PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Norbiton said:
It seems that some of UEFA’s concerns, eg Fordham, only came about because City wrongly believed, apparently with UEFA’s initial acceptance, that they had passed the 2011/12 requirements and were trying to find ways to meet the 2012/13 ones too. So the changes to the toolkit may well have had a significant impact
Click to expand...

Possibly, but the Fordham and CFG IP sales stuck out like a sore thumb, they weren't going to be missed and could have been dismissed as "levers" and, again to be brutally honest, some of the minor AD sponsorships were pretty generous and could have been scaled down by the couple of million needed, even before we consider the disputed inclusion of amortisation in the pre-2010 squad costs that UEFA didn't like. I think it was a fair cop, tbh.

And the settlement was pretty good. Some small inconveniences, a bit of money but closure of the IP, Fordham, fair value and related party issues once and for all (with UEFA at least).
 
halfcenturyup said:
Tbf to UEFA, and before people start frothing at the mouth about the injustice of it all, I feel I should point out:

i) The actual wording of the rule in respect of pre-2010 squad costs supported the method used in the 2012/13 toolkit, iirc. So, while we may have been screwed by the toolkit change in 2012/13, UEFA did have a defence against that, to some degree.

ii) This change in the toolkit, wasn't the only reason why, in the eyes of UEFA, the club failed FFP. They also raised a significant number of objections to some of the accounting treatments used by the club, including the inclusion of amortisation in the pre-2010 squad cost calculation (not just wages as UEFA wanted). Others were the revenue from Fordham, the revenue from the sale of IP to CFG and the fair value of AD sponsorships, any of which could have led to an adjustment of just the few million required to push the club into a breach.

My point being UEFA had plenty of other strings to their bow to push the club over the loss limit so that the pre-2010 squad costs would become irrelevant. So, it was as much in the club's interests to settle, maybe more than UEFA's, and then to claim the dispute was just about the pre-2010 squad costs. When, actually, it most likely wasn't.
Click to expand...
Aha, now I understand why we “Took a pinch.” Thanks.
 
LesBleuMiserable said:
Said Striker repeatedly played in 115 games, hence charge?
Click to expand...
It is alleged there were several of them all unknown to the PL.

Investigations have been underway for some time as to their ID.

"This is why the case has taken so long to reach a conclusion",stated Master Bates, a spokesman for the PL .
 
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.