PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Am I missing something here?
This from the BBC website
""First, accusations that Manchester City have artificially inflated the money coming into the club, with particular respect to commercial and sponsorship deals. The Premier League appears to be claiming the money was actually coming from the club owner, which doesn't count towards FFP (financial fair play), but was being disguised as sponsorship income, which does count towards FFP."

Surely if the money was coming from City's owner, which WAS permitted for FFP reasons, why would City instead claim it was sponsorship money that was not permitted under FFP?
 
Keeper! said:
Agreed, if guilty on the serious charges we will be certainly relegated, losing titles is just hyperbole.
Click to expand...

FoR3Bp5WYAAUhkw


Does not give panel power to remove titles or points in the past.

They can ask for a replay but how do you replay 9 years worth of games?
 
Keeper! said:
Paying Mancini off the books and paying sponsorship ourselves via a "third party"

The other charges are meaningless in the overall context.

Do they have hacked evidence to show we were lying? That I would imagine even we don't know (?)
Click to expand...

I am not overly concerned by any i⁰f those.

I am sure there will be contracts showing that City weren't paying Mancini "off the books". Even if the cash was paid by City, that doesn't prove anything about who the services were provided to. And even if we were using AJ to pay part of Mancini's salary, there was no FFP, so there was no actual damage done, other than a technicality. It's really not a serious issue. It certainly doesn't stop the annual accounts giving a true and fair view for those worrying about that.

We have defended the sponsorship issues before, other than ADTA and Aabar, which were small. I am sure we can do so again. And again, the contracts are properly recorded in the annual accounts, the services were supplied and amounts settled in full. Not really anything that affects the true and fair view given by the annual accounts, even if ADUG settled them all directly on behalf of the sponsors as long as the underlying accounting was proper.

As for new evidence, I find it hard to believe there are smoking gun emails lying around that haven't been made public in the last four years. And even if there were, emails prove nothing other than discussions, maybe instructions. What actually happens in the accounting is the only important thing. And I doubt anyone apart from City and related parties have access to that. Occam's Razor tells me they don't have much.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I am not overly concerned by any i⁰f those.

I am sure there will be contracts showing that City weren't paying Mancini "off the books". Even if the cash was paid by City, that doesn't prove anything about who the services were provided to. And even if we were using AJ to pay part of Mancini's salary, there was no FFP, so there was no actual damage done, other than a technicality. It's really not a serious issue. It certainly doesn't stop the annual accounts giving a true and fair view for those worrying about that.

We have defended the sponsorship issues before, other than ADTA and Aabar, which were small. I am sure we can do so again. And again, the contracts are properly recorded in the annual accounts, the services were supplied and amounts settled in full. Not really anything that affects the true and fair view given by the annual accounts, even if ADUG settled them all directly on behalf of the sponsors as long as the underlying accounting was proper.

As for new evidence, I find it hard to believe there are smoking gun emails lying around that haven't been made public in the last four years. And even if there were, emails prove nothing other than discussions, maybe instructions. What actually happens in the accounting is the only important thing. And I doubt anyone apart from City and related parties have access to that. Occam's Razor tells me they don't have much.
Click to expand...
"I am not overly concerned by any i⁰f those"

Maybe you should be!
 
I can only assume that the Premier League have an informant from within the club, whether it be a former backroom staff member, player etc that can back up their charges against the club.

I cannot believe they can prove any of the charges they have levied against us other than the “Noncooperation” without such a back up.
This might explain why the normal inspection of our accounts each year were passed.

If this scenario exists - then it adds more credence to their charges and City will need to discredit such evidence.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
Am I missing something here?
This from the BBC website
""First, accusations that Manchester City have artificially inflated the money coming into the club, with particular respect to commercial and sponsorship deals. The Premier League appears to be claiming the money was actually coming from the club owner, which doesn't count towards FFP (financial fair play), but was being disguised as sponsorship income, which does count towards FFP."

Surely if the money was coming from City's owner, which WAS permitted for FFP reasons, why would City instead claim it was sponsorship money that was not permitted under FFP?
Click to expand...
Isn’t this the old “related parties” argument where Intl Accounting Standards define the term and that’s what we abided by but the Prem can say, “Well, WE say they’re related” and hit us? Or am I confusing it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.