PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[wolviedinho]

Simple Simon:

“We can’t ignore City are currently embroiled in a hearing looking into 115 alleged financial breaches of Premier League rules.

While we are excited for this (arse)fixture, the greatest threat to English football is the ridiculousness of the misplaced thinking behind PSR (profit and sustainability rules).

If you have an owner losing a hundred million quid a year – which, by the way, isn’t all cash losses, but also a result of things like amortisation and inability to properly market value assets - yet they are prepared to put a bond up for a billion quid, it means their club is sustainable in my book.

It leaves the PSR argument as rather ludicrous in a free market, in an industry built by people investing in ambition.

Worse than that, we are having to listen to a ridiculous crowd because a few clubs have had bad owners at the lower end of the pyramid. I do understand the angst of fans at Reading, Leyton Orient and Bury but our rules and thinking need to be more sophisticated.

Let’s build a safety net for clubs, that go bust, such as league-provided insurance policies and find a mechanism for fairer distributions.

To introduce a financial regulator, a Government appointment, to economically asphyxiate English football whilst the rest of football around the world runs free and wild and does what it wants, is utter madness.

I do believe Manchester City have a very significant case to answer though I can’t really see what they did that differently to Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, apart from timing because rules have changed”.

Behind a paywall. He must be getting info from his buddies about what way the wind is blowing regarding the 115 hearing and the current mood towards a regulator which they seem to fear.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).

this is a crucial point, I think pre 2014 there's two possible attacks the PL could use and that's the players contracts and the good faith rules, the others can be dismissed in my opinion. So if no fraud happened during this time which I seriously believe (why would city commit fraud when there was no need to during this period makes no sense) then even if they find us guilty of bad faith the SoL would overide them anyway.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Simple Simon:

“We can’t ignore City are currently embroiled in a hearing looking into 115 alleged financial breaches of Premier League rules.

While we are excited for this (arse)fixture, the greatest threat to English football is the ridiculousness of the misplaced thinking behind PSR (profit and sustainability rules).

If you have an owner losing a hundred million quid a year – which, by the way, isn’t all cash losses, but also a result of things like amortisation and inability to properly market value assets - yet they are prepared to put a bond up for a billion quid, it means their club is sustainable in my book.

It leaves the PSR argument as rather ludicrous in a free market, in an industry built by people investing in ambition.

Worse than that, we are having to listen to a ridiculous crowd because a few clubs have had bad owners at the lower end of the pyramid. I do understand the angst of fans at Reading, Leyton Orient and Bury but our rules and thinking need to be more sophisticated.

Let’s build a safety net for clubs, that go bust, such as league-provided insurance policies and find a mechanism for fairer distributions.

To introduce a financial regulator, a Government appointment, to economically asphyxiate English football whilst the rest of football around the world runs free and wild and does what it wants, is utter madness.

I do believe Manchester City have a very significant case to answer though I can’t really see what they did that differently to Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, apart from timing because rules have changed”.

Behind a paywall. He must be getting info from his buddies about what way the wind is blowing regarding the 115 hearing and the current mood towards a regulator which they seem to fear.

Why though? Surely saddling a club with £500M debt from out of nowhere is also a case to answer.

The question everyone at other clubs seems to be asking is “how did City do it?”. Possibly we did it by not being beholden to shareholders wanting their return on investment immediately, similar to Uber and Tesla, the long term tactic.

 

[Paladin]

Simple Simon:

“We can’t ignore City are currently embroiled in a hearing looking into 115 alleged financial breaches of Premier League rules.

While we are excited for this (arse)fixture, the greatest threat to English football is the ridiculousness of the misplaced thinking behind PSR (profit and sustainability rules).

If you have an owner losing a hundred million quid a year – which, by the way, isn’t all cash losses, but also a result of things like amortisation and inability to properly market value assets - yet they are prepared to put a bond up for a billion quid, it means their club is sustainable in my book.

It leaves the PSR argument as rather ludicrous in a free market, in an industry built by people investing in ambition.

Worse than that, we are having to listen to a ridiculous crowd because a few clubs have had bad owners at the lower end of the pyramid. I do understand the angst of fans at Reading, Leyton Orient and Bury but our rules and thinking need to be more sophisticated.

Let’s build a safety net for clubs, that go bust, such as league-provided insurance policies and find a mechanism for fairer distributions.

To introduce a financial regulator, a Government appointment, to economically asphyxiate English football whilst the rest of football around the world runs free and wild and does what it wants, is utter madness.

I do believe Manchester City have a very significant case to answer though I can’t really see what they did that differently to Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, apart from timing because rules have changed”.

Behind a paywall. He must be getting info from his buddies about what way the wind is blowing regarding the 115 hearing and the current mood towards a regulator which they seem to fear.

Stone or Jordan? I presume the latter. Stone probably doesn't have and buddies.

 

[halfcenturyup]

but this is the problem for the PL they've wrote the rules and what you've just said is city passes all of them apart from the first good faith one. So for the seasons from 2009 to 2013 they've charged us with 20 breaches, we pass them all by definition apart from 4 of them which are open to interpretation.

The good faith rule is that the club "in all matters and transactions relating to the League, each club shall behave towards (....) the League with the utmost good faith".

While it may be true that the club complied with the literal wording of E3, E4, E11, E12, and E51 (for 2017/8, for example) the combination of the alleged good faith breach and those rules means that club in the matters required by E3, E4, E11, E12 and E51(the club didn't file accounts in good faith, didn't provide an audit report in good faith, didn't provide future financial information in good faith etc.), so each of those rules was also breached.

If it helps us move on, I think the difference maybe with the Leicester case is that the panel and the appeal both said Leicester were within their rights to change year end, so there was no indication of bad faith, but with City, the whole case is premised on bad faith and deception.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Simple Simon:

“We can’t ignore City are currently embroiled in a hearing looking into 115 alleged financial breaches of Premier League rules.

While we are excited for this (arse)fixture, the greatest threat to English football is the ridiculousness of the misplaced thinking behind PSR (profit and sustainability rules).

If you have an owner losing a hundred million quid a year – which, by the way, isn’t all cash losses, but also a result of things like amortisation and inability to properly market value assets - yet they are prepared to put a bond up for a billion quid, it means their club is sustainable in my book.

It leaves the PSR argument as rather ludicrous in a free market, in an industry built by people investing in ambition.

Worse than that, we are having to listen to a ridiculous crowd because a few clubs have had bad owners at the lower end of the pyramid. I do understand the angst of fans at Reading, Leyton Orient and Bury but our rules and thinking need to be more sophisticated.

Let’s build a safety net for clubs, that go bust, such as league-provided insurance policies and find a mechanism for fairer distributions.

To introduce a financial regulator, a Government appointment, to economically asphyxiate English football whilst the rest of football around the world runs free and wild and does what it wants, is utter madness.

I do believe Manchester City have a very significant case to answer though I can’t really see what they did that differently to Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, apart from timing because rules have changed”.

Behind a paywall. He must be getting info from his buddies about what way the wind is blowing regarding the 115 hearing and the current mood towards a regulator which they seem to fear.

Shifting his position the slippery rag bastard.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

The good faith rule is that the club "in all matters and transactions relating to the League, each club shall behave towards (....) the League with the utmost good faith".

While it may be true that the club complied with the literal wording of E3, E4, E11, E12, and E51 (for 2017/8, for example) the combination of the alleged good faith breach and those rules means that club in the matters required by E3, E4, E11, E12 and E51(the club didn't file accounts in good faith, didn't provide an audit report in good faith, didn't provide future financial information in good faith etc.), so each of those rules was also breached.

If it helps us move on, I think the difference maybe with the Leicester case is that the panel and the appeal both said Leicester were within their rights to change year end, so there was no indication of bad faith, but with City, the whole case is premised on bad faith and deception.

there is no rule on file accounts in good faith for pre 2014 only audit accounts were required and written in the rules. We handed them in on time

 

[BerkshireBlue]

The good faith rule is that the club "in all matters and transactions relating to the League, each club shall behave towards (....) the League with the utmost good faith".

While it may be true that the club complied with the literal wording of E3, E4, E11, E12, and E51 (for 2017/8, for example) the combination of the alleged good faith breach and those rules means that club in the matters required by E3, E4, E11, E12 and E51(the club didn't file accounts in good faith, didn't provide an audit report in good faith, didn't provide future financial information in good faith etc.), so each of those rules was also breached.

If it helps us move on, I think the difference maybe with the Leicester case is that the panel and the appeal both said Leicester were within their rights to change year end, so there was no indication of bad faith, but with City, the whole case is premised on bad faith and deception.

for instance these are the rules pre 2014

"Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests the Group Accounts of the Group of which it is a member (in either case such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on those accounts."


" include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the total sums payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees; 79.2 include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income."

"
By 31st March in each Season, each Club shall submit to the Secretary in respect of itself (or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests in respect of the Group of which it is a member) future financial information (“Future Financial Information”) comprising projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow, balance sheets and relevant explanatory notes commencing from its accounting reference date or, if it has submitted interim accounts pursuant to Rule C.81, from the date to which those interim accounts were prepared and expiring on the next accounting reference date after the end of the following Season. The projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow and balance sheets shall be prepared at a maximum of six-monthly intervals.
"

"
87. The Future Financial Information shall:
87.1 be prepared in accordance with the accounting principles adopted in the preparation of
the Club’s annual accounts (except where the accounting principles and policies are to
be changed in the subsequent annual accounts, in which case the new accounting
principles and polices should be followed);
87.2 be approved in writing by the board of directors of the company to which they relate;
and
87.3 to include in the explanatory notes thereto principal assumptions and risks; and
87.4 include for comparison profit and loss accounts for the period covered by the annual
accounts and interim accounts submitted pursuant to Rules C.78 and C.81, a forecast
for the current financial year and a balance sheet as at the date of the interim accounts
submitted pursuant to Rule C.81
"


all of these are hard and fast rules we either handed them in on time or we didn't there's no other way of defining the rule. If the accounts were audited then that is all that is required to pass the rules. There's no term for accuracy or good faith. These were introduced when they realised they were struggling to stop us.

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

Why is this a topic? We have enough crap and speculation in the press, we all know the private hearing will take weeks and the outcome won’t be made public for much longer. Football used to be about the games, the team that scores most wins the game, the team that ends up with most points wins the league. i am getting sick of the whole thing

 

[abu13]

I dont understand we may be accused of paying Yaya or his agent off the books but wouldnt pay out for his Birthday cake.