citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,204
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Of course Bayern are clean.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.
No way they would have people running the club who have been prosecuted for tax offences and bribery.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Steady on chief. PB knows and seems to like explaining this stuff. If he has done a post then great. If not no probs.Your putting a lot of pressure on the man. Perhaps he has another life and can’t be here taking questions constantly.
Just a thought.
chris85mcfc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 5,722
And if so, can he play at left back tomorrow nightCan anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?
Unless hacking is involved?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.
There were lots of guys & gals who got their emails hacked, in fact every club employee with an email address connected to the clubCan anyone tell me , I’m not being a **** by the way , the guy whose emails were hacked ( in regard to these accusations) is he still working at MCFC ?
So to answer: some will & some won’t
Why are you repeating the same thing? It’s NOT one guy, it was every fucker
Dribble
Well-Known Member
City, the PL or anyone else who uses our players images, pays the image rights company for the privilege.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?
The image rights company then pays the players their agreed percentage. The players then pay the income tax due.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
In which case is it possible that accounts can be correct from a legal and accounting perspective but not comply with FFP?Wouldn’t have thought so. They’ll just check that they’re a true reflection of the books.
IMO this could have important implications as to whether we are being accused of falsifying accounts ( as some have stated) or simply failing to comply with FFP which are two entirely different issues.
Rhymes with Pick Rarry.Answers on a postcard.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Ta for that.I think there are just three substantive issues behind these charges:
That's it. All derive from the Der Spiegel allegations. For each of those issues, there are charges covering multiple rules over multiple years.
- Mancini's contract,
- Sponsorships,
- Image rights.
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.