PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Cheers for this.

We are 7th and main argument why those others are above us is they are a plc why that is a positive don't know? They say that it's because they are more open to scrutinise!? How? No one knows what's happening in the Cayman Islands.
That's a good point. They clearly give a big weighting to PLC clubs on the 'Good Governance' part of the index because, as they put it, they have a legal requirement for 'Good Governance'. But they also say: Good Governance draws on 55 different metrics and covers areas such as board structure, accountability and transparency. They do note United, Spurs and Celtic have a significant fan presence on their boards, so maybe that adds to the supposed 'transparency' but I don't think Spurs or United fans think the way their clubs are run is transparent.

I'm not sure the PLC status is all that indicative of good governance either personally(though I'm no expert). Or how United ended up with such as high Financial Sustainability score given their debt, wages, netspend and so on. United fans themselves have been complaining for many years about how poorly the club has been ran, how wasteful they have been, the board structure and ownership has been refreshed exactly because it wasn't considered good.

United and their fans use the PLC card way to often, more recently they were using it to explain why they got way more exceptions approved for PSR by the PL. "Because we are more honest, open and transparent and clubs like Everton aren't, that's why we got everything we wanted and they didn't". Which sounds like bullshit, how would they know how transparent Everton or Forest were being with the exceptions they asked for? UEFA denied United all the exceptions they asked for their part, but we are supposed to believe the PL were justified and move on, nothing to see because United released a PR statement...

I've read business insider articles suggesting their corporate structure is that the brand is based in the Cayman Islands and the club itself is a shell corporation.

50256a55eab8ea302a000000
 
Last edited:
Seems well researched and sensible but the outcome just seems daft on the financial and governance side of things

Yes, I know the source, but it's just as valuable as the original .....

 
Magic Hat

latest .

"If anyone can provide a plausible argument for the existence of these emails other than for the subversion of the rules, I will delete ALL my threads on Man City’s 115. Every single one."
How about, City have to show an accurate and a clear view of the accounts or UEFA/the PL might jump to the wrong conclusions. Hence why there was some back and forth when certain things were unclear or up in the air over in Abu Dhabi(while the Etihad contract was still being finalised for example). If one side of the conversation was over in Abu Dhabi, I imagine they'd have more access to information from these companies directly than someone who wasn't too, if necessary. All that really matters, is neither ADUG or Sheikh Mansour funded any of the sponsorships in question. Magic Hat is still mistakenly working from an assumption on their part, that there is only one interpretation of what is being said in those emails.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I know the source, but it's just as valuable as the original .....


What’s the purpose of fair game as a business? Every bit of research is normally biased by the sponsor.

City with no debt modern stadium, being upgraded in an entertainment precinct in champions league & club World Cup competitions isn’t considered as good as the Rags that not only have debt but cannot afford to develop their ground. Their only chance is to get money from a government that has an empty pot all caused by being a PLC.
 

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.