PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

domalino said:
Simplified version :

Normal way of doing things.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Club pays player for using image over the season.

City's Fordham way.

1) Club negotiates buying image rights with player when they join.
2) Create new company called MCFC Image rights ltd.
3) Club sells shares in MCFC Image rights Ltd to a third company called Fordham for £25m.
3) Fordham pays players and City for image rights over the season.


It was actually a little bit more complicated in reality and involved David and Jonathan Rowland (Conservative donors and friends of Abu Dhabi) and a series of shell companies to disguise it all.
Click to expand...
Disguise , are you sure of that.
 
Maldeika said:
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.
Click to expand...
You say difference as if there is more of a connection between for example City and Etihad than for example Bayern and Audi. This actually proves my point is that City are owned by the sheik in a private capacity and others through CFG. City are sponsored by several Abu Dhabi state owned companies. Etihad, Etisalet, etc and companies in Abu Dhabi owned by private individuals. There is not even a single share owned by any city individuals and a sponsor. Yet for the media and rival fans and I believe UEFA for two of the companies (City wanted to fight but chose not to ) City are in some way heavily connected to these companies and they are over paying these companies are apparently effectively related part not sure people actually use those terms it’s a bit to technical for joe public.

Where as Bayern are beyond reproach despite common ownership and abnormally high commercial income and a very insular league and these companies not really needing the sponsorship. O and not to mention your history of dodgy ness with Rumminager.

We are looked into and looked into again and again and again and when nothing is wrong we are still assumed guilty if not by the bodies that matter at least rival fans and the media

I would add that none of the companies / sponsors are related parties in the accounts
 
wolviedinho said:
That diagram and explanation doesn’t look great tbh but no matter how it looks as long as city can prove nothing illegal(owner funding)has taken place then it don’t really matter.

You can see why questions can be asked but we don’t have city’s full response on paper. Bend but not break is a fine line.
Click to expand...

I've said all along that the only proof of wrongdoing has to come from City themselves, in which case the club would simply not cooperate and take that punishment.

But the punishment for that could be really severe if the judicial panel think that's what's going on.

I still think we'll be OK but lot of that is simply based on trusting the people who beat UEFA can do the same again.
 
Goatmeal said:
That may sound a bit dodgy but is there a rule saying you can’t do that? Is it illegal?
Company I worked for did something similar and were used to protect assets in case the parent company fell into difficulties.
For example, one of them owned the building and rented it back to parent company.
Click to expand...
Yep, the corporate structure of many large companies are often unfathomable to outsiders but it doesn’t mean anything illegal is going on, and it’s incumbent on any accuser to prove wrongdoing.
 
If our players image rights have a value, and they were sold for that value does it really matter who bought the rights, how they are structured and how they were funded?
 
domalino said:
What do you want?

If you want to inhabit a world where only things that have been explicitly stated by the club in a public statement are "factual statements" then you should probably just leave this thread and come back in 18 months when there's a verdict, because the only factual statement so far is the PL and City statements from last monday. The other 14,450 posts in this comment are opinion and discourse.

In the meantime, the rest of us are probably going to keep discussing the possibilities using what we have in the public domain and trying to figure out what the club is fighting.

What we know is that City's internal documents involve putting 4 random companies between ADUG and Fordham, 4 companies who do nothing, have no business plan, and involve routing things through the BVI.

Feel free to offer another theory why the corporate structure was like that if you don't think that's someone disguising it. Or don't, because it won't be a fact.
Click to expand...
The image you posted does not prove what you claim it does
 
domalino said:
What do you want?

If you want to inhabit a world where only things that have been explicitly stated by the club in a public statement are "factual statements" then you should probably just leave this thread and come back in 18 months when there's a verdict, because the only factual statement so far is the PL and City statements from last monday. The other 14,450 posts in this comment are opinion and discourse.

In the meantime, the rest of us are probably going to keep discussing the possibilities using what we have in the public domain and trying to figure out what the club is fighting.

What we know is that City's internal documents involve putting 4 random companies between ADUG and Fordham, 4 companies who do nothing, have no business plan, and involve routing things through the BVI.

Feel free to offer another theory why the corporate structure was like that if you don't think that's someone disguising it. Or don't, because it won't be a fact.
Click to expand...

Not confirmed and not a fact then. Thanks.

Probably just best off making it clear you’re speculating in future as some people here thought you were delivering a factual statement.
 
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.