PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Pam]

I worry about this less and less by the day. There is far too much that seems calculated about the whole management of the issue. Too many parties involved with vested interests in making these charges as hysterical and significant as possible. They can't run their football clubs efficiently so they are trying to generate a panic in the disco. Someone needs to break it to them that you can give an idiot billions but you need more than that to win a 3P; a Treble and 5 out of 6 league titles. You need a well run club. Which is what the others have been lacking for so long. Mother superior jumped the gun. Some meanngless half-hearted fan banter; collective ridicule and a fat legal bill will be their only rewards.

 

[dickie davies]

I still don’t understand how that doesn’t make this a legal matter? If they have evidence that we have been falsifying our accounts, why have they not contacted the relevant authorities?

I'm sure it's being watched by the relevant authorities in case the panel does find against us

 

[Rory Bluelow]

He was the same gobby, cocky little prick on Sunday Supplement, cheap digs and sneering at us.

And we’ve just had the best season of any club in the history of English football.
Going well for them isn’t it ?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Him and previously Parry have held some UEFA positions that I think are worthy of comment. This is not to imply there is any malice involved from either party. The press are happy to report on shadowy figures handing over bags of cash but that there is no comment on the shadowy figures sat next to Ferguson at the FA Cup Final or previously running Liverpool feels a little shortsighted. Throw in the letters to CAS, the bad day for football comments etc and there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the clear and organised agenda is real.

The New York Times and the Times were briefed by clubs who got their info from within UEFA. Briefing came from LFC and MUFC. Times got it from LFC. Only a handful of people in UEFA had that info. One was Parry with links to LFC and another was Gill with links to MUFC. Cheshire is like a small village for people in these circles.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

That c... Lawton just been on Talkspirt, Brazil just said come on 2011 just move on, Lawton disagreed saying City are now reeping the rewards based on what went on in 2011, Brazil then mentions come on Real Madrid & others in which Lawton agreed but washed over it bringing City back into conversation

One thing for sure it's not going to get done anytime soon

Lawton also mentioned Martin Samual bigging City up regarding the establishment but yet again changed his tone into basically City are cheats without any outcome complete

He's a racist prick. Absolutely disgraceful how he used to report on Raheem until he was eventually called out on it.

Lawton is simply trying to polish a turd that he and his ilk don't want to flush.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

If you think back to 2022/13 City still thought they could pass FFP, just, because of the leeway offered by wages of players signed before its introduction being discounted. But it was only just, every penny was crucial at that time. It was suggested that Mancini’s pay off might derail it. So the £30 million advance payment against the Etisalat sponsorship was definitely necessary even if it broke no rules. Of course in the end it was futile, we’d already been deemed to fail on the 2011/12 accounts and had to accept the slap on the wrist. Trying to revive this now and suggest further penalties are appropriate all seems a bit desperate

Everton a being done over for recording losses of £371 million. The didn’t just fail financial fair play they exploded it and this is nearly a decade after the rules were introduced, not for the period before FFP and the very early years of it when clubs were looking at how to interpret them. Where is the clamour to have them relegated to the national league and branding them cheats?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

So you are a CLit.

But yes, it's no coincidence that Delaney wrote that bizarre piece recently that if we are found guilty on Etisalat, then that would show a pattern of behaviour for Etihad. It's utter nonsense and reeks of desperation if all they can hang their hopes on is Etisalat.

It's always been about the CLit, mate, the rest is just most men being selfish!

I didn't get taught that in class!

 

[M18CTID]

I'm an idiot but as far as I understand it the Premier League licence us to play in UEFA competitions so despite there being no relevant Premier League equity funding rule at the time if we've tried to disguise equity funding to pass FFP and in doing so provided the PL with a misleading set of accounts we'd be in breach of some rule there possibly perhaps (I think some of the charges relate to misleading UEFA or something).

The accountants will be able to give more insight but this particular instance seems to refer to how we've accounted for the money. It should have been listed in a different place in the accounts. It does seem that accountancy isn't as simple as adding up numbers and there is some element of interpretation with how you account for the numbers (is it equity or income for example). So City may be applying a different interpretation of how the money is accounted (ie we didnt out the two payments in our accounts as equity investment when we should have done and because of that we have disguised equity investment. City argue it was sponsorship revenue and not owner investment so we accounted for it correctly).

Also according to what I've read on here not all the numbers even need to add up for accounts to give a fair value representation.

Cheers, and yes I get all that. I don't think the disguised owner funding will fly on this particular charge though as from what I can see, City have been clear that it was put up by our owner and it was then later paid back by Etisalat

 

[halfcenturyup]

I thought the contract hadn’t been renewed at that point so an actual cash injection might have been necessary to show up as income? But I’m not an accountant so may well be talking bollocks

According to the CAS award, the contract was renewed in principle for a higher amount and the parties were working under an MOU until the contract was completed. Not sure why it took so long but I imagine Etisalat couldn't approve payment while there was no definitive contract. The MOU prevails though, and the services were provided and therefore income was earned. The receivable from Etisalat was valid under the MOU, and was paid in full (some time) after the contract was signed.

I am guessing the club needed the money from Etisalat to meet its payments, but as Etisalat couldn't pay under an MOU, ADUG advanced the money.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's always been about the CLit, mate, the rest is just most men being selfish!

I didn't get taught that in class!

I hear you. I got a C from the University of North Texas.