PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Coatigan]

Speculation only: I still don’t really understand why we gave them nothing beyond 2018; perhaps for this reason?

I assume because the investigation was for the der spiegel allegations. It opened when uefa opened theirs, and once cas concluded it, there was no logic in the PL just carrying on investigating every year thereafter indefinitely.

It was a fair stance imo. They will argue that's failure to cooperate, but the club would probably argue the need to cooperate beyond what was being investigated, without a definitive end in sight.

 

[WRicko]

You're on the right lines I believe. Fordham was about bringing revenue in via an up-front lump sum, rather than tax avoidance, and my view is that was done to try to help us avoid sanction under FFP.

Although we knew we were going to fail, the Annex XI provision about pre-2010 wages gave us a get-out if we could show that these wages were the sole reason for our losses. Knowing what those allowable wages were, we knew what the maximum allowable loss was, and the Fordham payment was (in my view) a device to help us achieve that.

Of course, as we now know, UEFA made a change to the method of calculation about those wages and how they could be applied, which made us fall just outside the maximum allowable loss. I suspect that we probably wouldn't have bothered with the Fordham arrangement had we known the way it would play out but it was too late once we did know.

Image rights are certainly a device to minimise tax payments, by paying a player's company for the use of their image. The tax burden then falls on the player's company, rather than the club. If the club pays a player £100k a week, with no image rights, the club will pay tax & NI on that full £100k. By paying £90k in salary and £10k in images rights, the club reduces its tax & NI liability by £10k. HMRC's rule of thumb is that, under normal circumstances, 10% of a player's remuneration is acceptable. I suspect the disputes with the likes of united and Newcastle are over the amounts paid, and therefore their tax liability.

I have never really understood the change that was made it never made any sense to me can you please explain

 

[Coatigan]

I think it's more likely they didn't ask for information post 2018. God knows why, though .....

On the other hand, if I was really trying to understand anything the PL was doing, I would be going crazy.

If they didn't, how can they then charge for non-cooperation after 2018?

Unless I'm misunderstanding surely it's because the investigation started then?

As above, then there can be no 5th (group) charge, really. They must have asked and not bren given, for that to have any chance of sticking.

I thought ii) was obvious but that may just be me ;)

They'd have been having to amend the charges year on year otherwise which is why I do have a slight concern on what happens with 2018 onwards if we are found guilty of anything besides non-cooperation.

Surely if we are found guilty of non-cooperation beyond 2018, that in itself also opens up the prospect of further investigation into the period after that. It is a mess either way.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I thought ii) was obvious but that may just be me ;)

They'd have been having to amend the charges year on year otherwise which is why I do have a slight concern on what happens with 2018 onwards if we are found guilty of anything besides non-cooperation.

They could have investigated all periods until the allegations were referred to the disciplinary panel.

When I was involved with these things, we always looked at everything to do with the matter being investigated as close to the report date as possible. For two reasons: first, stopping and starting investigations is time consuming and administratively difficult. Once you are "in the door", you don't want to leave before you have to; secondly, you may find something in the last year, month or week that either brings to light some malfeasance or provides some additional evidence of the suspected malpractice.

All imho, of course.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If they didn't, how can they then charge for non-cooperation after 2018?

The investigation started in 2018 and finished in 2023. They are saying the club didn't fully comply at any stage of the investigation (there was no investigation before 2018 not to have complied with ....)

As above, then there can be no 5th (group) charge, really. They must have asked and not bren given, for that to have any chance of sticking.

The PL can believe that they had a right under the rules to some information that wasn't provided (ie non-cooperation) at the same time as the club thinks it has provided all the information that it is required to by the rules (ie fully complied).

Surely if we are found guilty of non-cooperation beyond 2018, that in itself also opens up the prospect of further investigation into the period after that. It is a mess either way.

We can agree it's a mess, and yes, if any of the pre-2018 allegations are proven, they could look at the additional years through to the current year whether the non-cooperation allegation sticks or not.

All imho.

 

[Coatigan]

The investigation started in 2018 and finished in 2023. They are saying the club didn't fully comply at any stage of the investigation (there was no investigation before 2018 not to have complied with ....)



The PL can believe that they had a right under the rules to some information that wasn't provided (ie non-cooperation) at the same time as the club thinks it has provided all the information that it is required to by the rules (ie fully complied).



We can agree it's a mess, and yes, if any of the pre-2018 allegations are proven, they could look at the additional years through to the current year whether the non-cooperation allegation sticks or not.

All imho.

That makes sense. The non cooperation charge is for the whole period of the investigation. But from what has been written so far, that view seems based on the club not providing accounts beyond 2018. They would argue they cooperated fully with accounts up to that point, the PL will argue they didn't, because they didn't provide all accounts asked for. That at least seems to be one theory, could be to do with the extent as much as the time period, and as you keep saying, third party information.

 

[Centurions]

That makes sense. The non cooperation charge is for the whole period of the investigation. But from what has been written so far, that view seems based on the club not providing accounts beyond 2018. They would argue they cooperated fully with accounts up to that point, the PL will argue they didn't, because they didn't provide all accounts asked for. That at least seems to be one theory, could be to do with the extent as much as the time period, and as you keep saying, third party information.

Ahh, now I can see why I'm not understanding some posts :(

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

Cheers to the blues who have a scooby doo about all of this and for giving us valuable insight.
We won't get it from the media so thank-you

 

[I'm Blue]

I think it's more likely they didn't ask for information post 2018. God knows why, though .....

On the other hand, if I was really trying to understand anything the PL was doing, I would be going crazy.

Probably so they can charge us again when they fail with the first 115 charges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Probably so they can charge us again when they fail with the first 115 charges.

Naah. The only allegations which relate to matters continuing after 2018 are those relating to sponsorship and if they can't prove those for the years 2009-2018 (which, in my very strong opinion they won't be able to) they won't have a reason to look further.