PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[johnnytapia]

Last time I heard anyone use the phrase "outright mendacity" was Leonard Sachs.

He was good as Ali G.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

I got told off by my better half last night for laughing at a rag relative of hers who suggested that the rags will get free money to the tune of 2 billion for a new stadium because it's technically free money.

If it wasn't so stupid it would be embarrassing :)

Jim is cutting the office tea and coffee budget and plans to have that hole in the roof patched up any day now.

 

[cheekybids]

That’s one of the elements they claimed but there is no record of any sponsor going bust let alone anything material. But you’d have to think they had to prove this to the PL

My assumption is they didn’t have to try very hard.

 

[slbsn]

Not sure, but can't see why not. Back to 2016/7 maybe unless they can show deliberate concealment of something or other? I wouldn't worry about it unduly, even if it is included in the allegations it will be devilishly difficult to prove to the standard required.

I always assumed UEFA didn't challenge because of the 2014 settlement, tbh.

It isn’t why UEFA didn’t challenge but let’s say the PL do show it was a related party and that it should have been fair valued.

It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate, in 2024, that the 2016/17 contract was, say £10m too high. And to what end - on any case Related Party is subjective and City’s auditor clearly and consistently has disagreed with PwC and the allegations made by the PL including in 2023/24. So the PL would have won on a non-concealed, highly subjective point with a consequence that they can subjectively try to adjust an old sponsorship that the CAS decision says UEFA accepted was FMV and that was also found to be FMV in 2014 by UEFAs expert. It’s really very unlikely and if this is the fall back position (ie an alternate argument if their main fraud argument fails), I’d expect the panel to be less than impressed and to dismiss it.

 

[SilverFox2]

He’d be looking up the meaning of at least 50% of the words in your post for sure!! ;)

Wouldn't we all.

Peter has effectively ruined every complement I have given him credit for in one post full of complication.

 

[hammocity]

I'd still like to know why a supposedly independent non-executive director was burning the midnight oil over an operational issue, when a NED is supposed to be detached from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

And that's yet another example of getting an honour just for doing the job you're supposed to be doing.

If anyone reading this has watched Still Game on TV a "NED" is a Scottish "Non Educated Delinquent", not a bad comparison.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Surely the Premier League can’t just retrospectively declare that Etihad are a Related Party. That would be some serious straw-clutching. Even UEFA didn’t pursue that one too much but at least when they were in discussions with City about it, it was being done in real time.

There are clear situations where two or more entities are related parties. As I've mentioned before, two companies that did business together where a husband and wife were respectively executive directors of the two companies.

When John Wardle was chairman, he was a related party to City. NYCFC is a related party, as are the other CFG clubs. Basically the definition is where a person, or close relative of that person is related to the reporting entity, including being part of a group of companies or a joint-venture.

But there's a subjective element to it as well. Who exactly is "a close relative" for example? What does "related" mean in practice?

The situation is that Sheikh Mansour is Sheikh Mohammed's brother, and the latter is the ruler of Abu Dhabi, which has a state-owned airline. But there's a number of questions to be answered to establish whether there's a related party relationship between any of those and City.

Sheikh Mansour and City are almost certainly related parties, as he's the ultimate controlling shareholder. But it still might depend on how much day-to-day influence he has over us. Maybe not that much but let's assume he is a related party.

Are he and Etihad related parties then? Almost certainly not. Although he's a member of the ruling family, and his brother is the ruler, it's hard to see how they could be seen to exercise influence over Etihad's day-to-day decisions. The Open Skies case document seemed to be pointing out to Sheikh Mohammed that the Etihad sponsorship of City was mostly covered by central funds. The inference in that case is that he didn't know.

City have never declared Etihad to be a related party, and that's been (presumably) agreed by the auditors. But the PL lawyers and other experts may take a different view, as UEFA's representatives apparently did in 2014. The relevant accounting standard (IAS 24) is clear up to a point, but can be interpreted very subjectively after that. So it's one view against another, pretty well similar to someone saying one player had a good game and someone saying they didn't.

But, to make the point yet again, it's irrelevant whether Etihad is or isn't a related party as long as their sponsorship is deemed to be market value. I still think the PL have picked a strange hill to make a stand on here.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It isn’t why UEFA didn’t challenge but let’s say the PL do show it was a related party and that it should have been fair valued.

It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate, in 2024, that the 2016/17 contract was, say £10m too high. And to what end - on any case Related Party is subjective and City’s auditor clearly and consistently has disagreed with PwC and the allegations made by the PL including in 2023/24. So the PL would have won on a non-concealed, highly subjective point with a consequence that they can subjectively try to adjust an old sponsorship that the CAS decision says UEFA accepted was FMV and that was also found to be FMV in 2014 by UEFAs expert. It’s really very unlikely and if this is the fall back position (ie an alternate argument if their main fraud argument fails), I’d expect the panel to be less than impressed and to dismiss it.

Fair enough. I'm not arguing that they will be able to prove it, or that it is a fall-back position, just that there are bits and pieces pointing to these issues being included in the allegations. As with everything else, we will see soon enough :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

And to what end - on any case Related Party is subjective and City’s auditor clearly and consistently has disagreed with PwC and the allegations made by the PL including in 2023/24.

And as you've correctly said previously, knowing that it's one of the contentious issues in the PL charges, BDO will have wanted to be doubly, trebly sure about whether Etihad (or any other AD-based sponsor) was a related party or not.

I'd be amazed if they didn't take external advice over this.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Superb takedown of Herbert. Post of the year IMO.

Only another 364 days to outdo him ;)