PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Len Rum said:
Anyone know if auditors of PL clubs are responsible for ensuring not only that club accounts are accurate but also that they comply with FFP?
Seems to me that either way this could be very significant not only in itself but obviously in our case vs the PL.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t have thought so. They’ll just check that they’re a true reflection of the books.
 
flb said:
I’m of the opinion mate that they have something on us, is the guy named (because he was) still employed by the club? Listen mate , I agree with you , but come on , something isn’t right , and it’s down to hacked emails , surely you can see that?
Click to expand...
What isn't right is that the nouveau riche Manchester City Football Club forgot their place & challenged the establishment elite.

All the rest is the resultant bullshit of the establishment elite trying to put us back in our place.

What are City guilty of? Finding legal ways to circumnavigate FFP so we could compete & grow our business, which enables us to keep competing & keep growing.

That's our crime. It's as simple as that bruv... )(
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
I cannot understand the image rights issue.
From your explanation it seems to me the image rights company is paying twice - buying the rights off City and then paying out to the players?
How does that work commercially?
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.