PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dinas]

Apart from the non-cooperation charges, which go up to this financial year, that's the only information they have, as the Der Spiegel articles were published then. But the image rights arrangement appears to have ended in 2018, as Fordham stopped trading and our wage bill went up by a noticeable amount (c£50m). We also know UEFA discussed the Fordham arrangement with us in 2015.

My guess is that we weren't including it in the figures for player remuneration from 2013 to 2015 but did after that discussion with UEFA. I'd also guess that the c.£50m increase is about 3 or 4 years of the Fordham payments. That's complete speculation on my part but based on the amounts that seemed to be going through Fordham (which is difficult to see accurately as they didn't publish a P&L account). It's possible therefore that we 'transferred' the accumulated 2016-18 image rights payments back into our own books (but had reported it to UEFA after 2015 assuming we hadn't before).

That'd be my guess but, if I'm right you'd have to ask why UEFA didn't bring charges for that? On the surface failing to report around £15m a year (give or take a couple of million), might seem a pretty egregious breach of FFP. They almost certainly had us bang to rights, yet didn't charge us even after Der Spiegel had published the arrangement. It's possible that we argued it was an entirely personal payment to the players, which while clubs generally paid it directly, we'd legally assigned the rights to a third-party (Fordham), received a consideration for that and that it was a matter between Fordham and the players after that. That still begs the question, what did Fordham get out of it?

But UEFA's lawyers could have looked at it and thought that, while it was rather 'cute', it didn't actually break any rules and there was little or no prospect of successfully arguing the case (and they wouldn't have known about CAS at that point).

I've always said that the sponsorships/related party issue and the Mancini contract are red herrings, blind alleys, whatever you want ot call them but that Fordham was probably the most questionable. But if it was that questionable then I'm sure UEFA would have charged us, which is why I'd question the chances of the PL succeeding.

UEFA took 3 or 4 months from the publication of the Der Spiegel articles to the CFCB issuing the 2-season ban. The PL has taken over 4 years and come up with not very much. The haste with which they appeared to issue the charges, and the subsequent withdrawal of some because they'd completely messed up, plus the rumours that Levy was allegedly pressuring them just before they were issued, suggests to me they knew they had very little but decided to go ahead anyway, as it least it muddied the waters.

If the Levy thing is true and I don't doubt it at all - what does that say about the PL - being bullied by one of their less successful members to try to bring down the club that has provided the largest contribution to their product. I can't get my head around why any sensible organisation would do that. It seems to suggest to me that they have no long-term strategy. An organisation that was in touch with the market would see the long term benefits of City becoming more and more attractive. The failure to understand the changing nature of their commercial environment will threaten their future and they have all sorts of things to fear like the super league and more fans realising that they are backing losers (redtops) - or am I putting too much faith in people being able to comprehend what is going on?

 

[Gremlin]

I keep getting this from the social media 'intelligentia'. I've commented to some that the figure is very interesting and that I would be grateful if they would pass on the source of said information. Comments range from 'well everyone knows it's true' to the Daily Mail or Sky Sports. It seems we are the only ones who are sceptical and cynical of the media have any credibility or authority. This is how the myths are peddled and I'm at a loss to see what we can do it about it except as fans to take them on at every opportunity and to keep on winning and showing what a remarkable organisation we are.

'well everyone knows it's true' appears to be the main body of evidence that most people point to with regards to allegations of City wrongdoing. Fortunately you need a little more than this in a proper legal setting as UEFA found out. And hopefully the PL will similarly find this out.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Its just a pathetic coping mechanism from Liverpool and United fans at this point. Reading online, that shit hole red and white kop now think Newcastle are cheating just because.

Maybe we should give them a little red blanket and a teddy bear to hug. Bless.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

I keep on hearing that we pay Haaland £835k a week more than double what anyone else was prepared to pay, do people seriously believe this?

I know he is a top class player but really.

The 800-900k per week figure originated from an article (possibly Mike Keegan) where a supposed number of agents had speculated what Haaland could earn per week based on win/goal bonuses, trophy and award bonuses, image rights & deals etc etc etc, even probably including winning the Grand National.
The red shirt masses lapped it up, and this figure soon became enshrined as what his basic weekly salary was.
Whereas most agree his basic is circa 300-400k per week

 

[waspish]

The current ffp rules should not exist, however they do and if we broke them we deserve punished? I don’t like this view tbh. It’s aload of shit. I feel sorry for city but you still have to be punished for competing.

Fuck no!

Maybe now the like of Leicester or wolves should ask the league for a new vote on ffp as they were all lead up the garden path and their trousers pulled down by the big boys.

It does beg the question tho as to why city did not challenge the ffp framework instead of trying to work within its constraints. Has this been the biggest mistake? Commercially no, winning trophies no but as for the clubs reputation well it has and will continue to be decimated for the good of the ‘game ‘, game in this instance meaning the cartel clubs.

When Gill keep changing the premiers ffp at whim it ain’t fit for purpose! Oh it took them four years t charge us because they had write up “Another” change to ffp to do us and then they want to go back to do us with the new “let’s stop city” ffp rules to punish us!

 

[cheekybids]

The Martin Samuel article is 'out there.'
How can one person be so against the tide?
If he has got insider information then once again the club have got it right in personnel recruitment.
Having this true sports journalist seemingly in our corner is on a par with Pep as manager and KdB in the first team.
I don't believe he would risk his reputation and standing within the game if he wasn't across the whole thing comprehensively.
I don't think his integrity would allow him to be a paid shrill or the like and he's playing the long game safe in the knowledge that he will always be the go to guy on matters City related going forward once this shit is done and dusted.
The fact that he's referenced other clubs who have been hoodwinked through FFP in this latest article will begin the ringing of many alarm bells among supporters of other clubs I am sure.
Top six (sadly we're a part of it like it or not). Everyone else - Want success? From now on accept your place, take your turn at being this seasons yo-yo club, parachute payments will see you right and when we decide to change the rules to suit ourselves again you'll be the last to know!

Apparently he’s on the payroll along with his son, it’s in every reply to his article on Twitter.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Can you help me out with this again, PB. Is this the situation?

City managed image rights for some players. So they made money from the players' image, then paid some of that to the players. The easiest way to account for that is as some image rights income and some image rights expenses. But City needed some more income to meet FFP, so the club came up with the idea of selling some or all of those rights to a third party, in return for a one-off payment. Meaning we got money up front from the third party to help our FFP, then the third party commercialised the rights, earning money and paying the players a share of it.

Now, FFP didn't like that for two reasons: first it generated income that helped us meet FFP (we thought) and secondly because it confuses the position on amounts paid in total to players which, it seems, is important to them for some reason.

UEFA raised this with the club but didn't pursue it in their charge sheet. Why? No idea. Maybe because it was a perfectly valid business transaction, accounted for properly, and supported by legal and fiscal opinions, who knows? In any case, the activity was brought in-house again in 2018, probably as a result of negotiations with UEFA?

Is that it, more or less?

I'd say that's pretty well it.

 

[waspish]

What did we do up to 2018, that cannot be included in the charge sheet up to the present date?

Didn't we change the way we paid image rights?

If so, is that an admission of guilt, or an agreement?

Jordan on talksport mentioned it a few times this morning about our images rights “paying method”

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Apart from the non-cooperation charges, which go up to this financial year, that's the only information they have, as the Der Spiegel articles were published then. But the image rights arrangement appears to have ended in 2018, as Fordham stopped trading and our wage bill went up by a noticeable amount (c£50m). We also know UEFA discussed the Fordham arrangement with us in 2015.

My guess is that we weren't including it in the figures for player remuneration from 2013 to 2015 but did after that discussion with UEFA. I'd also guess that the c.£50m increase is about 3 or 4 years of the Fordham payments. That's complete speculation on my part but based on the amounts that seemed to be going through Fordham (which is difficult to see accurately as they didn't publish a P&L account). It's possible therefore that we 'transferred' the accumulated 2016-18 image rights payments back into our own books (but had reported it to UEFA after 2015 assuming we hadn't before).

That'd be my guess but, if I'm right you'd have to ask why UEFA didn't bring charges for that? On the surface failing to report around £15m a year (give or take a couple of million), might seem a pretty egregious breach of FFP. They almost certainly had us bang to rights, yet didn't charge us even after Der Spiegel had published the arrangement. It's possible that we argued it was an entirely personal payment to the players, which while clubs generally paid it directly, we'd legally assigned the rights to a third-party (Fordham), received a consideration for that and that it was a matter between Fordham and the players after that. That still begs the question, what did Fordham get out of it?

But UEFA's lawyers could have looked at it and thought that, while it was rather 'cute', it didn't actually break any rules and there was little or no prospect of successfully arguing the case (and they wouldn't have known about CAS at that point).

I've always said that the sponsorships/related party issue and the Mancini contract are red herrings, blind alleys, whatever you want ot call them but that Fordham was probably the most questionable. But if it was that questionable then I'm sure UEFA would have charged us, which is why I'd question the chances of the PL succeeding.

UEFA took 3 or 4 months from the publication of the Der Spiegel articles to the CFCB issuing the 2-season ban. The PL has taken over 4 years and come up with not very much. The haste with which they appeared to issue the charges, and the subsequent withdrawal of some because they'd completely messed up, plus the rumours that Levy was allegedly pressuring them just before they were issued, suggests to me they knew they had very little but decided to go ahead anyway, as it least it muddied the waters.

Levy was forcing them to move with the charges?

 

[M18CTID]

Levy was forcing them to move with the charges?

I'm not totally sure about that but Pep mentioned Levy by name during THAT presser!