PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

So what do you mean is nonsense?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

You fundamentally misunderstand the way the disclosure process will have worked. The PL will have been entitled to (and received) documents from City and, in some circumstances (say where that party consented or was giving a witness statement) from a third party. To the extent the PL became aware of documents from the hacks (they weren't leaks) the PL would have put City on the spot to produce those documents in original form and cast doubt on City's disclosure process where such documents had not been previously shared.

But all of this is now irrelevant - the hearing has happened, thousands of documents would have been disclosed and used in that hearing. It is highly unlikely that Pinto has kept the really juicy stuff back or that the EIC didn't have all the data to search anyway. But it is irrelevant anyway because nobody will be listening to any party trying to bring further documents into play post the decision.

 

[Maly]

Fordham was a company that paid image rights to some players. It was originally a subsidiary of City but was set up as a separate company in 2013.

We sold the rights to them in order to increase revenue in the 2012/13 season. By doing that we thought we'd escape punishment when we failed the first FFP assessment, which was based on the 2012 & 2013 accounts.

Fordham then paid image rights to some players and were seemingly reimbursed by ADUG for those. It seems UEFA became aware of this around 2015 and spoke to us about it and the arrangement was wound down ended a couple of years later. Fordham was then put into voluntary liquidation.

We didn't have to show them in our accounts so that's not an issue in itself. The issue is, I suspect, whether we reported the Fordham payments to the PL & UEFA. We don't know the exact nature of the charges here though. My suspicion is that UEFA could see they weren't reported, which is why they approached us.

I'm guessing here but it's possible we were able to show that there was a grey area and we weren't necessarily acting outside FFP. The reason I think that is that no charges were ever brought over this. Had we been clearly acted against the letter of FFP then I'm sure we would have faced UEFA charges. However we seemingly agreed to wind the arrangement up.

So while Fordham seemingly decreased our wage expenses we didn't do it for that reason. We did it to bring money in. I suspect it may well have been the most complex of the various charges heard by the IC. It will be interesting to see the evidence presented and the reasoning for the outcome.

My confidence in the outcome is due to the fact that UEFA knew about it well before Der Spiegel but we never faced charges even when we know they were out to get us under any pretext. But I also suspect that if there are any chinks in our legal armour, this is where they might be.

Weren’t there lots of other clubs doing similar with image rights?

If so, I’d always assumed if they came after us for that, they’d also have to go after a whole host of clubs?

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Weren’t there lots of other clubs doing similar with image rights?

If so, I’d always assumed if they came after us for that, they’d also have to go after a whole host of clubs?

Think the rags were doing something similar but doing it to avoid paying tax. The whole idea of selling the image rights for a lump sum to add to accounts on one year, how is that any different to Chelsea selling a hotel to themselves which the PL didn’t have any issue with?

 

[richards30]

I’m starting to fall into the trap that the charges as well as injuries are playing on the players mind and it’s going to be interesting to see how or even if the club invest in new players in January

 

[johnevans]

You fundamentally misunderstand the way the disclosure process will have worked. The PL will have been entitled to (and received) documents from City and, in some circumstances (say where that party consented or was giving a witness statement) from a third party. To the extent the PL became aware of documents from the hacks (they weren't leaks) the PL would have put City on the spot to produce those documents in original form and cast doubt on City's disclosure process where such documents had not been previously shared.

But all of this is now irrelevant - the hearing has happened, thousands of documents would have been disclosed and used in that hearing. It is highly unlikely that Pinto has kept the really juicy stuff back or that the EIC didn't have all the data to search anyway. But it is irrelevant anyway because nobody will be listening to any party trying to bring further documents into play post the decision.

Excellent summary, thank you.

As with Prestwich Blue's recent, educative contribution reviewing the 'Fordham Thingy' and its place in this tiresome, money-driven process cooked up by the self-interested Red Cartel and its European allies, thank goodness there's an adult or two in the room..

 

[M18CTID]

So what do you mean is nonsense?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

Mate, you need to let it go. While Pinto is the reason we’re in this position, he’s a fucking clueless **** who thinks our e-mails can only be interpreted one way to suit his own twisted agenda. His lawyer can’t even bring himself to accept the decision of the highest sporting arbitration court in the world so I don’t give a fuck about any “fresh” material he may or may not have handed over as I’ve little doubt that it will simply be the same bollocks that CAS laughed out of court. Fuck Pinto and fuck all those who sail in him.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Mate, you need to let it go. While Pinto is the reason we’re in this position, he’s a fucking clueless **** who thinks our e-mails can only be interpreted one way to suit his own twisted agenda. His lawyer can’t even bring himself accept the decision of the highest sporting arbitration court of the world so I don’t give a fuck about any “fresh” material he may or may not have handed over as I’ve little doubt that it will simply be the same bollocks that CAS laughed out of court. Fuck Pinto and fuck all those who sail in him.

None of the hundreds of new charges Pinto is fighting relate to City nor did any of his criminal convictions relate to City’s handful of emails. He is irrelevant to City’s case. His lawyer’s whistleblower defence was shattered in the first trial in Lisbon.

 

[Roachy]

A question for some of our more learned posters to answer if possible. When the outcome of the decision arrives, will there be some disclosure of the material that led to the allegations and our subsequent counter evidence? Obviously confidentiality issues will come into play, but as a layman my knowledge of the process is virtually non existent.

 

[give it to gordon]

So what do you mean is nonsense?

1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.

Kin hell mate do you work for the pl ?

Do you remember that the pl couldn't even get the charge sheet against City correct !

You seem to believe a convicted criminal over our owners.

You seem to think our owners, sponsors, investors, accountants have committed mass fraud for over a decade. Risking prison sentences, risking the companies, for what ? A football club ?

 

[Keith Moon]

You fundamentally misunderstand the way the disclosure process will have worked. The PL will have been entitled to (and received) documents from City and, in some circumstances (say where that party consented or was giving a witness statement) from a third party. To the extent the PL became aware of documents from the hacks (they weren't leaks) the PL would have put City on the spot to produce those documents in original form and cast doubt on City's disclosure process where such documents had not been previously shared.

But all of this is now irrelevant - the hearing has happened, thousands of documents would have been disclosed and used in that hearing. It is highly unlikely that Pinto has kept the really juicy stuff back or that the EIC didn't have all the data to search anyway. But it is irrelevant anyway because nobody will be listening to any party trying to bring further documents into play post the decision.

No, I do understand how the disclosure process works, but I’m concerned about what may have come in from the sidelines and helped the Premier League piece things together.

Of course, I also understand that new documents are irrelevant at this stage, but the last times new documents were mentioned by Pinto or his lawyer were in November 2023, February 2024, and June 2024.

They’ve had three years since CAS to uncover new evidence, and while it’s likely that the EIC got the juiciest stuff the first time around, it can’t be ruled out that there was more. DS/EIC received 3.4 terabytes out of the 17.5 terabytes.