PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ganganvince]

It's 117 charges now.

Looking at the state of those lines not going to be enforcable.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I remember when the pundits were forecasting free entry to PL games as clubs would be making so much money on the commercial side. Ha!

They all hide behind FFP now....was never going to happen but it was a godsend for an excuse for pricing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But our owner isn't supposed to own our sponsors.

There's little logic to it, and it has been suggested that if some of these sponsorships were considered related parties City wouldn't have had any ffp problems. Once they are considered unrelated though, the sponsorship can't be funded by the owner.

Well, we can agree on the little logic part. :)

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Why would income from the owner be prohibited by FFP?

Because it's owner investment and this is limited by the FFP regulations. This limitation appears to be prohibited by UK and European law but any attempt to challenge the limitation would be very time consuming at the very least.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Because it's owner investment and this is limited by the FFP regulations. This limitation appears to be prohibited by UK and European law but any attempt to challenge the limitation would be very time consuming at the very least.

Is it? I thought it was just losses and (now) wages and amortisation that were controlled?

I also thought the whole premise of the PL is that if the amounts are considered "disguised equity funding" then we fail FFP on the amount of losses we would have made without the income, not on the extra amount of investment.

Or do I have that wrong?

 

[blue whippet]

'e' ll park where he wants
'e' ll park where he wants
Pep Guardiola
'e' ll park where he wants

That deserves to be sung.

 

[The perfect fumble]

'e' ll park where he wants
'e' ll park where he wants
Pep Guardiola
'e' ll park where he wants

Pep needs to drive something a little less conspicuous...

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Is it? I thought it was just losses and (now) wages and amortisation that were controlled?

I also thought the whole premise of the PL is that if the amounts are considered "disguised equity funding" then we fail FFP on the amount of losses we would have made without the income, not on the extra amount of investment.

Or do I have that wrong?

What you outline was not the case when the so called offences were committed, but it seems that the case against City is that the club falsified its accounts to inflate sponsorship income and disguise the fact that it had invested beyond the limits allowed to owners. FFP allowed unlimited income from sponsors (unless they were "related parties") but owner investment was (quite severely) limited.

 

[Grassland Blue]

'e' ll park where he wants
'e' ll park where he wants
Pep Guardiola
'e' ll park where he wants

He should have had it painted in camouflage colours like Mario did!

 

[halfcenturyup]

What you outline was not the case when the so called offences were committed, but it seems that the case against City is that the club falsified its accounts to inflate sponsorship income and disguise the fact that it had invested beyond the limits allowed to owners. FFP allowed unlimited income from sponsors (unless they were "related parties") but owner investment was (quite severely) limited.

Really? I don't remember that, but I must say I didnt pay much attention to FFP until 2014. I thought it had always been results based. No losses over a certain limit.