PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[silva_is_gold]

 

[ancoats]

As a matter of interest, how much allowance did City get for Covid?

I think Stefan said all clubs got around £1million in allowances, Everton's Punishment Statement involved them pleading to the Premier League for more allowances because of Covid, But they turned Everton's plea down ?

 

[ancoats]

We did not need it believe. Tjink it was us and one kther club that still made profit.

Nope
City made a loss of around £109 million or something like that

 

[ancoats]

Apparently one million each for the other clubs, so united got more than the rest of the other clubs combined! wtf!

Also, claiming back £35million of the shares sold to JIM instead of the Glazers paying it ???

We all know United Fudge the Books and have been doing so for years, that's why they create a smoke screen in the media and claim City are cheats, The Biggest Cheaters point the finger at somebody else to deflect what really going on at their club

 

[silva_is_gold]

Also, claiming back £35million of the shares sold to JIM instead of the Glazers paying it ???

We all know United Fudge the Books and have been doing so for years, that's why they create a smoke screen in the media and claim City are cheats, The Biggest Cheaters point the finger at somebody else to deflect what really going on at their club

That last paragraph is very very true mate!

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think Stefan said all clubs got around £1million in allowances, Everton's Punishment Statement involved them pleading to the Premier League for more allowances because of Covid, But they turned Everton's plea down ?

United was the only club to (conveniently) claim substantial losses in 22/23 for COVID. Some other clubs did, but they were small, around 1 million each, iirc. UEFA didn't fall for it, but it seems the PL did. What a surprise.

United told Maguire the 22/23 losses included an amount for bad debts on sponsorship, which Everton tried to claim for following the Russia sanctions, but the PL disallowed them (Russia/COVID are two different things, after all). They also said the losses included the impact of TV rebates from UEFA/PL, but everyone else accounted for those in 21/22 apparently. Does smell a bit bullshitty, though.

The Glazer/Ratcliffe legal costs shouldn't really have been included in the accounts (it seems to me), but if they are I think they can be legitimately excluded as non-sporting expenses. Not sure it's in the rules, but makes sense. Common sense doesn't come into the equation with City, though.

 

[KS55]

United was the only club to (conveniently) claim substantial losses in 22/23 for COVID. Some other clubs did, but they were small, around 1 million each, iirc. UEFA didn't fall for it, but it seems the PL did. What a surprise.

United told Maguire the 22/23 losses included an amount for bad debts on sponsorship, which Everton tried to claim for following the Russia sanctions, but the PL disallowed them (Russia/COVID are two different things, after all). They also said the losses included the impact of TV rebates from UEFA/PL, but everyone else accounted for those in 21/22 apparently. Does smell a bit bullshitty, though.

The Glazer/Ratcliffe legal costs shouldn't really have been included in the accounts (it seems to me), but if they are I think they can be legitimately excluded as non-sporting expenses. Not sure it's in the rules, but makes sense. Common sense doesn't come into the equation with City, though.

City’s defence at UEFA and CAS was paid for by CFG. I don’t know whether the club accounted for that, but I would be wary of pointing fingers at others re legal costs.

 

[halfcenturyup]

City’s defence at UEFA and CAS was paid for by CFG. I don’t know whether the club accounted for that, but I would be wary of pointing fingers at others re legal costs.

You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.

 

[mancboy]

You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.

I think the bigger concern is if this is what has come out and is available to everyone to see and still ignored imagine what has been buried that we cant see, i can see this coming to a head and quickly.

 

[give it to gordon]

Do we even think any action will be taken against rags ?


Of course not them and the dippers are teflon