PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Bez]

Only in football is change frowned upon. “You don’t have X history, so you’re not allowed to win things or earn more than Y club”. Can you imagine that being applied in other sectors? Apple nearly went bankrupt in the 90s. Amazon didn’t even exist until the mid 90s. Twitter…founded 2006, sold 16 years later for $44bn.

It blows my mind when you hear people like Spitty talking about football finance and how it’s impossible that City can earn more than Real Madrid and the rest. Football clubs from a business standpoint earn fuck all given their worldwide popularity. United talk about having 600m fans…ok, why isn’t your turnover in the multiple billions? There are thousands of companies around the world that 99.9% of people haven’t heard of, whose turnover will dwarf any football club. It tells you that football was/is crying out for visionaries who can take it to a new level but try to tell a United/Liverpool/Arsenal fan that the visionary is Mansour/City and they’ll be straight on their Amazon purchased Apple iPad to tell all and sundry on Twitter, that it’s impossible that PL and CL winners Manchester City can earn a whole £160m more than Tottenham for the same accounting period. Tottenham.

Spot on. Carragher should not be talking football finance on tv. He does not have a clue. He's playing to the crowd. He's also lucky to still be working for Sky. He brought football and Sky into disrepute when he spat at the girl. Nowt we can do about that. The grown ups at Sky obviously like him. I wonder if they support Liverpool by any chance?

The PL during the 90s and early 00s was not open to new ideas. It took the likes of Wenger to bring in new tactics and a focus on statistics to change things. This is when Man Ure stopped winning so easily. Then Chelsea got the dosh and Mourinho, in his prime, moved things forward again with massively detailed preparation for games. And again, United did not win every time. Then the investment at City along with the assembly of a winning team and winning formula on and off the pitch supported by lots of new ideas and vision. Again, Utd have declined even further. United must be fuming that they are no longer top dogs.

There is a book called Soccernomics. It's an excellent read. I am sure many on here have read it. In this book, the authors said the business acumen and openess to change of the leadership teams at PL clubs has been poor in the past and probably still is to some extent. And that includes the history clubs.

Too many ex footballers getting involved too. Most of them not open minded to new ideas. Whereas City have upped the ante and left the red cartel in their wake on an off the field. This is no accident. The history clubs don't like it. They are used to bullying their way to success. You need more finesse than that these days.

The current fiasco within the Premier League is a by product of the tectonic plates moving in football. The red cartel don't like it and that's why they keep trying to hire our employees and why they have demanded that the PL go toe to toe with City.

Luckily for City, the key operators have remained in situ for many years. That's because the club is very well lead and very well run. The problem for City right now is that the PL a protection racket for the history clubs and they are having to introduce increasingly bizarre new rules to try to stop new money coming into the game.

Which modern business would want to prevent new money from coming in?

 

[JewelZee]

Not saying that at all nor am I saying that it would be wrong for Mancini to have a standalone contract with another entity or indeed that Mancini’s company haven’t properly accounted for the income , in Italy, for tax purposes.
The issues are:
1) Was there within the PL / FA rules at that point a requirement for City to lodge at PL /FA full details of a managers remuneration package. Clearly the PL believe there was. I personally haven’t tracked the matter back through historical rule books but it would seem the PL are confident there was such a requirement and yes I know but on that I am working on the basis that the PL have got that right. So if the IC agree with the PL box then we move to 2) If there isn’t then the matter ends there
2) Moving on If the leaked emails are correct then( and note the word if) there clearly needs for an assessment to be made by the IC as to if the second contract was or wasn’t an designed to mask the true extent of the package paid by Man City for duties undertaken as Cities HC. People talk about the overall sums are so small as to be meaningless in the overall scheme of things and yes are but the question then is was it tax efficient to Mancini to have such an arrangement?
3) I am far from a legal expert but would doubt that if 1 is correct and 2 goes against City that any criminal court would suggest that the matter was fraud but the question was the matter an attempt to conceal the true extent of Mancini’s City wages, for whatever reason and if that again is assessed by the IC to be the case then their isn’t the limitations afforded by the the Limitations Act.

So sorry I don’t think that they are easy to disprove/ prove but back to the standard of proof required that judgement won’t be beyond reasonable doubt it will be assessed on the balance of probability. That doesn’t mean that the PL will even reach that standard hence why I keep repeating it’s an assessment that the panel members will be having to make.

You are trying way too hard bro...not buying...

 

[Champions again in 2012]

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

Sorry if I have misunderstood this - so the suggestion is that the PL gets a loan from Sheikh Mansour so they can continue litigating against his club?

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

All seems a very long time ago, the PL come across as a very bitter ex wife

They have got themselves into this mess because of the pressure exerted by the redshirts and their weakness in allowing them to dictate.

 

[Father Paul]

Spot on. Carragher should not be talking football finance on tv. He does not have a clue. He's playing to the crowd. He's also lucky to still be working for Sky. He brought football and Sky into disrepute when he spat at the girl. Nowt we can do about that. The grown ups at Sky obviously like him. I wonder if they support Liverpool by any chance?

The PL during the 90s and early 00s was not open to new ideas. It took the likes of Wenger to bring in new tactics and a focus on statistics to change things. This is when Man Ure stopped winning so easily. Then Chelsea got the dosh and Mourinho, in his prime, moved things forward again with massively detailed preparation for games. And again, United did not win every time. Then the investment at City along with the assembly of a winning team and winning formula on and off the pitch supported by lots of new ideas and vision. Again, Utd have declined even further. United must be fuming that they are no longer top dogs.

There is a book called Soccernomics. It's an excellent read. I am sure many on here have read it. In this book, the authors said the business acumen and openess to change of the leadership teams at PL clubs has been poor in the past and probably still is to some extent. And that includes the history clubs.

Too many ex footballers getting involved too. Most of them not open minded to new ideas. Whereas City have upped the ante and left the red cartel in their wake on an off the field. This is no accident. The history clubs don't like it. They are used to bullying their way to success. You need more finesse than that these days.

The current fiasco within the Premier League is a by product of the tectonic plates moving in football. The red cartel don't like it and that's why they keep trying to hire our employees and why they have demanded that the PL go toe to toe with City.

Luckily for City, the key operators have remained in situ for many years. That's because the club is very well lead and very well run. The problem for City right now is that the PL a protection racket for the history clubs and they are having to introduce increasingly bizarre new rules to try to stop new money coming into the game.

Which modern business would want to prevent new money from coming in?

One of the best posts on here in weeks well done.

 

[johnevans]

Only in football is change frowned upon. “You don’t have X history, so you’re not allowed to win things or earn more than Y club”. Can you imagine that being applied in other sectors? Apple nearly went bankrupt in the 90s. Amazon didn’t even exist until the mid 90s. Twitter…founded 2006, sold 16 years later for $44bn.

It blows my mind when you hear people like Spitty talking about football finance and how it’s impossible that City can earn more than Real Madrid and the rest. Football clubs from a business standpoint earn fuck all given their worldwide popularity. United talk about having 600m fans…ok, why isn’t your turnover in the multiple billions? There are thousands of companies around the world that 99.9% of people haven’t heard of, whose turnover will dwarf any football club. It tells you that football was/is crying out for visionaries who can take it to a new level but try to tell a United/Liverpool/Arsenal fan that the visionary is Mansour/City and they’ll be straight on their Amazon purchased Apple iPad to tell all and sundry on Twitter, that it’s impossible that PL and CL winners Manchester City can earn a whole £160m more than Tottenham for the same accounting period. Tottenham.

Totally agree, especially the points in your first paragraph.

I've been saying for years now that I fully expect at some time in the not-too-distant future, case studies for MBA students will emerge from this absolute nonsense brought by the PL and stirred up by the venal, selfish 'Red Cartel'.

Business schools dotted around the planet, like my old alma mater at Warwick, will be including in their syllabuses for Financial Management, Financial Accounting, Marketing/Management Decision Making and so on, a case study similar to those I remember on the likes of Amtrak/the American railway system, Parker Pens etc.. each of which lost their way because of poor strategic thinking and hubris shown by short-sighted top brass.

And all of those case studies will ask the stark question, 'Where did it all go wrong for the once mighty Premier League?'.. or as we used to say when I was a kid in Hulme, 'Who the f**k thought that was a good idea?'

 

[Kippax77]

Spot on. Carragher should not be talking football finance on tv. He does not have a clue. He's playing to the crowd. He's also lucky to still be working for Sky. He brought football and Sky into disrepute when he spat at the girl. Nowt we can do about that. The grown ups at Sky obviously like him. I wonder if they support Liverpool by any chance?

The PL during the 90s and early 00s was not open to new ideas. It took the likes of Wenger to bring in new tactics and a focus on statistics to change things. This is when Man Ure stopped winning so easily. Then Chelsea got the dosh and Mourinho, in his prime, moved things forward again with massively detailed preparation for games. And again, United did not win every time. Then the investment at City along with the assembly of a winning team and winning formula on and off the pitch supported by lots of new ideas and vision. Again, Utd have declined even further. United must be fuming that they are no longer top dogs.

There is a book called Soccernomics. It's an excellent read. I am sure many on here have read it. In this book, the authors said the business acumen and openess to change of the leadership teams at PL clubs has been poor in the past and probably still is to some extent. And that includes the history clubs.

Too many ex footballers getting involved too. Most of them not open minded to new ideas. Whereas City have upped the ante and left the red cartel in their wake on an off the field. This is no accident. The history clubs don't like it. They are used to bullying their way to success. You need more finesse than that these days.

The current fiasco within the Premier League is a by product of the tectonic plates moving in football. The red cartel don't like it and that's why they keep trying to hire our employees and why they have demanded that the PL go toe to toe with City.

Luckily for City, the key operators have remained in situ for many years. That's because the club is very well lead and very well run. The problem for City right now is that the PL a protection racket for the history clubs and they are having to introduce increasingly bizarre new rules to try to stop new money coming into the game.

Which modern business would want to prevent new money from coming in?

You lost me at 'the grown ups at Sky'

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You lost me at 'the grown ups at Sky'

I think he meant high ups. Doesn’t otherwise make sense.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I'm about to ask a question at risk of sounding completely thick, but it's been on my mind.

If the hearing is expected to last 10-12 weeks, yet we're told that if they can't prove fraud/concealment/conspiracy stuff then the rest will likely be time barred - would it be seen as a negative sign if the case does indeed last this long?

IE, would we cautiously hoping this is far shorter because the main allegations haven't been proven so the rest is time-barred and not discussed at length, or would the case going on as long point to a negative for us that they have potentially/likely proven the substantive stuff?

Sorry - I know there's probably an obvious answer to this, but just something which has crossed my mind so thought I'd ask those with experience of this sort of stuff how that would work.

 

[SilverFox2]

Sorry if I have misunderstood this - so the suggestion is that the PL gets a loan from Sheikh Mansour so they can continue litigating against his club?

A bit tongue in cheek and unlikely I know but a similar possibility if Sheikh M could get control of the big loan the Glazers have.

Banks do it all the time and our owner made a lot of money lending to Barclay's some time ago.