced the PL into bringing them, rather than the PL acting under its own initiative although we don't know that for sure as yet.

But the PL know what the value of our sponsorships are, as we've had to have them assessed under the APT rules. I suspect they don't care one little bit about whether Etihad, Etisalat or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsor is a related party. But the other clubs don't know what the sponsors pay, and they would be interested in knowing.

I may be reading too much into this but if the bolded bits are right, and some of the focus is specifically on related parties, then this definitely points to the cartel clubs being behind this, rather than it coming directly from the PL with no input from those clubs.

I'm not quite following this - are you saying that the value of our sponsorships is only known by the PL board if they're not deemed to be RPT's, but would be divulged to the other clubs if they are deemed to be RPT's?

 

[dadnlad]

I think we will be cleared of virtually all the charges but the one we will struggle on is charge 87, especially subsection b(i)

what about class of 92

 

[richards30]

When a drummer sounds like a broken record

Keith does have a whiff of a red club fan, seems desperate for us to get done

 

[Keith Moon]

There is the score-draw (or slight City win) view on the outcome of the APT case in that:

City won on having the rules declared null and void and (eventually, we think) getting the mega-Etihad deal accepted;

and the PL won by having the need for APT rules confirmed as the RPT rules weren't effective enough (for the two reasons I mentioned - they were ex post rules and they relied on self-reporting). Part of the PL's justification for that referred to the 115 case which, I think, implies RPT and possibly ownership are part of the allegations.

Personally, I think the City APT win far outweighs the PL APT win, at least as far as City are concerned. But not everyone thinks that.

When you read the documents from the APT case, it seems pretty obvious that City's end game was to get the new sponsorship deals approved. They achieved that. Everything else was secondary. Big City win.

 

[bg1968]

The longer this goes on the more confident we should feel , if this was cut and dried it would have been over years ago , the Premier league are now scrabbling around desperately trying to find a morsel of evidence that could justify their massive multi million pound outlay on legal fees
Masters and his cohorts are just trying to save face , they are f*cked and Masters is going to get his P45 , but invariably the damage has been done , the red'istree clubs wanted to diminish our achievements at any cost because they have failed miserably on the pitch to beat us for fifteen years and we may have lost the best manager in the history of football but we will be not be going away , we are not a one man club.

 

[levets]

We really needed that FAQ from @Chris in London to be pinned and updated each time a new issue was introduced or discussed further. Just to stop the same issues being re-discussed over and over again. Over the last three years, I think every possible scenario will have been considered.

Not sure why it was unpinned really ....

I agree. Can it be pinned again?

115 Charges - FAQs

Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion thrown into the mix. There are also some significant...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

 

[bluemanchester]

Sad to say but my prostate grows quicker than this hearing moves;-)

 

[manimanc]

@bluekeith
It wouldn't be too bad if you replied to us.
The fact you've dropped a grenade in and fucked off is typical wum behaviour so therefore I'm going to report you.

 

[Bluemanc100]

The longer this goes on the more confident we should feel , if this was cut and dried it would have been over years ago , the Premier league are now scrabbling around desperately trying to find a morsel of evidence that could justify their massive multi million pound outlay on legal fees
Masters and his cohorts are just trying to save face , they are f*cked and Masters is going to get his P45 , but invariably the damage has been done , the red'istree clubs wanted to diminish our achievements at any cost because they have failed miserably on the pitch to beat us for fifteen years and we may have lost the best manager in the history of football but we will be not be going away , we are not a one man club.

Just after getting ~£1,000,000 in performance bonuses

 

[JULES]

perhaps someone could have run a sweep on the hour and day of the release of the verdict?