PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[oakiecokie]

Let’s hope so Oakie. Especially stringing the bastard responsible up by the balls !

I think thats something that the PL don`t have.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

We would have to be aware of that when signing. You can't just amend a contract after it's been signed

In the PL rules, clubs and the League shall " behave towards each other with utmost good faith"

Do you think certain clubs and the PL, have acted towards City "with utmost good faith"

What about that contract?

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

I see your point. It's definitely not a case of there being only 3 real charges and 112 we can safely ignore. That is definitely the sort of view that some have been propagating without genuinely understanding the background.

There are five groups of charges and the first of those relates to inaccurate accounts due to sponsorships. Another to payments to players and managers.

We're not totally clear on the sponsorships one but there's no mileage in attacking the Etihad one; we'd knock that right out of the park easily enough. There's a good chance it's the Etisalat one in the early years of the current ownership, and which predates both UEFA and the PL's own FFP rules.

Those are the three but there are, as you say, two others. But they relate to both the PL and UEFA FFP rules, which rely on the submission of accounts. If the charges related to the three substantive issues charges are dismissed by the panel, then those other two automatically have to be dismissed as they're solely a consequence of the other three.

And of course there is the non-cooperation charge, which is the one most likely to stick but has no impact on the accounting ones.

Definition for the 1st group is:
1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs..."

Our defence of the Etihad sponsorship was robust for the reasons we all know in both 2014 and at CAS and agree we'd likely not have a problem. Apart from maybe Pierce if he ends up on the witness stand again.

Etisalat was re-wrtten for 5 years from 2012 and was included at CAS albeit time-barred. We gave our explanation and many on here (including you I think) commented that it was a bit close to the knuckle. So I'd expect it is a gimme they'd look at it again subject to any decision on time barring.

But no doubt they will want to look at all our Abu Dhabi sponsorships in great detail for the full 9 years. Cue the "fishing expedition" and time-barring arguments.

 

[g180aj]

Der Spiegel dropped loads of documents in April 22 including a Mancini specific 50+ page PDF here:

https://cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/media/592f2b46-96b2-4e64-9217-9a17ae26f38b/RM.pdf

The first payments were paid from a MCFC account "MCFC Stadium Oper..." to "Roberto Mancini Sparklegrow" via an Italian bank. See pDF pages 19 and 22.

I presume he wanted the money that way (it was supposed to be offshore) to suit his personal tax purposes and City obliged. Ultimately though City covered his personal tax on the payments.

All immaterial though in the big scheme of things because of the relatively small amounts involved and/or it getting time-barred.

As an aside, if you are interested, just google "Der Spiegel Manchester City 2022" for links to all the other stuff. The Premier League will have all the documents they dropped and there are loads of them.

Really city should have just billed al jazera club with 10% commission for Bobbys services and put it through the books

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

What was that he said he was saying at the end about the player on a free they paid for ?

Think he was intimating it was a bit dodgy.

Edit it was dodgy. The player signed a pre-contract agreement with Wolves, Arsenal then paid his old club 2.5m, and he signed for Arsenal. Wolves almost took legal action.

 

[daveoswald]

I’d draw the line on this penalty:

The only time i have ever seen my self on tv at 11 seconds "the young good looking one" one of my all time favourite away days, serious aggro before and after the game, but not as bad as Liverpool away in the league cup semi a couple of months earlier.

 

[Ducado]

Is this the last throw of the dice for the cartel clubs? Or will there be more when this is over

 

[hammersmithlad]

Lee going against the grain…. Again.

Blimey…I’m speechless with this unbiased clear thought content.

And spouted from a Gooner of all people…now I’ve seen it all…fair play to the chap.

This definitely needs to be shoved down the throats of the main stream & social media channels to gain some traction & actually get people to think instead of getting force fed one opinion on this subject.

 

[daveoswald]

English football has been a business for as long as most clubs have been limited companies, which is at least 100 years. Once you start charging for admission and paying players it's a commercial enterprise.

And should in my opinion be subject to the same laws as any other business, imagine the big retailers trying to stop a smallish grocery store trying to expand and punishing them for investment, the owners CEO'S would find them selves in Strangeways

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

CAS didn't rule on any of the PL's charges, to be clear. UEFA could potentially have brought in the image rights payments, which were within the six-year period. But they seem to have been OK with this, so it's hard to see how the PL can land this.

Again, as per sponsors, surely the PL will have a look because they are likely on a fishing expedition.

The below was from Reuters and does look encouraging when they changed their mind and utimately allowed us to retain the benefit. It doesn't say what date that was.