Sorry. Yes, that would be a can of worms at most clubs I would also imagine.Ta PB. I should have been clearer. Last year one of the ‘three strands‘ reported in some media said enticement payments to under 16s and payments to pressure young players to sign contracts was mentioned.
A real can of worms for every club I would imagine!
420m in past 5 years worth of European tv money alone
As usual, very informative and negates any fear we may have. Well done Prestwich Blue.What was time barred was anything prior to the CAS-imposed cut-off date, which was 5 years prior to the filing of charges (which effectively was anything up to and including our 2013 year end accounts. Anything in the 2014 accounts and beyond was in scope.
On the basis that the PL haven't (as far as we know) charged us with anything as yet, and the assumption that a 6-year UK Statute of Limitations will apply, then if they charged us tomorrow, they couldn't legally look at anything that happened prior to 9th May 2016 in theory. So that might be the 2015 accounts and prior years (as May 2016 would fall within the 2015/16 financial year).
We also know from the CAS ruling that the CFCB case concerned the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships, which started prior to the cut-off date but continued beyond it and are still in place today. So if ADUG had been providing the money for these sponsorships during or after the 2013/14 financial year then they would have been able to look at that. However it was quite clear that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who were supplying the funds to Etihad (not us, which was the point of some of the emails). The sponsorships were never owner funded so the time-barring claim is a complete red herring.
What also just occurred to me is what exactly the PL are looking at? Their financial rules are very different to UEFA's FFP rules and merely concern looking at losses, which are allowed to total £105m over 3 years. I think these rules only came into force in the 2015/16 season. The only thing I can think of that they're looking at is whether we would have broken their rules (not UEFA's) if sponsorship was artificially inflated. We know it wasn't so I struggle to see how they'll come up with any charges unless they have a smoking gun that UEFA/CAS didn't have.
That’s a fantastic report PB. I cannot understand why the club doesn’t, issue these figures to help shut up everyone calling the club cheats, etc, etc. Looking at the figures shows me we have a wonderful setup at City and it must be just pure jealousy from our rivals.I posted this last year. The image is now out of date but I’ve added the last two years at the end…
The majority of our squad has been bought during these years:
View attachment 42456
(Only Fernandinho and Foden were on the books before 2014-15)
TV revenue alone would have paid for our signings each season.
We had a net transfer spend of:
£65.05m in 2014-15
£126.68m in 2015-16
£161.69m in 2016-17
£203.54m in 2017-18
£18.89m in 2018-19
In 2019-20, our revenue was £474.35m, and the TV revenue alone was £168.3mm, with a net transfer expenditure of £79.67m.
In 2020-21, our revenue was £552m, and the TV revenue alone was £153.5m, with a net transfer expenditure of £37.03m.
The only difference is that Sheikh Mansour has a long-term strategy and makes his money by growing the value of the club and its surrounds and other related deals he can make such as property investments in Manchester itself, tech investment at Manchester University (eg Graphene), the Arena etc. The club is the spark for everything else. This is what he is trying to do in New York City which is why the stadium delay there (hampered by a posionous media campaign from our commercial rivals) has been a big problem for CFG.What's the difference between a cash cow and an investment opportunity, ultimately?
As usual, very informative and negates any fear we may have. Well done Prestwich Blue.
Unfortunately such logic doesn’t always come into play. They may be happy to gamble and give us a charge which will drum up a huge media and public frenzy. Even if the charge got overturned at a later date then any reputational damage would remain. Ultimately that’s the goal of the clubs who are pushing this behind the scenes.
This.
Evidence of wrongdoing has always been of little to no consequence and it’s all about damage to our club.