PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
Of course not. Let's be clear, the only reason this investigation came about was because of the Football Leaks emails, for which we only have ourselves to blame.
Click to expand...

www.dailymail.co.uk

Paul Pogba and Mino Raiola protect image rights in offshore account

The £2.87million midfielder Paul Pogba earns in commercial and image rights at Manchester United is paid into Aftermath Ltd, a company set up by Raiola in Jersey.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Plenty of clubs and players were mentioned in Wikileaks but City have been the ones targeted by the media. Most of United's major players had image rights deals to reduce their tax burden. Mancini was paid by a company to reduce his tax in a similar way (not illegal). No one is looking at United's finances. The Glazers' shopping mall businesses are essentially shell companies but they have run up debts of £900m at United with no intention of paying them back until they sell up. They get a free pass everytime from the PL whose leader was vetted by United and Liverpool Directors before he got the job despite having no financial governance or legal experience.
 
Len Rum said:
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
What puzzled me about the Fordham deal is that they paid cash, not to receive an income stream, but to pay more cash out. We know now that this was funded by Abu Dhabi ultimately.
Click to expand...

Well, that's weird. Is that what the 12 million payment ADUG>Fordham one year was about? I thought I understood about Fordham, but I guess then I have no idea at all :)
 
Len Rum said:
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
Click to expand...

In our circumstance we can only be charged for breaking FFP if they find us guilty of fraudulent accounting.

Our accounts have been ratified and passed FFP. We can only be found guilty of FFP failure if we have lied about the figures which would be fraudulent accounting.

The Etisalat contract was deemed perfectly fine by CAS, who gave their verdict on it anyway despite elements being time-barred. Can't see an independent commission overruling the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
 
Ducado said:
Am I right in saying that the only thing that has brought this thread to life, is the Everton points deduction, and that nothing has changed with regards to the charges leveled against us?

And that no one actual knows about when any hearing is going to take place?

I understand that the Everton situation has sent some shockwaves throughout out fan base but it's been made clear the two situations are not comparable, with this in mind are we not going around in circles?
Click to expand...
This thread has been going around in circles for about 3,160 pages now.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
The point about coercion is key here. It was clear from the UEFA charges that certain clubs were stirring the pot. You could see the relationships at work in how leaks were disseminated to favoured journalists and how the mainstream media was used. Pep’s comments about Levy and others at his Presser and Khaldoon’s earlier comments make it clear we know there has been “interference”.
When these shady, secretive, “off the record” discussions take place, the usual safeguards of process and advisory checks are often by-passed. “Principals” agree a course of action between them without appreciating the full breadth of consequences that may follow. You can imagine Masters being persuaded to run with the charges on the basis that it’s then passed over to the panel who will then have to sort it out. Job done - because in the meantime City’s reputation can be trashed and the PL is shown to be policing the game. I suspect they’d not fully appreciated the magnitude of the charges and have made a really big mistake. Time will tell but I think nothing will be the same again. All conjecture of course but hard to think of another explanation.
Click to expand...
I agree totally with this. Many big corporate decisons are made in corridors and offices away from the boardroom. Lots of big legal battles are often settled with private conversations in hotels away from the lawyers. I have absolutely no doubt that club Directors (we know who they are) have exerted influence (perhaps coercion) on Richard Masters. He is out of his depth and was like a rabbit in the headlights at the Commons Select Committee. He is not a lawyer or a financial expert. Don't forget at least three people (perhaps four) either walked away or turned down the PL job because they could see what was coming.
 
Len Rum said:
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
Click to expand...
Don't forget. It isn't the quantum of the adjustments they make that determines the FFP non-compliance, it's those adjustments pushing losses over 105 million. As far as I remember, City were well within that limit for 2014/15 through to the end of the PL investigation. I don't thnk adjustments for image rights will push us over the FFP "edge", as it were. The 30 million of Etisalat was for two years 1012 and 2013, before FFP as was Mancini as we know.

I am not sure what the transition rules were in 2014/15, the first FFP year, but we were well over the limit that year anyway, so there must have been some allowances as there were with UEFA, I guess.
 
@Prestwich_Blue

One of the charges against us for 2009/10 is for rule C.80, shown below. Do you know if this is an actual charge, or is it one of the original hastily formulated charges that were subsequently corrected, albeit this one still remains an active charge?
0321e1900507ab7dedd77a1e52d8a419.jpg
 
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