PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
Because we're supposed to report all payments to players as part of their remuneration. But your point is also valid and I suspect that would have been our argument to UEFA.

Image rights are personal payments and paid differently to wages. We'd sold those rights to an unconnected third party. It's be the same as reporting any commerical revenue earned by players for adverts and promotions.
Click to expand...

If I can just sidetrack the thread for a minute, PB, do we know what the substance of the Fordham deal was?

Afaik, the club sold the image rights of some players to Fordham in 2012 (was it?) to accelerate income because the club was short for FFP. So the club received an amount of money which must have represented the net value of the future income and costs of those image rights over the length of the contract.

So from 2012, for around 5 years, Fordham must have made a return on those image rights by exploiting them and paying a % to the player. Is that right? Is that how it worked?
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
A win for either City or the Premier League will have some cataclysmic fall out for English football and a knock on into European football. They try to deal with City with relegation it pushes the most successful club in the last ten years towards the Super League, if they don’t seem to be dealing with us the teams in red will be taking their bat and ball to the super league instead.

They opened up Pandora’s box when they implemented ffp and now with all the sanctions being laid out at Everton the rumblings of discontent at the people running the premier league will get bigger and bigger.
Click to expand...
Need a score draw and put it to bed and for all to save face.

115-115 should do it -:)
 
flb said:
Then Swales fucked it up , but it’s never talked about , Swales fucked this club big time , we were up there in the later sixties and the most of the seventies , for our detractors to say we we nothing more than a third division club who made “good” is a fucking disgrace tbh , there is one club , and one club only with their grip on the press that are to blame , and they don’t reside down the other end of the M62.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Swales was a big problem. When Swales bought Steve Daley for £1.4m that was totally madness. Malcom Allison during his 2nd stint has a lot to answer for too. He sold some fantastic players and bought mostly garbage.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Do you mean like they did when they investigated Liverpool for criminal activity when they hacked into our scouting system? "“A spokesperson said: “The FA carefully considered the evidence received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns"
Click to expand...
The last sentence is interesting. What if the club and the league are both happy for this to drag out until the 6 years statue of limitations comes into effect. It had been posted here that we are not sure when this actually comes into play.

I would not be surprised if this is the get out for all parties. The league will say time barred and no evidence of disguised owner investment. Its going the same way as CAS imo.

It’s the price we will ultimately pay for putting the red cunts noses out of place. The cloud will still exist but do no real harm.
 
Blue_Lightsaber said:
It'd be absolutely hillarious if 114 charges are dismissed and the 1 charge that gets found true is the length of the grass.

Can just picture Melissa Reddy having a cow on the air:

View attachment 104518

P.S. Thank you for taking the instant litigation experts - just add water to town and showing them for what they are.

We're lucky to have you!
Click to expand...
Erm, dont we do fast passing so stitched ourselves up too ? Lol
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
If I can just sidetrack the thread for a minute, PB, do we know what the substance of the Fordham deal was?

Afaik, the club sold the image rights of some players to Fordham in 2012 (was it?) to accelerate income because the club was short for FFP. So the club received an amount of money which must have represented the net value of the future income and costs of those image rights over the length of the contract.

So from 2012, for around 5 years, Fordham must have made a return on those image rights by exploiting them and paying a % to the player. Is that right? Is that how it worked?
Click to expand...
We sold them in 2013, just about the time we sacked Mancini (although there's no connection between the two events). IIRC, we sold them for £24.5m but I've no idea if there was a specific term for the contract. Fordham paid the image rights and seem to have been reimbursed by ADUG but I really don't know how Fordham exploited those apart from that. They only filed small company accounts, so you could only see the balance sheet and not the P&L.

We would still have used those rights and accumulated the benefit from them and I'm guessing ADUG paid for the right to use them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.