PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Cassandra]

Similar point came up on one of my WhatsApp chats recently. Murray Rosen is King's Council, so will be more concerned about his integrity than point scoring between City & Arsenal.

I hope that you are right but it doesn't seem to be truly independent when the chair of the tribunal is appointed by one of the parties involved and is associated albeit loosely with one of the clubs likely to benefit from the outcome. Imagine what the media would have made of it had it been a KC who was a City season ticket holder. Would have been better to ask CAS to recommend the chair and let City and the Premier league chose one each.
As a secondary point if the proceedings and the evidence are kept private then who will be able to judge whether the outcome is reasonable or not?

Notwithstanding that, having read Murray Rosen's credentials, he does seem to be a reasonable choice for this kind of hearing.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I watched the Mauritanian this week, remind me again where the next world cup is?

I had no idea to be honest, had to google it.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks for your insight, it certainly puts things in layman terms for most of us. Sorry to put you on the spot, but in reference to what you mentioned above, do you suspect the PL have new evidence or is it a complete rehash of the UEFA material?

I've been thinking about this the last few days. My thinking can be slow and deliberate so it can take me a few days and a lot of thinking to get my head round things properly. We don't know with certainty what the PL have got or what the specifics of the various charges are.

But there's at least two substantive charges, and we think we know they relate to Mancini's contract with Al Jazira and image rights payments to players. With respect to the former, the PL would have to prove Mancini did not fulfil that contract to provide at least 4 days consultancy per year. Conversely, we need to show he did, and we should be cleared on any of the charges relating to that.

The image rights one is more difficult to call. Those were paid by Fordham from 2013-14 to 2017-18 as far as I can see but the charges also seem to pre-date 2013. Fordham paid us for those rights in the 2012-13 financial year and we assigned the intellectual property of those image rights to them, which they then apparently paid. It's a strange, but not illegal, arrangement that I suspect was used to generate revenue in that financial year when we thought there was a chance we could escape punishment using the Annex XI provisions. I wonder if we'd have done it in different circumstances? This is the one I feel we'll be more vulnerable on than the Mancini charges.

But both of these were part of the material put out by Der Spiegel, based on the hacked emails. The question is, if these are all they've got, then there's nothing new from 2018 but neither of these came up in the UEFA charges arising from Der Spiegel articles. So did UEFA decide they weren't worth pursuing or did they try to focus solely on the sponsorship stuff that they thought was the most egregious breach? Either way, it gives me confidence.

One thing we also know from the previous battle with UEFA is that we didn't cooperate (on legal advice I might add) because we thought they were 'fishing'. I wonder if we took the same stance with the PL, who then had to resort to stuff that was known to UEFA but they didn't pursue, potentially for reasons I outlined above.

I therefore suspect there's little new in these charges and that mainly it's a rehash of the Der Spiegel stuff, and stuff that was either time-barred or that UEFA didn't pursue. And out of that, they've generated dozens of charges making things seem much worse than they really are.

 

[Stockton Heath Blue]

I hope that you are right but it doesn't seem to be truly independent when the chair of the tribunal is appointed by one of the parties involved and is associated albeit loosely with one of the clubs likely to benefit from the outcome. Imagine what the media would have made of it had it been a KC who was a City season ticket holder. Would have been better to ask CAS to recommend the chair and let City and the Premier league chose one each.
As a secondary point if the proceedings and the evidence are kept private then who will be able to judge whether the outcome is reasonable or not?

Notwithstanding that, having read Murray Rosen's credentials, he does seem to be a reasonable choice for this kind of hearing.

We will know pretty quick re the outcome. If the outcome is reasonable - case closed. If unreasonable, expect City to take it further (where to I'm unsure as there doesn't appear to be an appeals process).

 

[KS55]

Hoo bloody ray. I have caught up.

 

[Bandofblues]

Swiss Ramble looks at the charges.

Keep bumping the link so people don’t miss it.

Click on continue reading when the email subscribe link pops up.

View attachment 69023

In a bland, yet shocking, announcement last week, the Premier League confirmed that it had referred a significant number of alleged breaches of its financial rules by Manchester City to an independent commission.

If the charges are proved, it would not only lead to a range of penalties, but would cast a shadow on City’s many achievements since Abu Dhabi United Group acquired the club in September 2008.

Since 2012 the Citizens have won the Premier League no fewer than six times and finished in the top four throughout this period. Under Sheikh Mansour’s ownership the club has also won the FA Cup twice and the EFL Cup six times.

Charges​

​

The scale of the accusation is unprecedented, adding up to more than 100 charges. The offences are alleged to have taken place over nine seasons from 2008/09 to 2017/18, while they the Premier League also claimed that City have failed to co-operate with their investigation in the five seasons since then.

Manchester City charged by the Premier League

(What's the Story) Morning Glory?

swissramble.substack.com

Interesting to see how Tottenham have grown commercial revenue over the same timeframe, with apparently zero owner investment and no real success on the pitch?

Is it actually showing the strength of the premier league and the amount of money that revolves around all premier league clubs in general?

Comparisons of City with Real Madrid aren't really all that valid given that the PL is pulling in around £7.5bn and La Liga only £1.5bn

City having thoroughly dominated the PL over the last decade as well as having had repeated success in domestic cups and participation to the later stages of the CL every year since 2013, not really a surprise that we are able to significantly raise our commercial revenue streams above other teams is it?

 

[petrusha]

If they don’t have better evidence than UEFA, it must call into question the bona fides of the ‘prosecution’. If it is solely to lift pressure from other clubs and the gov, it is tainted.

If they're going over ground again that was covered in the CAS proceedings, you'd think that they must at the very least have something to challenge evidence City presented at CAS in rebuttal of the similar charges. As you say, otherwise these accusations really are vexatious.

Even then, any new evidence should be sufficient to suggest that there's a case to answer. It would surely have to be more than something along the lines of this looks a bit dodgy to us, so there must be something more behind it than they're letting on. Mind you, I thought the same ahead of the CAS proceedings.

 

[jrb]

I did originally post it in the City Charged thread. But the link will eventually drop away down the pages. It needs it’s own thread in all honesty. Everybody should read it.

It’s a very good piece by Swiss Ramble, which makes understanding some of the PL accusations much easier, and how they relate to City’s finances during the PL accusation periods.

Well worth a read. Very interesting.

Manchester City charged by the Premier League

(What's the Story) Morning Glory?

swissramble.substack.com

 

[Woody135]

If someone asked Neville where the Salford City commercial revenue ranked in League 2 against more established clubs I’d love to see how he can explain why without contradicting himself.

Commercial revenue is a result of 1) brand awareness 2) immediate visibility and 3) potential growth of both.

1) Theres not a football fan globally that is aware of united but not aware of city. EQUAL
2) City are more immediately visible than united because they have better players, play more important games and win more. CITY
3) City are growing faster than United, reaching an increasing number of people for the first time and CFG is important to that. CITY

Then you get into the unfair reasons. 4) Business is all about who you know and taking advantage of those relationships for mutual benefit and 5) Not everyone is equal at selling their own brand.

4) City is a tiny part of a massive investment strategy. Our owner and chairman are some of the most well connected people globally. They have more weight in a boardroom than a glazer does. No one outside the US has a clue or cares who he is.
Why were salford sponsored by sky sports in their early years. Why is Wrexham sponsored by TikTok. Because their owners knew people and got good business for their clubs. City is no different. CITY
5) Our Chairman is the CEO of an investment company managing $284bn in assets globally. Ed woowar who was CEO at united 2013-2021 was an accountant and investment banker that hadnt worked outside United since 2005. Who of those is more likely to have better skills or experience. CITY

There are so many logical reasons our commercial revenue is higher.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It’s just a pun on an Oasis album.
‘Don’t Believe The Truth’ would have worked as well…..

As would...

Don't Look Back in Anger