PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Canter]

It would be interesting to see how the Independent Regulator would view the cartel attempting to Reform the Premier League. Should such a thing come to pass.

The perfect time for an Independent Regulator to be introduced to English Football and would that not be where the FA step in. After all they are our governing body.
That's exactly where the Premier League will see it being reformed surely. Ownership, governance, finances (FFP), protecting the whole football pyramid and you never know we as fans may get more of a say. Although I'm not holding my breath for that one.

 

[slbsn]

I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.

However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.

I'd assume a) it has been permitted before b) United have had it cleared already.

I just don't believe they would take chances in a NYSE announcement. That said it appears both the PL and United have not guided either way which is a bit odd

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yes, we don't know much about the payments of the contract out of the club's bank account. But payments themselves mean nothing. It's the accounting of them that is important. Credit went to the bank account. But where did the debit go? Only one of two places realistically. Balance sheet as a receivable from AJ, or profit and loss as an expense. If the latter, what is the PL's problem? If the former, the payments mean nothing.

Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't think. It's the intent behind the AJ contract the PL is challenging. And good luck with that :)

Could also be, as with the Etisalat sponsorship, that we were netting money off against money due from ADUG. So for the Mancini/Al Jazira contract it could be that City paid it as they had the banking details and Al Jazira repaid us, or ADUG added it onto any monies they paid us.

With that Etisalat sponsorship, it was never denied that ADUG had met the initial payment but the accounting entries were then set up so that Etisalat owed ADUG the money, which they later paid. As we've always said with this, you simply can't take one email at face value without understanding the full picture and context.

 

[Silva2021]

I'd assume a) it has been permitted before b) United have had it cleared already.

I just don't believe they would take chances in a NYSE announcement. That said it appears both the PL and United have not guided either way which is a bit odd

Would make sense.

However, I see this as something we have an issue with because it is United, as opposed to a real world view on it.

I see it as non-football related costs and that if paid for, why should it be included in PSR etc.

The Covid allowance is the big one, as whichever club it who got £40 million whilst the rest got £1 million, I think our real world view would be why have they been allowed that.

 

[Fordyboy46]

Day 3 and in walk representatives from both sides, that's the big news for today, I'll keep you informed if anything changes

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.

However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.

I'm not even sure what those costs were doing in the club's accounts in the first place. They should have been Glazers' costs as they made the money, so I don't really have a problem with taking them back out again.

Except that post-Leicester, the written rules are the rules and, as far as I know, there is no rule saying those costs could be deducted. Someone should challenge it :)

 

[SilverFox2]

But if other clubs put in say 6M and are happy that was their figure, then the prem accept that was their figure, then it is on them for putting a low number in no? Prem accepted it and Uefa didn't so it is clearly dodgy.

Perhaps the PL should adopt the same possibilities when addressing sponsorship.

 

[dubblue]

As I don't agree with the rules I couldn't give a fuck as they were only created to stop our progress. I actually don't think they're legal anyway but unfortunately nobody challenged them in the same way Bosman did players contracts.

Exactly,this fucking nonsense on podcasts(city podcasts too)I’ve heard recently that our achievements will be tainted and won’t mean as much, EVERY successful club throughout football history has been allowed to build their club whichever way they chose without any scrutiny regarding their finances. But but but the rules were not in place then…again who gives a fuck,those rules were designed by the very clubs who didn’t want an upstart challenging their cozy little group. I will never condemn ANY club for breaking those “rules”. They were and always will be a protectionist racket. Fuck them all.

 

[ufo]

I heard that the PL legal team have taken the case 'pro bono' which, i believe means they can avoid some corporation tax

But the pl legal team still haven’t found what they are looking for

 

[abu13]

Same here - I sincerely hope that ever since that first UEFA accusation we have been 'acquiring' filth on all our detractors... fire with fire.
When our name is cleared I'm envisaging a scene like the end of the Godfather - Mansour sat there whilst everyone gets their come uppance!

I think this is far more likely if the investigation comes down on the side of the PL, i can see us coming out all guns blazing if we feel we have been shafted. I suspect if we win, we will see a statement from the club and a few people in the PL will decide to explore "new opportunities"