PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bobbyowenquiff]

As I mentioned earlier, the video is a (plagiarised) summary of my work on Twitter/Twitter Spaces.

Your quote above is emphatically not correct.

City stated at CAS (p26 summarising City's skeleton): "As well as the evidence previously before the Adjudicatory Chamber, Etihad has confirmed through Mr Hogan, its President and CEO throughout the period in issue, that the finding of the Adjudicatory Chamber is “simply not true". He also explains that marketing costs, like other operational expenses, were met by funds managed both centrally and at the commercial team level. Mr Pearce explains that he understood that £8 million was available from the airline's marketing budget, with the remainder coming from Etihad’s central funds.

This evidence is further supported by a confirmation from the Chairman of the Board Finance and Investment Committee of Etihad that the accounts of Etihad for the relevant financial years recorded (i) the full amounts payable under the sponsorship agreements as liabilities of Etihad and(ii) the payments made by Etihad to MCFC as settling those liabilities in full. In addition, no amounts were shown in the accounts as being set off against these sponsorship obligations.

Consequently, absent an allegation that the accounts of Etihad were falsely prepared, which even the CFCB has not to date been willing to make, the “disguised equity” funding allegation fails."

CAS concluded (page 79):

"290. The Leaked Emails discuss an arrangement whereby Etihad’s sponsorship contributions would be funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG. The participation of HHSM and/orADUG and Etihad isa prerequisite for the arrangement to be executed, but such participation has not been established. M r Pearce may have tried to implement the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails, but in the view of the m ajority o f the Panel there is no evidence on file establishing that he actually went ahead w ith or succeeded in such attempt.

291. Based on the evidence in front of it, in particular the witness statements which again the Panel notes were not before the Adjudicatory Chamber, the letters issued by Etihad executives and the accounting evidence provided by MCFC, the m ajority o f the Panel is not comfortably satisfied that the arrangements discussed in the Leaked Emails were in fact executed. There is not sufficient evidence on file to establish that arrangements were actually made between MCFC and HHSM and/or ADUG or between HFISM and/or ADUG and Etihad or that HHSM and/or ADUG funded part of Etihad’s sponsorship obligations directly. In the absence ofalink being provenbetween HHSM and/or ADUG and Etihad (as indicated in the figure below), the majority o f the Panel finds that UEFA’s theory on disguised equity funding remains unsubstantiated."

Also in fairness to the media, "artificially inflated" revenue is terminology used by CAS (p65) and is clearly inferred by the PL charges.

I suppose it is how you interpret the word "inflated." To me it implies that City's sponsor payments were higher than they should have been ie "above market value." This phrase has been distorted by the media.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Radio 4 Today Programme

In between the extremely serious escalation in Ukraine and the CBI death spiral the Today editors found time to discuss the PL charges.

A football finance expert (for balance from Liverpool University) summarised the charges as historical and concerned three categories (usual tropes), inflating revenues, deflating costs and non cooperation. Which all sounded a bit lame really, He did confirm we were exonerated at CAS but wasn't pushed why the PL charges were needed. No mention of the poitically motivated nature of the charges ie the PL/cartel but did say the tribal nature of fans meant City were unfairly convicted daily in the MSM and social media.

However he did admit the club management in all areas was excellent. I think any reasonable neutral listener would be thnking wtf is this doing on the Today Programme.

We can expect lots more of this as the build up continues to Saturday...

 

[halfcenturyup]

I suppose it is how you interpret the word "inflated." To me it implies that City's sponsor payments were higher than they should have been ie "above market value." This phrase has been distorted by the media.

I am a cantankerous old ****, but I don't have a problem with the word inflated in this context. I suppose their argument is that the sponsorship has been inflated above a level which Etisalat and Etihad could pay and so Mansour had to top it up. Which is a ridiculous notion for many reasons, the main one being they are both owned by the emirate of Abu Dhabi and they don't need small change from Mansour to pay for anything.

And yes, it has been taken in some quarters to mean sponsorship above market value which isn't the issue at all afaik. But who cares? Not Mansour, apparently.

 

[slbsn]

I suppose it is how you interpret the word "inflated." To me it implies that City's sponsor payments were higher than they should have been ie "above market value." This phrase has been distorted by the media.

It is worse than that. The allegation is that they were not just above market value but that they were, in essence, fake agreements. The market value argument won't fly. Even UEFA don't argue with that. CAS said:
"Both Etisalat and Etihad entered into sponsorship partnerships with MCFC in the 2009/10 football season, and those partnerships have evolved and have been renegotiated over the years. Both sponsorship arrangements were entered into for fair value. In any event, the CFCB has not put fair value in issue in these proceedings."

 

[Asa's left peg]

I still can't get my head around the fact they inspected our accounts regularly over the period, on a regular basis (and in a atmosphere of regular accusations) and suspected nothing and found nothing wrong. It speaks volumes about their own processes. It's not like we hide our dealings in the Caiman Islands or other places .
Assuming they haven't any new shit, then this is just a mud slinging operation which (as the video suggests ) will blow up in the face of the PL eventually down the line, when some other big 4/5/6 appointee will have to deal with.

 

[donkinho]

It was glorious watching Pep and the team waltz pass Parry,Gill and Fergiscum to collect their WINNERS medals, let's all
hope we can defeat them again off the pitch.

Couldn't help but have a wry smile, when the completely unbiased and objective UEFA vice president and treasurer was sat next to Bacon Face in matching suits and ties. Nothing to see here............

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I still can't get my head around the fact they inspected our accounts regularly over the period, on a regular basis (and in a atmosphere of regular accusations) and suspected nothing and found nothing wrong. It speaks volumes about their own processes. It's not like we hide our dealings in the Caiman Islands or other places .
Assuming they haven't any new shit, then this is just a mud slinging operation which (as the video suggests ) will blow up in the face of the PL eventually down the line, when some other big 4/5/6 appointee will have to deal with.

It all points to the PL repeating the mistakes of UEFA and making allegations against City with little or no evidence. The main purpose of this witchunt has been to undermine City driven by a hostile (and in come cases racist) media.
We still don't know why the PL would put its own reputation at risk to do this. When Richard Masters came in he had an opportinity to review this politically-motivated investigation and find a way to stop it and save some face.
Instead he chose to go nuclear. It's not clear why he did this but you can only assume he was under severe pressure from the Directors at MUFC and LFC who actually vetted his appointment. We still don't know why three other candidates (who were offered the PL job) pulled out. Perhaps part of the deal with Masters was that a condition of taking the job was that "he should do something about City." Something smells about the entire case.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It is worse than that. The allegation is that they were not just above market value but that they were, in essence, fake agreements. The market value argument won't fly. Even UEFA don't argue with that. CAS said:
"Both Etisalat and Etihad entered into sponsorship partnerships with MCFC in the 2009/10 football season, and those partnerships have evolved and have been renegotiated over the years. Both sponsorship arrangements were entered into for fair value. In any event, the CFCB has not put fair value in issue in these proceedings."

You think the actual charge is that the sponsorship agreements were, in essence, fake? Not just that they were partly funded by Mansour himself? Even though they were at a fair value and services were provided at full value? And paid for?

I struggle with that.

 

[slbsn]

You think the actual charge is that the sponsorship agreements were, in essence, fake? Not just that they were partly funded by Mansour himself? Even though they were at a fair value and services were provided at full value? And paid for?

I struggle with that.

Yes I think the charge is far more than who paid for the contractual requirement. It is an allegation that the contract was not as disclosed or as was found in the club's accounts. On sponsorship, I think this is simply a re-run of UEFA/CAS presented with more disclosure and a second bite.

 

[KS55]

Couldn't help but have a wry smile, when the completely unbiased and objective UEFA vice president and treasurer was sat next to Bacon Face in matching suits and ties. Nothing to see here............

That objective UEFA officer who reportedly informed UEFA that, by his calculations, City’s total sponsorship income was £300m above fair market value. UEFA did not use it.