PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Christ on a bike, went to have a look and all the first FI videos were Wyness telling us (apparently) how fucked we are. Then SB's video is titled "From what I hear .... SB drops huge update", then he does no such thing. And the video keeps cutting away to random videos presumably generated automatically meant to support the chat. What a fucking mess.

I'll stay on here in future.
Click to expand...
anybody that starts a sentence with from what i hear should be immediately kicked in the bollocks
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The problem is that "utterly hysterical media coverage" has become the generally accepted "truth" and very few, if any, sensible conversations seem to be taking place publicly, bar on here.

We absolutely enhanced our revenue at some point, particularly with the sale of IP back in 2012/13. That involved selling image rights to Fordham and the setting up of the two subsidiaries City Football Services and City Football Marketing, to whom we also sold IP. That was purely to try to mitigate anticipated losses to enable us to meet the Annex XI transitional arrangement and avoid sanction. UEFA closed that route by (a) excluding intra-group transfers from allowable revenue and (b) widening the 'reporting perimeter' to include companies like CFS and CFM.

Those transactions could be seen as opportunistic, maybe even a bit sharp, but there was nothing illegal and didn't actually break any rules. That's what loopholes are, after all and it's very similar to Chelsea's sale of their hotel to their holding company.

We've also leveraged the owner's position in the ruling family to bring on sponsorships from Abu Dhabi-based companies, or those that have business relationships there. My understanding of the Hays sponsorship was that it was effectively a quid-pro-quo for them getting the exclusive contract to manage recruitment at the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. I think there's a relationship or joint-venture with Nexen Tyre. Nothing wrong with these, assuming they're done at fair market value.

The allegations, as we've talked about on here ad nauseam, appear to involve:
(a) claiming revenue that's deemed to be equity investment,
(b) not declaring expenses (namely player & manager remuneration) that we should have, namely some players' image rights and Mancini's contract with Al Jazira.

But no one in the media appears to be linking (a) to the CAS case or has questioned why the PL has brought these charges in light of the pretty comprehensive and detailed evidence presented to support the outcome at CAS. And it's clear that even in the worst case outcome in (b) that the impact on meeting FFP/PSR will almost certainly not make a difference to us passing FFP and certainly not to us passing PSR.

These are the elements for what I'd describe as a 'sensible conversation'.
Click to expand...

This post replied to and added to an earlier one of mine, and I agree with your response in its entirety. I remember writing, more than a decade ago now, a detailed explanation of the cost sharing arrangement that was at the root of MCFC disposing of various intellectual property assets to a CFG company, which would then make those assets available group-wide. Now, the one-off receipt of income that went straight on the P&L was undoubtedly rather convenient at the time, but we could point to sound commercial reasons for taking such a step.

City at the time were just embarking on the CFG idea and, in taking the step we did, adopted an approach commonly used by multinational companies (the alternative would have been for City to keep the IP and licence it on an ad hoc basis as appropriate). For City at the time, our fellow group members had, in the case of NYCFC, no income at that stage, or in the case of Melbourne were heavily loss making. Better, then, for City to dispose of the IP for a single lump sum than to licence it to sister entities who'd struggle to meet the licence payments. If we'd sought to litigate back then to challenge UEFA as to the validity of that transaction, we might well have won.

I don't know any detail about the Chelsea hotel or women's team transactions, so I can't comment on those. I note that the PL approved Villa's sale of their stadium to their owners for GBP 56.7 mln when they were still in the Championship. I assume it hasn't yet been sold back. I do hope that the PL checked, before giving its approval, that the owners would make their outlay back within a reasonable period from rent, revenue from the concerts that the ground has been hosting in recent years and so on.

When I spoke about "utterly hysterical media coverage", I was referring to widespread coverage at the time of the CFG IP arrangements as being akin to fraud, which anyone who understands the working of a multinational group could easily refute. There doesn't seem to be any similar desperation to proclaim guilt in other cases of ostensible sales to oneself, even when the transactions seem on their face to have a rather flimsier basis than did ours.

And so we get to the point where the self-proclaimed superior journalistic outlet runs a prominent story in which our guilt is assumed, with various unnamed but extremely distinguished football figures call for punishments that they hope will finish our club once and for all as a top-level contender. Yet the main accusation against us is that we funded the bulk of the fee under a sponsorship contract that we genuinely performed and UEFA plus its specialist advisers accepted was at a fair value. Our fanbase is told that our club deserves destruction for that, yet Villa can sell their stadium to themselves with no comeback.

Yes, of course we've indulged in some sharp practice and we've certainly made use of Khaldoon's contacts book (you can add Nissan and one or two others to Hays and Nexen in that regard). But our rivals are out to stop us because we're such a threat. If any other club were accused of doing what they say we have with the Etihad sponsorship, there's no way anyone would be talking about penalties even remotely resembling those people are mooting for us.
 
petrusha said:
This post replied to and added to an earlier one of mine, and I agree with your response in its entirety. I remember writing, more than a decade ago now, a detailed explanation of the cost sharing arrangement that was at the root of MCFC disposing of various intellectual property assets to a CFG company, which would then make those assets available group-wide. Now, the one-off receipt of income that went straight on the P&L was undoubtedly rather convenient at the time, but we could point to sound commercial reasons for taking such a step.

City at the time were just embarking on the CFG idea and, in taking the step we did, adopted an approach commonly used by multinational companies (the alternative would have been for City to keep the IP and licence it on an ad hoc basis as appropriate). For City at the time, our fellow group members had, in the case of NYCFC, no income at that stage, or in the case of Melbourne were heavily loss making. Better, then, for City to dispose of the IP for a single lump sum than to licence it to sister entities who'd struggle to meet the licence payments. If we'd sought to litigate back then to challenge UEFA as to the validity of that transaction, we might well have won.

I don't know any detail about the Chelsea hotel or women's team transactions, so I can't comment on those. I note that the PL approved Villa's sale of their stadium to their owners for GBP 56.7 mln when they were still in the Championship. I assume it hasn't yet been sold back. I do hope that the PL checked, before giving its approval, that the owners would make their outlay back within a reasonable period from rent, revenue from the concerts that the ground has been hosting in recent years and so on.

When I spoke about "utterly hysterical media coverage", I was referring to widespread coverage at the time of the CFG IP arrangements as being akin to fraud, which anyone who understands the working of a multinational group could easily refute. There doesn't seem to be any similar desperation to proclaim guilt in other cases of ostensible sales to oneself, even when the transactions seem on their face to have a rather flimsier basis than did ours.

And so we get to the point where the self-proclaimed superior journalistic outlet runs a prominent story in which our guilt is assumed, with various unnamed but extremely distinguished football figures call for punishments that they hope will finish our club once and for all as a top-level contender. Yet the main accusation against us is that we funded the bulk of the fee under a sponsorship contract that we genuinely performed and UEFA plus its specialist advisers accepted was at a fair value. Our fanbase is told that our club deserves destruction for that, yet Villa can sell their stadium to themselves with no comeback.

Yes, of course we've indulged in some sharp practice and we've certainly made use of Khaldoon's contacts book (you can add Nissan and one or two others to Hays and Nexen in that regard). But our rivals are out to stop us because we're such a threat. If any other club were accused of doing what they say we have with the Etihad sponsorship, there's no way anyone would be talking about penalties even remotely resembling those people are mooting for us.
Click to expand...
I would even go so far as to say they would be praised for smart business practices and using their contacts wisely, oddly enough i dont recall the press saying that the rags were wrong for hiring berrada if anything they were widely praised for hiring someone who was instrumental in carrying out and overseeing many of the business practices that they are so vehemently opposed to.
 
mancboy said:
I would even go so far as to say they would be praised for smart business practices and using their contacts wisely, oddly enough i dont recall the press saying that the rags were wrong for hiring berrada if anything they were widely praised for hiring someone who was instrumental in carrying out and overseeing many of the business practices that they are so vehemently opposed to.
Click to expand...
Just imagine if the Moores family had sold to Dubai rather than the Americans and Emirates had become their main sponsor pumping in vast amounts of their marketing budget - would Liverpool be going through these issues WTF although the PL might still be having a go at us - as they seem to have dual rules!
 
petrusha said:
This post replied to and added to an earlier one of mine, and I agree with your response in its entirety. I remember writing, more than a decade ago now, a detailed explanation of the cost sharing arrangement that was at the root of MCFC disposing of various intellectual property assets to a CFG company, which would then make those assets available group-wide. Now, the one-off receipt of income that went straight on the P&L was undoubtedly rather convenient at the time, but we could point to sound commercial reasons for taking such a step.

City at the time were just embarking on the CFG idea and, in taking the step we did, adopted an approach commonly used by multinational companies (the alternative would have been for City to keep the IP and licence it on an ad hoc basis as appropriate). For City at the time, our fellow group members had, in the case of NYCFC, no income at that stage, or in the case of Melbourne were heavily loss making. Better, then, for City to dispose of the IP for a single lump sum than to licence it to sister entities who'd struggle to meet the licence payments. If we'd sought to litigate back then to challenge UEFA as to the validity of that transaction, we might well have won.

I don't know any detail about the Chelsea hotel or women's team transactions, so I can't comment on those. I note that the PL approved Villa's sale of their stadium to their owners for GBP 56.7 mln when they were still in the Championship. I assume it hasn't yet been sold back. I do hope that the PL checked, before giving its approval, that the owners would make their outlay back within a reasonable period from rent, revenue from the concerts that the ground has been hosting in recent years and so on.

When I spoke about "utterly hysterical media coverage", I was referring to widespread coverage at the time of the CFG IP arrangements as being akin to fraud, which anyone who understands the working of a multinational group could easily refute. There doesn't seem to be any similar desperation to proclaim guilt in other cases of ostensible sales to oneself, even when the transactions seem on their face to have a rather flimsier basis than did ours.

And so we get to the point where the self-proclaimed superior journalistic outlet runs a prominent story in which our guilt is assumed, with various unnamed but extremely distinguished football figures call for punishments that they hope will finish our club once and for all as a top-level contender. Yet the main accusation against us is that we funded the bulk of the fee under a sponsorship contract that we genuinely performed and UEFA plus its specialist advisers accepted was at a fair value. Our fanbase is told that our club deserves destruction for that, yet Villa can sell their stadium to themselves with no comeback.

Yes, of course we've indulged in some sharp practice and we've certainly made use of Khaldoon's contacts book (you can add Nissan and one or two others to Hays and Nexen in that regard). But our rivals are out to stop us because we're such a threat. If any other club were accused of doing what they say we have with the Etihad sponsorship, there's no way anyone would be talking about penalties even remotely resembling those people are mooting for us.
Click to expand...

Always an intelligent post from this blue.
 
petrusha said:
This post replied to and added to an earlier one of mine, and I agree with your response in its entirety. I remember writing, more than a decade ago now, a detailed explanation of the cost sharing arrangement that was at the root of MCFC disposing of various intellectual property assets to a CFG company, which would then make those assets available group-wide. Now, the one-off receipt of income that went straight on the P&L was undoubtedly rather convenient at the time, but we could point to sound commercial reasons for taking such a step.

City at the time were just embarking on the CFG idea and, in taking the step we did, adopted an approach commonly used by multinational companies (the alternative would have been for City to keep the IP and licence it on an ad hoc basis as appropriate). For City at the time, our fellow group members had, in the case of NYCFC, no income at that stage, or in the case of Melbourne were heavily loss making. Better, then, for City to dispose of the IP for a single lump sum than to licence it to sister entities who'd struggle to meet the licence payments. If we'd sought to litigate back then to challenge UEFA as to the validity of that transaction, we might well have won.

I don't know any detail about the Chelsea hotel or women's team transactions, so I can't comment on those. I note that the PL approved Villa's sale of their stadium to their owners for GBP 56.7 mln when they were still in the Championship. I assume it hasn't yet been sold back. I do hope that the PL checked, before giving its approval, that the owners would make their outlay back within a reasonable period from rent, revenue from the concerts that the ground has been hosting in recent years and so on.

When I spoke about "utterly hysterical media coverage", I was referring to widespread coverage at the time of the CFG IP arrangements as being akin to fraud, which anyone who understands the working of a multinational group could easily refute. There doesn't seem to be any similar desperation to proclaim guilt in other cases of ostensible sales to oneself, even when the transactions seem on their face to have a rather flimsier basis than did ours.

And so we get to the point where the self-proclaimed superior journalistic outlet runs a prominent story in which our guilt is assumed, with various unnamed but extremely distinguished football figures call for punishments that they hope will finish our club once and for all as a top-level contender. Yet the main accusation against us is that we funded the bulk of the fee under a sponsorship contract that we genuinely performed and UEFA plus its specialist advisers accepted was at a fair value. Our fanbase is told that our club deserves destruction for that, yet Villa can sell their stadium to themselves with no comeback.

Yes, of course we've indulged in some sharp practice and we've certainly made use of Khaldoon's contacts book (you can add Nissan and one or two others to Hays and Nexen in that regard). But our rivals are out to stop us because we're such a threat. If any other club were accused of doing what they say we have with the Etihad sponsorship, there's no way anyone would be talking about penalties even remotely resembling those people are mooting for us.
Click to expand...
I find posts like this and PB very reassuring but am still wetting myself as our enemies seemingly will stop at nothing.
 
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.