PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[meltonblue]

On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really

Don’t think that’s the issue with the Mancini one, it’s the possibility that we were paying it.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

erm yes there is? all related party transactions must be of fair market value

So no rule saying owners can't fund ownership?

 

[bigA]

Given the financial predicament the PL now have with legal costs I wonder if a Sheikh M loan similar to his old Barclay's loan would be possible.
Perhaps the rule you mention excludes it but my point is that the PL is running out of money so why not borrow like Man U?

Debt seems to be accepted FOR PL members but investment frowned upon. Time for them to practice what they preach rather than complain about funds running out

Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

But owners can still sponsor- if it’s of fair market value ?

Correct

 

[SilverFox2]

Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.

I realise that but my point includes their brief that they have used up a lot of their banked money as though that is their only option.
They also say they cannot pay lower league sides their usual cut. Presumably they should borrow to keep up their role.
I imagine it would be a serviceable debt, after all they dictate the rules and fines etc,

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Don’t think that’s the issue with the Mancini one, it’s the possibility that we were paying it.

It still doesn't matter. The rule simply states a contract must exist that has termination clauses in place. That is it. It doesn't matter if city are paying an invoice to a separate company that has also hired Mancini. The rules don't mention how the manager is paid or anything stating full renumeration must be lodged. Basically shoddy rules. If that's what the PL wanted to happen with the rules than they should have written them like that. That's not city's fault whatsoever

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Next city manager when we get relegated? :-)

He was due to be our manager before Thaskin bought the club and hired Sven ha!

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

He was due to be our manager before Thaskin bought the club and hired Sven ha!

can we get him in on set pieces, the amount we generate with no attempts on goal is shocking lol

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

can we get him in on set pieces, the amount we generate with no attempts on goal is shocking lol

good shout!

 

[halfcenturyup]

erm yes there is? all related party transactions must be of fair market value

Which rule is that? I don't think the accounts are required to show related party transactions at fmv, but the PL has the right to adjust to fmv for FFP reporting purposes. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Firstly, none of Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, ADTA, Fordham, Mancini or Toure (which are apparently the target of the most serious allegations) are related parties, unless the PL is questioning the definition in the accounts, which would be a stretch as even UEFA didn't try that.

Secondly, on sponsorship, as far as I am aware, the fair value isn't being questioned. It certainly wasn't by UEFA at CAS and it hasn't been questioned in any of the years since 2009 by the PL, as far as I am aware.

Thirdly, the allegation with the AD sponsorships is that Mansour secretly funded the sponsorship commitments, deceived the auditors about the source of the sponsorship, filed accounts knowing them to be wrong, and then knowingly concealed these facts from the PL. Nothing to do with fair values.

The point of my post is that there is no rule saying owners can't fund sponsorships in the same way there was no rule (at the time) saying the club had to report all remuneration a manager received while under contract to the club.

But that doesn't matter. The allegations in the first tranche of allegations are that the club knowingly overstated income (sponsorship income) and understated costs (presumably Fordham, Mancini and Toure) in its filed accounts.

That is the actual situation, afaik, but I really don't have the energy to go through it again.