PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[mike1923]

Never mention Fight Club.

The clubs sign up to a treaty, the PL contract that is a memorandum of understanding. The PL hold all the rules and if clubs don’t want to follow, they don’t have to take the spoils and will soon be back in the Championship.

The PL, who have been controlled by the few, understand that times have changed and it is they that hold all the power. Bringing their broadcast indoors will suit them but nit sure how that will fare for sporting integrity.

The three relegated clubs aren’t in the premiership though?

 

[citizen_maine]

If a sponsor could only pay a portion of the contracted amount, what would UEFA do once notified?

Would they, as I suspect, allow the owner to pay the remainder and double check he's not paid more than the contracted amount(or perhaps deciding on the FMV valuation of that deal for that period)? Deducting that in the break even calculations if necessary.

Or would they say: "Tough luck, take it up with your sponsor, you've failed break even requirements for this period"?

I find the latter a very unreasonable and unlikely answer personally.

I'm probably missing your point, but if the sponsor couldn't pay the full amount, it wouldn't appear in the accounts, as they're prepared after the money is paid aren't they?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Delooney with another steaming pile of horseshit. Interesting that he openly talks of clubs pushing the PL into investigating and punishing us as though that’s perfectly acceptable though. And yes Miguel, when you say that PL rules allow clubs to sue each other, that doesn’t just mean it’s our club that could get sued by those unhappy at the outcome. It also means City can sue every club that we believe has tried to fuck us over too you brain dead twat:

Why Man City’s FFP case could be another Super League moment for football

Other Premier League clubs are carefully watching Newcastle’s prospective new sponsorship deal amid expectation it could have implications for the investigation into City’s finances, explains Miguel Delaney

www.independent.co.uk

The only interesting line in that pile of biased and distorted crap is the one where he is at pains to say the Premier League is "absolutely" making no comment. As if. But it is absoutely clear that he has been given a briefing from one of the PL clubs who are part of the witchhunt against City. He mentions a London source so my money is on Daniel Levy though it could easily be David Gill or someone acting on his behalf.
So the leaking process continues unabated. Someone high up in the PL leaks information about the confidential discussions with City to someone at one of our commercial rivals and they then brief their pals in the media. This is a despicable smear campaign and it shows, once again, that the PL hierarchy are acting in bad faith. Presumably Delaney must think we are all fucking stupid. But he is very bad at covering his tracks.

 

[Metalartin]

I'm probably missing your point, but if the sponsor couldn't pay the full amount, it wouldn't appear in the accounts, as they're prepared after the money is paid aren't they?

But then the club's revenue would be down for that period, which means they might fall foul of the break even requirement through no fault of their own.

My point was, surely there is a process to allow an owner to pay that temporarily, if needs be, until the sponsor can pay the owner back for the amount owed. In the account report, the amount the sponsor paid would still be visible but the owner would be allowed to make up the difference for that accounting period(classed as equity perhaps).

The point being, if Sheikh Mansour wanted to pay the remaining balance himself, this could have been done without breaking any rules. The amount owed by the sponsor would then be between him and the sponsor.

 

[Protein Junkie]

Either Harris, hardly any racist reporting is stopped.

Tried one for Delaney but could only come up with ****.

Deluded eulogist like a nonce easily yearning.

 

[citizen_maine]

But then the club's revenue would be down for that period, which means they might fall foul of the break even requirement through no fault of their own.

My point was, surely there is a process to allow an owner to pay that temporarily, if needs be, until the sponsor can pay the owner back for the amount owed. In the account report, the amount the sponsor paid would still be visible but the owner would be allowed to make up the difference for that accounting period(classed as equity perhaps).

The point being, if Sheikh Mansour wanted to pay the remaining balance himself, this could have been done without breaking any rules. The amount owed by the sponsor would then be between him and the sponsor.

I guess they'd say 'tough', though if the sponsor paid it in the following year it would level out over the 3 year accounting period?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Parry was a go to contact of Panja when he was the NW Football correspondent of MEN(?)

Gill definitely was.

 

[Metalartin]

I guess they'd say 'tough', though if the sponsor paid it in the following year it would level out over the 3 year accounting period?

You think that's reasonable?

 

[citizen_maine]

You think that's reasonable?

You are talking about UEFA?

 

[Metalartin]

You are talking about UEFA?

Yes I know but related party/equity funding is still allowed, they had to include it in some capacity to make sure these rules got approved in the first place. Even if that was their answer(I doubt it personally), I imagine City's lawers would find that an easy case to make. This is all hypothetical but if that was the only option(Sheikh Mansour dipping into his pockets), the advice he'd have been given would be to just pay the remainder and have that classed as equity funding or related party in the accounts, for a situation out of his hands. There's no way UEFA would be able to make charges stick then. It could have been a global sponsor that couldn't pay it, he'd most likely have wanted to do the same thing in the short term because it's what's best for the club. A sponsorship agreement, is a legally binding contract, for a set amount. That money is essentially guaranteed(just as a transfer fee is) as I understand it, so how would UEFA argue against it?