PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

TedofChume said:
I've lost the details of those that said they'd be interested in this. About 6 lads direct messaged me in the summer and those messages have expired.

It's taken a while, but I have put together as much accurate information as I can about this subject on the following website. Obviously, it's heavily influenced by my opinion, but I have referenced everything I can.

Man City Stuff - All things about the best team in the land and all the world

All things about the best team in the land and all the world
mancitystuff.co.uk

One peice of feedback I've had, is that it is a mad man's rant. I am mad and annoyed about it! As far as I'm concerned the more stuff there is out there supporting the City side of the argument the better! I'll keep posting everytime I learn or pick up on something new.

There are plenty of mistakes, so if you spot any typos or obvious errors please let me know. I've always made typos and have never been able to spell. It's very much a work in progress, but I hope it provides some useful pointers/references for anyone interested:


NB
1)
I'd like to credit the Blue who counted the charges and highlighted that there were 134, not 115. I can't find his post though, it's somewhere in the thread. If it was you please let me know.

2)
FYI - 3 of the charges relate to breaking rule E60. This rule is about adjusting your allowable losses by £22m for playing in the err Championship.....

Digging Deeper into the Charges Against City - Man City Stuff

City's allowable losses reduced because they are a Football League Club! In this post, I will look at the actual charges against City. What I didn't realise before I started going through this was how contrived and how full of bulls**t these charges actualy are. This will soon become...
mancitystuff.co.uk

Click to expand...
Great read. Not sure if you’ve covered it elsewhere but those you’ve removed due to them effectively being time barred is there merit to those charges IF they weren’t?

That always seems to be something thrown at us a lot around the fact some we’ve ’got away with’ because they’ve charged us too late (both PL and UEFA).
 
Paladin said:
When we are exonerated, I'm looking forward to the discussions with Liverpool fans, who of all people should join with us in celebrating the defeat of a potential miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...
Well, let's face it Paladin, there's no group of people better at expressing outrage and mounting campaigns against injustice than our Merseyside chums! I have no doubt you're right.
; )
 
Last edited:
swintonjamie said:
Great read. Not sure if you’ve covered it elsewhere but those you’ve removed due to them effectively being time barred is there merit to those charges IF they weren’t?

That always seems to be something thrown at us a lot around the fact some we’ve ’got away with’ because they’ve charged us too late (both PL and UEFA).
Click to expand...
I don't think so to be honest. I thought I'd convered it in another post.

The first allegation is that ADUG (the company that owns the City Football Group) settled sponsorship invoices for Etisalat & Etihad and this is therefore an artificial injection of cash. This is despite the fact these two sponsors subsequently reimbursed ADUG.

There are at least two plausible reasons why this might have happened that I can think of, there are probably more. Both sponsors are state owned, funded and loss making organisations.

1)
Both sponsors trade in UAE currency, the Dirham, which I think is tied to the US Dollar. In large international currency payments, it is common to agree to purchase currency in advance off a third party to fix the exchange rate. Otherwise a sponsorship deal worth £50m could cost you anything from $50-$70m. Anyone who has ever bought property abroad in France or Spain will have done this. It could be ADUG stepped in and provided this service.

2)
They're both state funded. Whether they get a dollop of cash once a year, every six months or every quarter, it might have been that £50m didn't coincide well with their funding cycle. This could have meant settling the City bill late. A knock on effect would be that City then couldn't settle their bills by June 30th (I think all transfer payments due have to be paid by then). So ADUG just stepped in with a short term loan to fund the gap. This isn't just in City's interest to do so, but in the interest of the clubs they owe money to.

The second allegation is about image rights payments to.players and additional payments to Mancini via third parties. Neither seem to have much merit and are not out of line with what other clubs are doing.

So I can't see why there would be any reason to uphold any of those charges.

I'm sure I'd done a post on this, maybe it's just in my head!!! If not I'll write and add it next week.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
Noted & fully understood.

However what about the 'lost opportunity impact'...
ie... 'how much better could somethings have been'.

Our owners wouldn't want an all out boots on the ground war. However an SAS /Snipers approach could've taken out some of the ring leaders and put the shits up the others.

When we are found not guilty, but materially damaged, I hope the club takes the most punitive action against those who have wronged us particularly if it publicly ruins them.

IMO....the rags can only improve from their incompetent low base of the last decade, which for me means that we should damage them and others as much as we can whilst we can.

The opportunity may not arise again.

Do things when you can, not when you must !!
Click to expand...
I think Masters is the weak link here. If the verdict goes our way then we need to try and get him to flip and spill the beans as to exactly who was driving this all along. Maybe a trade-off insofar as telling him we won’t go after him if he coughs up the info.

I know that’s probably all wishful thinking on my part but it would be hilarious if it happened!
 
TedofChume said:
I don't think so to be honest. I thought I'd convered it in another post.

The first allegation is that ADUG (the company that owns the City Football Group) settled sponsorship invoices for Etisalat & Etihad and this is therefore an artificial injection of cash. This is despite the fact these two sponsors subsequently reimbursed ADUG.

There are at least two plausible reasons why this might have happened that I can think of, there are probably more. Both sponsors are state owned, funded and loss making organisations.

1)
Both sponsors trade in UAE currency, the Dirham, which I think is tied to the US Dollar. In large international currency payments, it is common to agree to purchase currency in advance off a third party to fix the exchange rate. Otherwise a sponsorship deal worth £50m could cost you anything from $50-$70m. Anyone who has ever bought property abroad in France or Spain will have done this. It could be ADUG stepped in and provided this service.

2)
They're both state funded. Whether they get a dollop of cash once a year, every six months or every quarter, it might have been that £50m didn't coincide well with their funding cycle. This could have meant settling the City bill late. A knock on effect would be that City then couldn't settle their bills by June 30th (I think all transfer payments due have to be paid by then). So ADUG just stepped in with a short term loan to fund the gap. This isn't just in City's interest to do so, but in the interest of the clubs they owe money to.

The second allegation is about image rights payments to.players and additional payments to Mancini via third parties. Neither seem to have much merit and are not out of line with what other clubs are doing.

So I can't see why there would be any reason to uphold any of those charges.

I'm sure I'd done a post on this, maybe it's just in my head!!! If not I'll write and add it next week.
Click to expand...
Awesome thanks for that, very insightful
 
M18CTID said:
I think Masters is the weak link here. If the verdict goes our way then we need to try and get him to flip and spill the beans as to exactly who was driving this all along. Maybe a trade-off insofar as telling him we won’t go after him if he coughs up the info.

I know that’s probably all wishful thinking on my part but it would be hilarious if it happened!
Click to expand...
khaldoon will know and already hinted at end of season speaches he knows full well who's behind it all
 
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.