MillisleBlue
Well-Known Member
This is exactly what I believe the PL will do under enormous pressure from the Sky4.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
This is exactly what I believe the PL will do under enormous pressure from the Sky4.
OB1
Well-Known Member
You wouldn't have thought so, but this is pretty much what UEFA did, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Never underestimate the stupidity of football administrators.
I know you're a bit dismissive of the idea, but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there was a degree of coercion from other clubs, plus there is the looming threat of an independent regulator. These factors could easily have muddied the water for the PL, and resulted in them overreaching with their charges.
That's not to play down the seriousness of the case, and there is an awful lot at stakes for both sides. I don't think anyone at this stage can say with any degree of certainty what the outcome will be.
I'm hoping Khaldoon is certain that outcome will be City proving their innocence.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
The general rule of thumb set by HMRC is that up to 10% of a player's overall remuneration from the club can be paid as image rights. There are exceptions that can be made for the highest-profile players but that's the general rule.How do the image rights work, PB? I am guessing the club makes money out of players' image rights then pay a % to the player? But if that's the case and the rights were sold upfront for 24 million, wouldn't you expect an annual impact more in the region of 3-5 million rather than 10-17 million? Or are you talking about the impact only on expenses rather than the net impact (revenue less expenses)?
If I sold you the rights to a future income stream for an up-front payment, you'd expect a discount because £30m now is not the same as £30m in, say, 5 years time (in real terms). It's called discounted cash flow.
What puzzled me about the Fordham deal is that they paid cash, not to receive an income stream, but to pay more cash out. We know now that this was funded by Abu Dhabi ultimately. But we also know that City needed to raise some cash to try to meet the conditions in Annex XI of the FFP regulations, which would enable us to mitigate the impact of failing it in the first assessment. As UEFA subtly shifted the goalposts, we failed and has to reach a settlement anyway.
If we paid them directly, that's an expense so in effect we potentially reduced our outgoings by that £10m a year. We don't know the full story yet but I suspect UEFA maybe saw that image rights had disappeared off our FFP return and queried it, at which point we reached an agreement with them to include them.
I get this.It’d barely make a difference. People around the world would still tune in. IMHO
Kitty Fox has now sadly passed yet people still watch porn.
Fair point regarding ffp. It was an attempt to clip our wings. I get that. But if its proven we have actually committed fraud then that's a different story altogether and we should be punished for that.Not picking on you but the idea that, if we breached the PL rules, then we "deserve" some form of punishment is one that I have seen fairly often on this thread and it rankles somewhat.
The whole princiiple and application of FFP is fraudulent, anti-competitive, introduced in bad faith and imposed on us without our agreement, so, from my perspective, nothing we could do to circumvent those rules would be "deserving" of punishment. If the charges are "proven", it simply means that a cartel of clubs have succeeded in stitching us up, not that we have done a single thing wrong. To the contrary, I would commend our board for the lengths they have gone to in order to compete and giving me the best 10 years of football I have ever witnessed.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,853
Ive always thought this. Perhaps they took back handers from the Sky Top 4 to do so ??What is to stop clubs having another vote on Prem FFP?
I understand why Utd,Liverpool,Arsenal and to extent Chelsea voted in favour but why did any of the lesser clubs??
Crazy the likes of WHU,Everton and Newcastle voted in favour of FFP, chances of sustained success without a rich owner..practically zero
A rich investor would also have been more likely to invest in the smaller Prem clubs with no financial constraints in place.....The owners that voted for FFP devalued their clubs in the process
Use Blackburn as an example, would Jack Walker have even bothered trying if FFP was in place?
Chi-town blues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2012
- Messages
- 31,363
Those clubs were thick enough to buy ffp would level the playing field without realizing PL sliding into mls 2.0What is to stop clubs having another vote on Prem FFP?
I understand why Utd,Liverpool,Arsenal and to extent Chelsea voted in favour but why did any of the lesser clubs??
Crazy the likes of WHU,Everton and Newcastle voted in favour of FFP, chances of sustained success without a rich owner..practically zero
A rich investor would also have been more likely to invest in the smaller Prem clubs with no financial constraints in place.....The owners that voted for FFP devalued their clubs in the process
Use Blackburn as an example, would Jack Walker have even bothered trying if FFP was in place?
As they say , rest is history.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
How does the PL know that without an investigation? The PL are going back to 2008 with City before FFP existed. No one has ever looked at United's books seriously. They are based in the Cayman Islands. They had image rights deals with all their major players, especially Pogba and Ronaldo (mentioned in Footyleaks as well). This is why the PL is not fit for purpose as a regulator.Completely different rules. Didn't fail Premier league FFP.
I think we will be seeing lots of shit coming out such as this:
Everybody is at it.
This was a long time ago though, so pretty sure they can't investigate, probably time-barred under law.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Just a couple of points:Given that they have effectively accused us of fraudulent accounting over a prolonged period, then this is indeed what they'd have to prove in order to land all of their charges. Whilst the standard of proof is just the balance of probabilities, as with all civil cases, the serious nature of the charges means that cogent evidence is required. If they were only able to show that some of our transactions broke FFP rules then we'd be looking at a minor points deduction at worse.
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.