PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[dadnlad]

Alex Ferguson & Jurgen Klopp would be my guess.

gill n parry for me

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Not BDO, I’ll hazard.

"I'm BDO till I die, I'm BDO till I die. I know I am, I'm sure I am, I'm BDO till I die."

"The mighty KPMG went to Rome to see the Pope. The mighty KPMG went to Rome to see the Pope. The mighty KPMG went to Rome to see the Pope, and this is what he said. Who the fuck are KPMG...."

 

[Maldeika]

I don’t think city fans think anything is up with Bayern or other sponsorships or at least not seriously so and all of what to say is true. It’s also true that it makes sense for example Etihad to pay more to sponsor City than other clubs be it due similar synergies as with Bayern and there sponsors. That being said there is an assumption that city sponsors are related or at least acting as related parties and over paying yet there is less crossover (no common share ownership involved in Etihad etc and City) however there is with Bayern and it’s key sponsors yet it’s not even questioned in the media or elsewhere and I don’t believe but correct me if I am wrong declared as such or been valued by anyone UEFA etc to check it’s fair value. I think the same would apply to stoke bet 365 Leicester King Power etc

I am not a Manchester City expert. But the first difference is that Bayern is owned to 75 % with a majority by their own fans whereas the companies that have shares are stock traded companies with minority shares - no possibility to really influence something. The companies are totally independent from the others. Bayern wanted to get some money to build the stadium and Campus and therefore sold some of their shares to companies that since ages are sponsors. And for the companies it is a good and solid investment.

Again - there is no related parties - no majority shares. There is no reason to check that because of the different construction. It would be totally different if this would be majority shares.

But I know that other German clubs - like Leipzig and Wolfsburg get checked thourougly like City is. But we talk about different owner constructions... And when I see Salzburg and Leipzig and how they trade a lot of their players I am suspicious, too.

 

[Len Rum]

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

Also some of the allegations may be time barred.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I am not a Manchester City expert. But the first difference is that Bayern is owned to 75 % with a majority by their own fans whereas the companies that have shares are stock traded companies with minority shares - no possibility to really influence something. The companies are totally independent from the others. Bayern wanted to get some money to build the stadium and Campus and therefore sold some of their shares to companies that since ages are sponsors. And for the companies it is a good and solid investment.

Again - there is no related parties - no majority shares. There is no reason to check that because of the different construction. It would be totally different if this would be majority shares.

But I know that other German clubs - like Leipzig and Wolfsburg get checked thourougly like City is. But we talk about different owner constructions... And when I see Salzburg and Leipzig and how they trade a lot of their players I am suspicious, too.

So you don't believe that your major sponsors - who are also shareholders - don't get to influence anything? Because major donors to, say, political parties, only do it out of altruistic motives and don't expect anything back in return of course.

In that case I've got a bridge in London you might be interested in buying.

 

[richards30]

Also some of the allegations may be time barred.

No time barred for premier league stuff it seems mate, although City were happy to show all items and time barred documents at CAS as well anyway.

 

[John Wayne]

I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:

1. Mancini's contract,
2. Sponsorships,
3. Image rights.

That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.

Based on those, there are charges derived about incorrect accounts, because if any of those three are proven, our accounts may have been misstated. That again covers multiple rules over multiple years.

If our accounts have been misstated, then that may well contravene FFP (more charges over multiple years) and the P&L's own rules (more charges over multiple years).

Then there's the multiple rules around non-cooperation, each covering multiple years with a separate charge for each year. If you count each charge, for each individual year, there are 127 of them according to my reckoning.

But in the end, it comes down to these three things.

- Was Mancini's contract a sham?
- Were our sponsorships inflated or used to disguise owner investment?
- Were we wrong to sell those image rights and have a third party pay them?

I think they'll really struggle to land the first two, leaving image rights as the only one they've got any sort of hope of bringing home. And that might be a slim hope, if we've got all the legal and financial issues tied up tight. And as both Stefan and I have said, if those three issues aren't proven, then pretty well everything else should fall by the wayside, bar maybe the non-cooperation one.

In addition, it's hard to believe that there wouldn't have been constant dialogue between City and both the footballing and tax authorities around what was/wasn't permissible to outsource to Fordham.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Also some of the allegations may be time barred.

I doubt it. For one thing there's no limitation clause in the PL rules. And, for another, as petrusha explained, if there's a potential suspicion of criminality, any limitation probably isn't valid anyway.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

I find it incredibly hard to believe that City of all clubs haven’t cheated over the past 14 or so years. It’s almost idiotic to believe otherwise.

Ironically, I think relegation would be a brilliant thing for the club. We’ve got to used to winning back to back titles and spending the casual 100 million. Maybe we need some slumber to remind newer fans of the troubles we had 40 years ago. Yeah, Pep (despite all comments) would probably leave, players and other staff following soon after.

But the Premier League, however vile, racist, ‘turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened’ they are. They will need to set some sort of premise. That most likely being a multi-million quid fine.

But, I reckon relegation would be great. No more slapping up the lennons and rags, but watching the viking get absolutely clattered every game. It’ll be great fun.

CTID x

Genuine question…..why City of all clubs ? Do we have a rich history of cooking the books, cheating & general underhandedness ? Do our owners have that kind of reputation? And I think you’re massively underestimating what relegation would mean, the Viking would end up being Alfie not Erl

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

In addition, it's hard to believe that there wouldn't have been constant dialogue between City and both the footballing and tax authorities around what was/wasn't permissible to outsource to Fordham.

It is hard to believe. But the law, tax regulations and financial standards can be very widely interpreted, which is why we have things like tax tribunals.