PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[mancboy]

because it disguises owner investment as income.

Say Sheikh Mansour wants to spend £500 million on a bunch of players, but can't because he can only spend a certain amount based on City's income, what does he do? He gets all his related party's to flush City's coffers with lots of juicy sponsorship deals and Bob's you Uncle, he's got his £500 million.

which is true but even if it isnt related doesnt ffp have a thing about investment from any party being at market rate?

 

[halfcenturyup]

if there was concrete evidence of false accounting that amounts to a criminal trial not a kangaroo premier league panel so on that basis alone they dont have the requisite evidence

Can you imagine the fall-out if they find the club, its owner and it's directors guilty of false accounting only for none of the relevant authorities to conclude there was sufficient evidence to proceed, or for them to proceed then find the club has no case to answer?

No way the PL, or any of its KCs, are taking that risk without absolutely undeniable evidence which they won't have, imo, even if it exists, which I doubt.

 

[Bantamgaz]

Hell bent on making you pay because certain clubs don't like it yet they will happy sit back and let the loon at Sheff Wednesday carry on ................. it's pathetic

 

[Silva Citizen]

which is true but even if it isnt related doesnt ffp have a thing about investment from any party being at market rate?

What is market rate? Sponsorship is an investment. City have grown exponentially over the last 15 years, sponsors have all gotten value for their money. It would be difficult for the league to prove otherwise.

 

[The perfect fumble]

which is true but even if it isnt related doesnt ffp have a thing about investment from any party being at market rate?

It does.

An inflated sponsorship deal will raise a red flag, but the ease of signing big ticket sponsorship deals isn't scrutinised and neither is the number of sponsors. We all laugh at Utd's noodles and official dog food sponsorship's, but they led the way in this.

I don't know how old you are, but a tyre company being a major sponsor? Thirty years ago it was unthinkable.

Take a look at this...

https://www.mancity.com/club/partners

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

because it disguises owner investment as income.

Say Sheikh Mansour wants to spend £500 million on a bunch of players, but can't because he can only spend a certain amount based on City's income, what does he do? He gets all his mates to flush City's coffers with lots of juicy sponsorship deals and Bob's you Uncle, he's got his £500 million.

The Etihad sponsorship has been seen as fair market value, the Etisalat one being the contentious one was £30 million over two seasons. When the club was posting losses of over £150 million at the time should Mansour not have been sending larger amounts of money through them to meet the break even?

The club has been fined £49 million in 2014 and £46 million in 2020. They also took a squad reduction in the champions league. What advantage have the club gained from all alleged activity when you look at the sanctions that have already been imposed?

 

[The perfect fumble]

Can you imagine the fall-out if they find the club, its owner and it's directors guilty of false accounting only for none of the relevant authorities to conclude there was sufficient evidence to proceed, or for them to proceed then find the club has no case to answer?

No way the PL, or any of its KCs, are taking that risk without absolutely undeniable evidence which they won't have, imo, even if it exists, which I doubt.

You're right, these charges have huge implications, if proven this is fraud on a massive scale, we're talking criminal charges here. There's no way the PL have the evidence to prove any of this, not to the level required, they've painted themselves into a corner here, it'll be interesting to see how they extricate themselves.

 

[bernard o'silver]

It does.

An inflated sponsorship deal will raise a red flag, but the ease of signing big ticket sponsorship deals isn't scrutinised and neither is the number of sponsors. We all laugh at Utd's noodles and official dog food sponsorship's, but they led the way in this.

I don't know how old you are, but a tyre company being a major sponsor? Thirty years ago it was unthinkable.

Take a look at this...

https://www.mancity.com/club/partners

Inflated sponsorship from a tyre company , now there's a thing! :-)

 

[The perfect fumble]

The Etihad sponsorship has been seen as fair market value, the Etisalat one being the contentious one was £30 million over two seasons. When the club was posting losses of over £150 million at the time should Mansour not have been sending larger amounts of money through them to meet the break even?

The club has been fined £49 million in 2014 and £46 million in 2020. They also took a squad reduction in the champions league. What advantage have the club gained from all alleged activity when you look at the sanctions that have already been imposed?

To your first point, the answer is yes and no, if a £150 million loss was permissible at the time, then loss/break even was a moot point, if it was all a scam it's just figures on a piece of paper.

To your second point, that stitch up was a shifty rule change on player amortisation if memory serves.

It's best to see this as all politics, because that's what it is

 

[crazyg]

Inflated sponsorship from a tyre company , now there's a thing! :-)

Definitely a good year when we signed that deal!