PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Cityfan1977 said:
@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue

I am trying to simplify this in my head.
Is my understanding correct that the PL charges are same/similer as the UEFA charges regarding Etihad and Etisalet.
plus Yaya image rights issue and Mancini under the table payments ?
Click to expand...
We don't know for sure about the sponsorship-related ones, but the Mancini contract and the image rights payments generally (via Fordham) are definitely on the table. Those latter weren't brought by UEFA but they definitely knew about Fordham, as they supposedly spoke to us about this in 2015.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
We don't know for sure about the sponsorship-related ones, but the Mancini contract and the image rights payments generally (via Fordham) are definitely on the table. Those latter weren't brought by UEFA but they definitely knew about Fordham, as they supposedly spoke to us about this in 2015.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, isn't it. We don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are.

It's likely the most serious allegations about sponsorship income relate to more than just Etihad and Etisalat and, certainly, for more years with more "evidence" in terms of emails and, possibly, other correspondence.

Then, as you say, they seem to have Mancini, Touré and Fordham on top. And maybe ownership and related party / fair value issues as well. My only concern, really, is if Mansour really did underwrite Fordham's losses - that could be a big number, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon when he says he is confident. It would be a big porkie to claim irrefutable evidence if he knew they were in the wrong.

And, of course, there are different rules on time limitation which may, or may not, come into play.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's the thing, isn't it. We don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are.

It's likely the most serious allegations about sponsorship income relate to more than just Etihad and Etisalat and, certainly, for more years with more "evidence" in terms of emails and, possibly, other correspondence.

Then, as you say, they seem to have Mancini, Touré and Fordham on top. And maybe ownership and related party / fair value issues as well. My only concern, really, is if Mansour really did underwrite Fordham's losses - that could be a big number, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon when he says he is confident. It would be a big porkie to claim irrefutable evidence if he knew they were in the wrong.

And, of course, there are different rules on time limitation which may, or may not, come into play.
Click to expand...
ADUG absolutely did underwrite Fordham's losses but I doubt that's the issue here. That's probably whether we showed those Fordham payments as player income in our FFP submissions to the PL/UEFA or whether we left those out. Given that UEFA didn't charge us over these, I'm tempted to suggest that it was just the fact they were paid through a third party. And we know why that arrangement was originally set up.

I'm less convinced that the sponsorship charges are quite as serious as has been made out. I'm more of the opinion that these are more to do with the related parties issue, although the disguised equity investment issue may play a part. But that was dismissed by CAS and I'd be very surprised if the PL got a different outcome. All this is why I'm convinced these charges are more about the optics than serious financial issues.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
ADUG absolutely did underwrite Fordham's losses but I doubt that's the issue here. That's probably whether we showed those Fordham payments as player income in our FFP submissions to the PL/UEFA or whether we left those out. Given that UEFA didn't charge us over these, I'm tempted to suggest that it was just the fact they were paid through a third party. And we know why that arrangement was originally set up.

I'm less convinced that the sponsorship charges are quite as serious as has been made out. I'm more of the opinion that these are more to do with the related parties issue, although the disguised equity investment issue may play a part. But that was dismissed by CAS and I'd be very surprised if the PL got a different outcome. All this is why I'm convinced these charges are more about the optics than serious financial issues.
Click to expand...
Fully agree with the last sentence. The media and legal minds have created a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.

The black mark has worked to an extent. The serious issues are cloaked with innuendos which has allowed this sham to play out for so long which as you have alluded to many times is the main aim.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's the thing, isn't it. We don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are.

It's likely the most serious allegations about sponsorship income relate to more than just Etihad and Etisalat and, certainly, for more years with more "evidence" in terms of emails and, possibly, other correspondence.

Then, as you say, they seem to have Mancini, Touré and Fordham on top. And maybe ownership and related party / fair value issues as well. My only concern, really, is if Mansour really did underwrite Fordham's losses - that could be a big number, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon when he says he is confident. It would be a big porkie to claim irrefutable evidence if he knew they were in the wrong.

And, of course, there are different rules on time limitation which may, or may not, come into play.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can be so confident we are proven innocent when you admit "we don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are"
 
Cityfan1977 said:
@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue

I am trying to simplify this in my head.
Is my understanding correct that the PL charges are same/similer as the UEFA charges regarding Etihad and Etisalet.
plus Yaya image rights issue and Mancini under the table payments ?
Click to expand...
We don’t know for sure but broadly yes although a wider set of charges relating to a lengthier time period.

Although there could be limitation arguments here a) it’s probably moot either way as PL would argue the matters were concealed b) it’s not entirely clear how limitation fits into disciplinary cases (like this) vs arbitration cases (under rule X).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez
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