PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Cobwebcat]

Talking about Levy ….
Wasnt gonna mention it as it seems a little inconsequential and may be totally normal but …

Did a job for a guy who owns a humongous ground works company, hes based up here but he was contracted to work on the spurs stadium throughout.
He said at the start of the contract they were getting paid direct by spurs, all tickety boo.
Half way through the costs of the build were going through the roof, well over budget and talk from the spurs hierarchy was that costs are going to have a huge impact on FFP. Dont forget my customer is the MD of this groundwork's co so he was dealing with top guys at spurs.
He was told they need to change how they pay him and ultimately the monies came via a polish company in the end. He also said liverpool did something similar on their stand extension

As i say, ive no idea if it actually means anything. Im thick as shit with all these financial goings on.

May mean something, may not

Pretty sure stadium costs are exempt from FFP so none of that would make sense.

 

[supercity88]

I don't think it is particularly unintelligible to normal people. Or particularly clear to them either, if being completely honest.

Or if it really ever can be clear to anyone, such is the nature of it and why there are lengthy arguments over how it is interpretated and applied (and I don't mean on this thread). Hence quite often you see 'both' sides of it presented, and that's where different people take different thigns on here.

As we don't know what City's evidence is or what exactly the PL have other than the leaked emails, it's all conjecture. So people with legal nous are providing their opinions but it's all guesswork at this stage. No one can categorically say what is being investigated and what City's position is.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Talking about Levy ….
Wasnt gonna mention it as it seems a little inconsequential and may be totally normal but …

Did a job for a guy who owns a humongous ground works company, hes based up here but he was contracted to work on the spurs stadium throughout.
He said at the start of the contract they were getting paid direct by spurs, all tickety boo.
Half way through the costs of the build were going through the roof, well over budget and talk from the spurs hierarchy was that costs are going to have a huge impact on FFP. Dont forget my customer is the MD of this groundwork's co so he was dealing with top guys at spurs.
He was told they need to change how they pay him and ultimately the monies came via a polish company in the end. He also said liverpool did something similar on their stand extension

As i say, ive no idea if it actually means anything. Im thick as shit with all these financial goings on.

May mean something, may not

Spurs made a loss of £50 million in 2022 following on from a loss of £83 million in 2021. They would have been using every accounting loophole to ensure what they post for their 2023 accounts show profit. Probably why they had to sell the family jewels to Bayern Munich in Harry Kane.

I have no sympathy for Spurs as they pushed for financial fair play and are one of the most in debt clubs in Europe. Rising interest rates will be screwing them over big time.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

It wouldn’t matter. Klopp got caught red handed meeting Virgil Van Dyke - I think it was in Blackpool of all places - tapping him up whilst he was under contract to Southampton - what did the FA and PL do ? Allowed Liverpool to apologise and Liverpool stated that they’d no longer pursue the player…. Then signed him at the next transfer window.

I knew they were tapping him up, never knew they met in secret in Blackpool!

 

[cheekybids]

I think the problem is that lawyers have a way of describing the law which is perfectly clear to them but absolutely unintelligible to any normal people, like accountants. :)

I think what I summarised is, in essence, the situation but I expect to be blasted (again) soon if I am wrong .....

You accountants have some strange ways as well. I’ve had many arguments with the bean counters where logic & common sense are dismissed for strange rules.

 

[cheekybids]

Levy will keep his nose out of the affair now having seen what has happened to his Father in Law Maybe he has learned his lesson to not cross a very rich and powerful man

Tottenham distance themselves from Joe Lewis after insider trading charges

Tottenham have sought to make it plain that Joe Lewis is no longer the owner of the club after he was bailed having pleaded not guilty to insider trading charges

www.theguardian.com

The funny thing about this will be the whispers between each other asking if it’s linked.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

looking at the charge list again and given the worst case statue of limitation and also the CAS verdict we're looking at one years of stuff not already covered. So 9 charges. 2 charges for the Mancini contract which is a nothing charge. 2 for player contracts, no idea what evidence or what even the charges relate to for this. 5 for financial fraud linked to sponsorships which I doubt they have any evidence for anyway. The rest is just noise and can be ignored

 

[johnnytapia]

A shame there were no CCTV cameras at railway stations back then!

If the same deal were done today there’d be no fucking trains, that’s for sure.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

You might be right. I thought we'd always claimed to be complying with the rules but that it came down to UEFA deciding to only allow wages to be discounted for the 2011/12 season and not for 2012/13 (which was the original rule for pre-FFP signed players). The club had obviously shown this in their books, planned and purchased players accordingly and was then fucked! But took the fine and sanctions because they didn't really hurt our short to mid-term plan. The legal fees would have cost more than the fine I'm sure!

Full version here from prestwich blue:

How UEFA shifted the Goalposts to Shaft Man City.

By Colin Savage. (@prestwichblue) Introduction I’ve written about this before but it’s clear some people still think that it’s something that I’ve made up in my fevered imagination. Having revisite…

boltfromtheblue.live

Also, we "took the pinch" in the form of a settlement and not a fine. The distinction is important - we did not accept wrongdoing because we vehemently disagreed with them on different things. Not least the PwC argument that Etihad, Etisalat, AAbar etc were related parties and should be assessed at fair market value. We refused to accept this even though at least with Etihad there wasn't the issue about market value.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If I remember the 2014 settlement correctly, we failed FFP, obviously, but there were some allowances that could be claimed in mitigation, principally wages under pre-FFP contracts. The club was pretty sure those allowances would have just saved us (after some fancy footwork in selling intangible assets and after using the lawyers who drafted the FFP rules as advisors), but UEFA changed the rules at the last minute so that we were still over with the allowances. When the allowances were disallowed, the club was over the acceptable limit by a long way. Hence the severe punishment.

The bastards.

Spot on. I strongly suspect that's why we went into the Fordham arrangement, to bring some additional revenue in, plus I think we also similarly sold IP to the two CFG subsidiaries, City Football Marketing & City Football Services.