I was stating it as a general rule, as in someone investing in any business, I wasn’t referencing Sheik Mansour, now, if we’re taking the Dippers and their sponsors it’s a different matter.
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
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 5,922
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
One possibility is simply that the money isn't the Sheikh's.
My reasoning is he could easily have given a 'soft loan' had he wished to do so, and we would not be having this discussion.
Therefore it seems more likely that the sponsorship money came from someone else, whether a relative or the UAE state I haven't a scooby. But why would the Sheikh disguise something he could have done openly? That makes no sense at all.
My reasoning is he could easily have given a 'soft loan' had he wished to do so, and we would not be having this discussion.
Therefore it seems more likely that the sponsorship money came from someone else, whether a relative or the UAE state I haven't a scooby. But why would the Sheikh disguise something he could have done openly? That makes no sense at all.
A soft loan wouldn’t count as revenue revenue helps with FFPOne possibility is simply that the money isn't the Sheikh's.
My reasoning is he could easily have given a 'soft loan' had he wished to do so, and we would not be having this discussion.
Therefore it seems more likely that the sponsorship money came from someone else, whether a relative or the UAE state I haven't a scooby. But why would the Sheikh disguise something he could have done openly? That makes no sense at all.
I agree and our auditors also an agree but I think others more clued up on here who also agree have said that UEFA have had advice to opposite affect.I don’t think fair value has anything to do with anything mate as Etihad isn’t a related party
I don’t think he is but if the Premier league are alleging that the Sheik is funding sponsorship and if they could prove it would that not make then defectors related party ? Even if they wouldn’t normally meet the criteria I mean non related parties wouldn’t inflate sponsorships for companies they where sponsoring via funds from the owner of the company they where sponsoring
I think if the Premier league had proof of anything we would be in trouble a hiding the source of the money and b not calling it related even if we could argue it was not above market rate.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,340
NoneYeah, sorry for asking you mate. I was just thinking that it made no sense to do what they accuse us of. No motive I think. I assume you also do not see any sense in that part of the accusations.
But submitting false accounts is still illegal / fraud even if it results in paying more taxBut if any alleged cover up only matters to the PL ( I.e. it is only an FFP matter) AND is not illegal then any such allegation is time barred prior to February 2017?
Yes like the 1b$ Standard Chartered were fined a few years back when a certain J W Henry was their on their board and low and behold look who the victims main sponser is nowadays ! There's dirt everywhere as long as you dig deep enough!Money laundering? You only need to launder ‘dirty’ money mate, as in money obtained illegally by criminal activity
100% certain that SM doesn’t need to launder his money bud
I'm certainly not any expert on the details of these charges like some others on here ! But to me the PL have used the old adage if you throw enough mud some of it might stick ! I agree this is totally aimed at damaging our reputation and hoping it deters reputable companies associating themselves with our brand. The UEFA case was convened with CAS as UEFA banned us from European Comps for two years so the case had to be heard quickly by CAS ! This is different there is no time stipulation put on it, City are allegedly paying Pannick 350k a week and can afford it the PL have already paid a legal team to build a case up in 4 years. This will have already cost them. Now they're paying their KC at the commission not the same as Pannick I would imagine! SM can pay for this as long as it takes but I'm pretty sure that the PL wont want to pay for a case that as suggested could take years not months ! Therefore I would imagine the more time City push to clear their name the longer it goes on ! Wouldn't be surprised they suddenly decide that the charges are dropped but by then their hoping the damage to our brand will already have been done ! Therfore we've no case to answer but the stigma will remain and so the slander will continue !!!I’m increasingly convinced this is simply about inflicting maximum reputational damage on the City “brand” to stunt its growth and devalue its achievements. I don’t think it’s about the PL achieving a verdict. It’s a clever strategy that ticks a number of boxes for the PL and its “most influential” clubs. The incoming Regulator should largely stop these behaviours in the future, but by then a lot of damage will have been inflicted. I would not be surprised to see these charges shelved at some point, and I can see City defending themselves vigorously until the issues are resolved - though I can’t realistically see them achieving any redress.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Clearly that's based on the Mancini Al Jazira contract and I assume they're saying we falsified the accounts by keeping that £1.75m off the books. In the first full year of Mancini's tenure that was about 1% of our turnover, plus we lost nearly £200m.What do you think about the fact the charges start in 2009 before the first PL monitoring period of 2013 season. Surely the first 4 years of charges can’t be related to any FFP rules?
Even in the event that the commission find that was a dodge, so what? It's completely insignificant. But why would we even try to hide £1.75m in the context of that scale of losses? It's hardly on the Enron scale of fraud.
I presume the PL rule they're citing however is the one where we have to give full details of the manager's remuneration, hence the charge. But they'd need to show that Mancini (and City) had no intention of him fulfilling that contract.
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
Clearly that's based on the Mancini Al Jazira contract and I assume they're saying we falsified the accounts by keeping that £1.75m off the books. In the first full year of Mancini's tenure that was about 1% of our turnover, plus we lost nearly £200m.
Even in the event that the commission find that was a dodge, so what? It's completely insignificant. But why would we even try to hide £1.75m in the context of that scale of losses? It's hardly on the Enron scale of fraud.
I presume the PL rule they're citing however is the one where we have to give full details of the manager's remuneration, hence the charge. But they'd need to show that Mancini (and City) had no intention of him fulfilling that contract.
How does the panel decide if Mancini did or not did four days of work a year which was stated? That’s going to tough to find concrete evidence for them to screw City over with. All of this up against very heavy losses is a mere drop in the ocean for what City have been accused of.