PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Jack Hackett said:
A question. When it comes to the financing of football clubs, other than commercial revenue, what is more acceptable, third party debt (like Man Utd) or quasi equity (like Chelsea)? If City have been funded by inflated sponsorship deals routed through Abu Dhabi backed companies, surely the effect is the same in terms of generating funds. Or am I being a bit thick?
Click to expand...
Tell it to your board Jack. I appreciate you are a fair minded and decent poster, but your board have been leaders against us for the best part of a decade (and I am sure you will agree, Piers Morgan is a ****)
 
uwe rosler 28 said:
I'd say city feel they have cooperated as much as they need to and can. Its up to the league to prove we haven't. Again I'd say that it's all to do with these payments to players and managers from outside city. Something we would never cooperate with as it would show our guilt ( If true)
Click to expand...

The Premier League proving City didn't cooperate is as simple as an email asking for some information and the club responding no (or not responding), it's incredibly easy.

Part of the PL rules is fully cooperating with any investigation, so the amount City needed to, was as much as the PL wanted.

Like I said, not cooperating means you've decided it's better to be (correctly) charged and punished for that offence rather than give them what they want.
 
My belief is this is pretty well about Fordham and Mancini's Al Jazira contract. The latter is immaterial and at the very worst, even assuming it's not time-barred, might result in a fine if the independent commission feel it's out of order.

Fordham is more difficult to call. They were originally Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) and a club subsidiary. The were incorporated in May 2012 and appear to have stopped trading in 2018. They're currently being liquidated. Our wage vill shot up in 2019, from £260m to £315m, which while not absolutely conclusive, suggests that we started paying image rights via Manchester City Football Club then. Or it could be related to bringing one of the other subsidiaries (Manchester City Football Services) back into the main accounts.

Whatever the legalities of Fordham, we must have taken expert advice and there was a clear trail from Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) to Fordham Sports Image Rights. Our auditors must have been aware of this and presumably would have asked the relevant questions. Assuming they did, had they not been happy they'd have walked away and/or qualified the accounts. They didn't so we must presume they were happy with the answers given.

Also, the Fordham situation was revealed by Der Spiegel iirc, or was publicised somewhere else, so it's hardly been a secret.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
It won't be allowed to go quickly, that's the issue.

It's a win-win for the Premier League and the lobbying clubs.

It's a guilty verdict in the first instance, barring City having a strong set of recordings or emails showing this is a witch hunt and irrefutable.

At the very least, they and our rivals know we would appeal until which time we exhaust every avenue up to the High Court.

In the interim, it materially damages us both on and off the pitch. Players we are interested in might look elsewhere, players we have, might demand to move elsewhere.

Commercially, we would be off limits to pretty much everyone but our Abu Dhabi partners.

The timing also conveniently addresses the white paper delay and comes as we still battle for three trophies.

We win something, it is further smeared.

We don't win anything, it has also played its part.

It would be a transfer ban in all but name and clubs such as Chelsea and Arsenal can crack on, while United and Liverpool become more attractive to investors because City's competitiveness is diminished.

Clear and orchestrated, which is why at the very least, it will be medium to short term pain until we clear our name.

We will lose the battle but win the war. Perhaps our rivals are more than comfortable with that.
Click to expand...

Interesting post mate and likely to be very accurate.

It surely wouldn't be in the PL's own interest to have to strip titles and relegate us. That would be incredibly bad for their brand all ove the world. Serious questions would be asked about how it was allowed to go on for so long.

But a fine, suspended points deduction and or out of court settlement (assuming City would agree) would definitely suit them. As you say, in the meantime it destabilises City. Potentially unsettles Pep and you can't blame potential transfer targets for wanting to distance themselves until there is an outcome. If we do get hit with the harshest of penalties some of our players may well want to move away. Like you say, it's a transfer ban by default.

I was pretty disheartened yesterday, but the more I've read up on it the more I want the club to come out swinging and the statement yesterday implies they will.
 
Last edited:
OrigamiNinja said:
I think there is a level of inevitability about it. Does anyone one really see this PL appointed independent panel finding in our favour?
Click to expand...
Are you sure the independent panel is going to be PL-appointed? Genuine question, not having a go. I can’t understand how our accusers could be allowed to hand pick those responsible for determining our fate?
 
KPXBLN said:
the point seemed to be that FFP is fundamentally illegitimate and therefore effectively that there's nothing wrong with being accused of breaching it - which makes the reference to a hypothetical allegation of paedophilia extremely bizarre, like I said.

Analogy aside, if the OP's trying to make a more general claim that fans have an obligation not to discuss the possible implications of charges made against the club, then I'm afraid I disagree.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Apart from the analogy which I don't care about.
 
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.