PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[I'm Blue]

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.

It was more said in jest but I wouldn’t be shocked if they tried again in some way.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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

I'll try.

FFP was originally introduced in 2010, to take effect for the first time from 2011/12. But clubs were concerned that player contracts entered into prior to 2010 could impact their FFP assessment even though they were unaware of the FFP rules at the time. UEFA therefore introduced a temporary rule that, in principle, clubs failing FFP in the initial two assessment periods wouldn't be sanctioned if they could show that their failure was solely a result of wages paid under contracts signed prior to June 2010.

As part of that arrangement, they set out in their FFP toolkit, which clubs had to follow, how to work out whether that was the case or not. The first assessment period covered 2011/12 and 2012/13 and there were three parts to the test, all of which had to be met to claim mitigation. One of those three related solely to the 2011/12 season and if you couldn't meet that, then you couldn't claim that mitigation, regardless of your financial results in 2012/13.

The initial test for 2011/12 was quite complicated, more than it needed to be, but we passed it and therefore could go on to test the other two conditions. I worked out at the time that we needed to show losses under £55m in 2012/13 to fully comply with the three tests. Thanks to the £24.5m from Fordham, we looked like we'd done that but for 2012/13, UEFA changed the part of the test that applied solely to 2011/12 just after we published our 2011/12 accounts, but that was in March or April 2013, well after our June 2012 year-end, so there was nothing we could do.

The revised test was actually much simpler and more logical, involving (if I remember correctly) simply deducting the applicable wage total from the net loss and seeing if the adjusted figure was a net profit. If it was, you were OK. However we were now on the wrong side of it compared to the original test and therefore couldn't claim mitigation.

Khaldoon mentioned in his statement, after it was revealed we'd failed FFP and were being sanctioned, the the issue was about the treatment of those pre-June 2010 wages. That's what made me go back and check the relevant rules, which is how I saw there'd been a change and was able to work out, based on the figures I had, that it was only a matter of £2-3m either way but on the new test we were the wrong side.

You can argue about the motive or morality of changing something after the chance to comply had passed by a few months. I compared it to driving on a road that had a 30mph limit on Friday, staying within the speed limit but then being told you were being prosecuted because they'd changed it to 20mph on Saturday. If we'd taken UEFA to court, I suspect that's the sort of argument we'd have used (although in a rather more sophisticated way).

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

@Prestwich_Blue is too modest to mention it, but this is a blog post he wrote about it in 2018 in absolute detail:

https://boltfromtheblue.live/2018/11/18/how-uefa-shifted-the-goalposts-to-shaft-man-city/

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Do not agree Fordham was more like Barcelona pulling leavers we sold image rights for an up front large lump sum to avoid loses paid more (more tax) in exchange for no or less income in future as they where in the hands of an outside company

That was my understanding too, and I think what PrestwichBlue said.

It got a one-off payment of 25m (or so) which went into income. I think the issue was mostly because Fordham was also an ADUG company (I may have the wrong name there - certainly something to do with the owners), and would it therefore count as owner investment.

It certainly wasn't being hidden as to what was happening.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Have none of the other, what is it 4 now, clubs that have been given points deductions been charged with non-cooperation? Is it just us that have been uncooperative?

I don't however see how if it sticks, that charge can carry a sporting penalty. Do you get a sporting advantage by a lack of cooperation?

But they haven't not cooperated.

The club FFP/PSR things are easy:
Club: Here are our accounts. We lost X. We claim Y as allowances, meaning an FFP loss of Z.
PL: We'll let you have some of Y, but not all. You've overspent.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

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.

I recall someone saying that the PL regs allow them to demand any document they want.
It seems likely that the club would push back on demands for things that the club think were unrelated to the issues at hand.

That would theoretically be non-cooperation with the PL regs.

 

[bluemanchester]

I recall someone saying that the PL regs allow them to demand any document they want.
It seems likely that the club would push back on demands for things that the club think were unrelated to the issues at hand.

That would theoretically be non-cooperation with the PL regs.

In other words a fishing trip.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Tolm will have the **** on toast.

And I did, within three posts and then fucked him off and told him to stick to blogging.

Especially enjoyed, when he backtracked by trying to qualify what he actually meant by the Premier League NOW throwing all their resources at it, bankrolling the Independent Commission.

When it was kicked upstairs last year and has zero influence on the panel.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

@tolmie's hairdoo is the leak good, bad or indifferent news?

You didn't offer Bullshit as an option? Do people really think a claim like this isn't checked out by top journalists desperate to pass it off as their own exclusive, or covering their arses with their own desks.

And he gave it away for free on Twitter!

 

[ganganvince]

You didn't offer Bullshit as an option? Do people really think a claim like this isn't checked out by top journalists desperate to pass it off as their own exclusive, or covering their arses with their own desks.

And he gave it away for free on Twitter!

Sorry I meant the leak you referred to in your answer on twitter