PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Leeky]

Surely now though we are successful enough to not need etihad and can find other huge sponsors? Silver lake must know huge and wealthy companies who would want to be associated with us?! We also have Chinese investors and a bloody Chinese club ownership don’t we do we must have contacts?

Don’t you know, we’re a state owned club, we have to be sponsored by Abu Dhabi sponsors

 

[Chippy_boy]

Under the new PL rules, the PL could decide Etihad is “associated” which is their new term coined to get at us. IAS24 does not need to be applicable. PL has not defined what “associated” means. They will decide on a case by case basis. Ha!

So they are using different rules to UEFA? I didn't realise that. UEFA FFP rules are based on standard accounting practice.

 

[citizen_maine]

Under the new PL rules, the PL could decide Etihad is “associated” which is their new term coined to get at us. IAS24 does not need to be applicable. PL has not defined what “associated” means. They will decide on a case by case basis. Ha!

Can they? I thought it was only for new sponsorships?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Don't get bogged down in the weeds by all the related party talk.

The main attack is our owner disguising investment through bonifide sponsors.

The bar is set very high to be able to lay a glove on that.

They can't and they know it.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Can they? I thought it was only for new sponsorships?

Correct, and for deals more than £1m.

 

[Centurions]

Why that job had nothing to do with Man City

Nothing from our perspective bud, the PL presumably think it was a way to pay him under the table. Hence the stalemate.

 

[Centurions]

As I understand it, CAS determined that Etihad is not a related party? (An easy determination to make, since there are objective tests as to whether a party is related or not.)

If that is indeed the case, then Etihad as an unrelated party pays what it likes and that is by definition is fair value, i.e. A sponsorship deal is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, and provided they are an unrelated party, whatever they are prepared to pay, is fair value. We could get a sponsorship deal from Elon Musk for £10bn a year and that would be fair value, if Musk was daft enough to pay it.

Bottom line is, provided Etihad is deemed a non-related party, they can pay us what on earth they like and there is fuck all the PL or anyone else can do about it.

If I remember rightly, UEFA decided that the Etihad deal was fair value so didn't pursue the related party angle as it was pointless as it passed the first test. The Etisalat & Abarr(sp) steel company were passed but we were asked to not increase those 2 in the near future at least.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Don't get bogged down in the weeds by all the related party talk.

The main attack is our owner disguising investment through bonifide sponsors.

The bar is set very high to be able to lay a glove on that.

They can't and they know it.

The main attack on sponsorship, or the main attack of the charges as a whole?

 

[waspish]

Nothing from our perspective bud, the PL presumably think it was a way to pay him under the table. Hence the stalemate.

No evidence dead rubber

 

[Stoned Rose]

Something is worth what somebody values it at. On our last game at Maine Road I paid £150 for a ticket. Shit game and pretty average end of match entertainment but I had to be there because it had been a huge part of my life and I'd never be there or see it again. Some people said I was mad paying so much but for me it was worth every penny.

Whoever has sponsored us has had terrific value for money given our success. They were given a vision, saw the potential and thought, "I'm having some of that." They are clutching at straws.

I was at Cheshire Oaks yesterday and saw a pair of trainers for sale at £575.

Some dickheads will pay that without batting an eyelid.

Things are always worth what someone will pay for them.