PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ancoats]

Wasn't it something to do with a pre season tour rather than just match day allowances?

again all the top teams cancelled pre-season tours

 

[Stoned Rose]

What does a balance of probability mean as far as this case is concerned? 50.1% to 49.9%? A balance of probability is not a very meaningful phrase. How do you quantify conviction in the interpretation of rule breaking? It seems to me that the legal process is inherently subjective, therefore the in-house process makes me wary. For example, the UEFA in-house commission & CAS reviewed similar material, and arrived at different conclusions.

I do not trust the regulatory regime when I see Chelsea and Man Utd reporting extraordinary losses, and I see that Man Utd are given unusual deductions and allowances that no other football club receives, and Chelsea have reportedly been allowed to use the proceeds of hotel sales in the breakeven calculation. It feels like Manchester City are being targeted by rival clubs because their is huge financial benefit to rival clubs in doing so.

You’re spot on but about a decade behind everyone.

 

[ancoats]

They sent them an audit schedule showing multiple categories where they claim they lost £40m

So the process doesn't allow other clubs to claim they lost more than £2 million in that season never mind every week
Also, didn't all the clubs agreed on Covid 19 allowances to be fixed at a rate that was fair for all clubs, I don't think the other clubs should let this be brushed under the carpe, somebody should flag it up and write to all the other clubs and ask for a case to be opened.

 

[give it to gordon]

Our case should be thrown out as it is clear the pl aren't fit to run this league.

City are in a racist witchhunt.

City were cleared by CAS

The press/media have run a smear campaign since day one. Often telling complete lies about our great club.

City are the best run club in the world, a top class campus.

Our owner pump billions into the UK and supported banks to stay afloat.

There are different rules for different clubs, it's clear.

When City are cleared the scummy press/media will still saying City are guilty or bought them of. Hopefully should this happen City take them to the cleaners in court.

I think like most I'm getting tied of all this, the clear unjust treatment of some clubs. The red cartel soon to be the American cartel will destroy the game I once loved.

On a cheery note walking through ramsgate yesterday evening wearing my big City coat a WHU fan coming the other way. He said good luck tomorrow lol and you will soon be back at the top you can't keep playing like you were.
We both bad mouthed the cartel, shock hands and went on our way :)

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

We never seem to discuss how passive/defensive our arguments were during the hearing. A highly aggressive rebuttal of the charges would need to be backed up with more evidence than the Arsenal letter, hateful nine letters, the New York photo and the David Gill speech, wiped from the web but no doubt City have. Add to that the anonymous YT attack video with millions of hits, Master's infamous remarks about regimes coming and going and Parry's public statement that certain historical clubs have earned the right to be more 'influential' than 'smaller' clubs. Clubs like us and PSG were allowed to be taken over by their current owners but subsequently competing clubs regret this ever happened. No doubt the same applies to NUFC now. If we have made direct verifiable assertions the PL are governing the game on behalf of competitor clubs, which I personally believe, the next media shit storm is on the way. You know the trope, "if you don't like the rules why don't you just sell up and leave". If the panel choose not to document our assertions we will never know unless we come out fighting in public. It wasn't me or any other poster on here who said there is a clear and organised campaign of attack against us at every level, regulatory, legacy media, social media and fan groups etc it was our Chairman, Khaldoon Mubarak.

 

[slbsn]

So the process doesn't allow other clubs to claim they lost more than £2 million in that season never mind every week
Also, didn't all the clubs agreed on Covid 19 allowances to be fixed at a rate that was fair for all clubs, I don't think the other clubs should let this be brushed under the carpe, somebody should flag it up and write to all the other clubs and ask for a case to be opened.

No. Other clubs could have claimed but it seems didn’t or couldn’t demonstrate the level of losses. This is all for 21/22 only - earlier periods were much higher. My understanding is that City didn’t claim anything because they had tonnes of PSR capacity. Championship clubs were capped at £2.5m (from memory).

 

[ancoats]

You are one of the very few people on ignore on this forum (perhaps the only one), I couldn't remember why but it appears for good reason.

I did none of those things detailed above.

I explained a story nobody had previously mentioned on national radio, it got plenty of coverage (contrary to the view here), I clarified that my point was not that United had done wrong fighting their own corner (a position I stand by be it City, Chelsea, United or anyone else), never said it was squeaky clean and explained some of the other relevant points like the audited amounts for 2021/22 in every other clubs accounts inc Arsenal (£2m). United responded by briefing Maguire with a list of categories and since then I have explained repeatedly why those categories do not appear to add up to £40m nor are detailed in any set of accounts. I have also explained here and elsewhere that despite my scepticism as to the £40m figure, they would only have got approval with an audited schedule of information submitted to the PL for review. Finally, I made it clear UEFA did not accept the £40m (per United's accounts).

I would say that contrary to your suggestion what I actually did was present quite a wide ranging objective look at the subject with lots of near exclusive detail.

As for your questions at the end, you obviously didn't listen properly to what I said. Do so next time rather than misleading the reader and making idiotic attacks.

So why those categories that do not appear to add up to £40m and were signed off can not be challenged
Somebody should ask the Premier League to open up a case of United CHEATING the rules.

Yes you have said many times about your views and rightly backed them, but for legal reasons, you have to be very careful in what you say on air on talksport, We all love your slots and you have City in heart and it seems you are the only one defending City, I would somebody from the club to be open to questions on talksport but we know its a legal matter and can not speak about on going cases

 

[slbsn]

So why those categories that do not appear to add up to £40m and were signed off can not be challenged
Somebody should ask the Premier League to open up a case of United CHEATING the rules.

Yes you have said many times about your views and rightly backed them, but for legal reasons, you have to be very careful in what you say on air on talksport, We all love your slots and you have City in heart and it seems you are the only one defending City, I would somebody from the club to be open to questions on talksport but we know its a legal matter and can not speak about on going cases

Because there is no evidence of cheating I’m afraid

 

[asahartford1]

You are one of the very few people on ignore on this forum (perhaps the only one), I couldn't remember why but it appears for good reason.

I did none of those things detailed above.

I explained a story nobody had previously mentioned on national radio, it got plenty of coverage (contrary to the view here), I clarified that my point was not that United had done wrong fighting their own corner (a position I stand by be it City, Chelsea, United or anyone else), never said it was squeaky clean and explained some of the other relevant points like the audited amounts for 2021/22 in every other clubs accounts inc Arsenal (£2m). United responded by briefing Maguire with a list of categories and since then I have explained repeatedly why those categories do not appear to add up to £40m nor are detailed in any set of accounts. I have also explained here and elsewhere that despite my scepticism as to the £40m figure, they would only have got approval with an audited schedule of information submitted to the PL for review. Finally, I made it clear UEFA did not accept the £40m (per United's accounts).

I would say that contrary to your suggestion what I actually did was present quite a wide ranging objective look at the subject with lots of near exclusive detail.

As for your questions at the end, you obviously didn't listen properly to what I said. Do so next time rather than misleading the reader and making idiotic attacks.

Would it be possible for you to explain the costs incurred by Mufc for selling shares from an existing owner to a new owner From memory around 50 million.
It may be a normal occurrence, it's not something in my experience.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The difference is one is highly subjective, well trodden publicly and clearly time barred. The other is sufficiently serious (very) and concealed to be capable of breaching the SoL. Furthermore, it is something worth pursuing - a disagreement on RP is not and, if it was, you have failed to address why they waited 10 years to pursue and haven't pursued the ongoing "breach" all founded on the same factual background. Of course you can believe what you like but you haven't addressed any of the questions including how you prove the subject RP point, how you now demostrate the FMV of 10 year old deals with good clarity.

PS related party and FMV only commenced in the PL rules in 2013-14 so "related party" couldn't relate to any charge for any year prior to that.

I think you've got a blind spot on this, which stems from your seeming belief that the PL is acting rationally and independently in this matter, and there's no malicious intent on the part of certain clubs in these charges.

I'd agree that if the PL were acting in the way you seem to believe, there would be no particular reason to go down this route as there seems to be little or no mileage in it. But, as I've said before, one of the key elements revealed in the APT case verdict was that other clubs felt we were misreporting related parties. And the senior club official who said to me (referring to the UEFA charges) "We know who's behind this. It's the US-owned clubs and there's a geopolitical element". And that's verbatim.

I suspect they took their cue on this from CAS, who mentioned this in their verdict. There's a clear theme or linkage here but you've naysayed this when it's been brought up previously. But perhaps I've got a blind spot on this and its confirmation bias. We'll only know for sure when the IC publishes its findings.

But if there's a dead body found, having died from stab wounds, and there's a knife next to the body covered in the victim's blood and the wounds are consistent with being inflicted by the knife that's next to the body, the first assumption will be that this knife was used to kill that person.

If we go back to the PL's press release of the charges (ignoring the fuck-up over some of the rules we'd been charged with breaching) it specifically says "...sponsorship revenue and related parties". I'd say that's a fairly clear indicator that the issue of RPs is a large part of this.

Where we clearly do agree on this, is that if that's the best they've got, they're pretty desperate and aren't likely to be successful. But again, that presupposes that their main intention is to uphold their rules, which they believe we've driven a coach and horses through, rather than drag our name through the mud and win any little point that will give our enemies some ammunition to level the cheating accusations.

And you're of course right that some of the charges precede the PL's introduction of rules around presenting accounts that meet regulatory and other accepted reporting standards. But IAS 24 (and its predecessors) has been in existence since before I started my accountancy training. So the more subjective rule of acting with utmost good faith (i.e. not meeting longstanding accounting standards) could be used in this respect prior to 2013/14, as it clearly seems to be.

You're right that there seems to be little mileage in these avenues of attack on FMV and Related Parties. And that leads to you saying that you don't think this is the substance of the charges. But some of us, rightly or wrongly, believe these charges aren't about substantive and material issues of accounting. Including the Mancini contract, that we both agree is a complete red herring, surely reinforces that.

Call me cynical, paranoid, glass half empty, even a tin-foil hat wearing blinkered crackpot, whatever. But, in my opinion, this is about landing any little blow on us they can, even some minor and insignificant thing that our detractors can hang their hat on and say "We told you so. They're cheats" regardless of whether it brought us any material or sporting benefit at all. And even if they fail in that, they've succeeded in throwing enough mud that people will say that regardless of the evidence or outcome.