PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
That was at the time of the investigation. Leterme left and Parry too, shortly after I think.
Click to expand...

cheekybids said:
How’s the investigation of the leaks?
Click to expand...
Pure assumption on my part but I believe that these two were moved on as part of a deal between the club and UEFA with no further action being taken with the supposed ethics investigation into the leaks. It would make sense with the timing of their departures is all the evidence for my feeling but it seems like something the club hierarchy would do at that time.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
This under the table , brown envelope nonsense is amazing. Multi national companies with suit cases full of readies dropping it off at CAS. What the fuck are they doing with it!
Click to expand...

I had the same argument with my kitchen fitter who I was paying in cash & told me he’s got that much cash hidden away around the house. I said imagine having to find places to hide £200k a week……..
 
JRockBlues said:
Pure assumption on my part but I believe that these two were moved on as part of a deal between the club and UEFA with no further action being taken with the supposed ethics investigation into the leaks. It would make sense with the timing of their departures is all the evidence for my feeling but it seems like something the club hierarchy would do at that time.
Click to expand...

Why let them be moved on?

Why not a disciplinary sanction?
 
TedofChume said:
I've lost the details of those that said they'd be interested in this. About 6 lads direct messaged me in the summer and those messages have expired.

It's taken a while, but I have put together as much accurate information as I can about this subject on the following website. Obviously, it's heavily influenced by my opinion, but I have referenced everything I can.

Home - ManCityStuff

All things about - The Best Team In The Land And All The World #TBTITLAATWMan City StuffJoin Us Refuting misinformation Fighting Back Against A Twisted Media Narrative About Manchester City FC The main focus of this blog for now is the utter rubbish that is UEFA FFP and the Premier League Profit...
mancitystuff.co.uk

One peice of feedback I've had, is that it is a mad man's rant. I am mad and annoyed about it! As far as I'm concerned the more stuff there is out there supporting the City side of the argument the better! I'll keep posting everytime I learn or pick up on something new.

There are plenty of mistakes, so if you spot any typos or obvious errors please let me know. I've always made typos and have never been able to spell. It's very much a work in progress, but I hope it provides some useful pointers/references for anyone interested:


NB
1)
I'd like to credit the Blue who counted the charges and highlighted that there were 134, not 115. I can't find his post though, it's somewhere in the thread. If it was you please let me know.

2)
FYI - 3 of the charges relate to breaking rule E60. This rule is about adjusting your allowable losses by £22m for playing in the err Championship.....

Digging Deeper into the Charges Against City - ManCityStuff

City's allowable losses reduced because they are a Football League Club! In this post, I will look at the actual charges against City. What I didn't realise before I started going through this was how contrived and how full of bulls**t these charges actualy are. This will soon become...
mancitystuff.co.uk

Click to expand...
Great read. Not sure if you’ve covered it elsewhere but those you’ve removed due to them effectively being time barred is there merit to those charges IF they weren’t?

That always seems to be something thrown at us a lot around the fact some we’ve ’got away with’ because they’ve charged us too late (both PL and UEFA).
 
Paladin said:
When we are exonerated, I'm looking forward to the discussions with Liverpool fans, who of all people should join with us in celebrating the defeat of a potential miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...
Well, let's face it Paladin, there's no group of people better at expressing outrage and mounting campaigns against injustice than our Merseyside chums! I have no doubt you're right.
; )
 
Last edited:
swintonjamie said:
Great read. Not sure if you’ve covered it elsewhere but those you’ve removed due to them effectively being time barred is there merit to those charges IF they weren’t?

That always seems to be something thrown at us a lot around the fact some we’ve ’got away with’ because they’ve charged us too late (both PL and UEFA).
Click to expand...
I don't think so to be honest. I thought I'd convered it in another post.

The first allegation is that ADUG (the company that owns the City Football Group) settled sponsorship invoices for Etisalat & Etihad and this is therefore an artificial injection of cash. This is despite the fact these two sponsors subsequently reimbursed ADUG.

There are at least two plausible reasons why this might have happened that I can think of, there are probably more. Both sponsors are state owned, funded and loss making organisations.

1)
Both sponsors trade in UAE currency, the Dirham, which I think is tied to the US Dollar. In large international currency payments, it is common to agree to purchase currency in advance off a third party to fix the exchange rate. Otherwise a sponsorship deal worth £50m could cost you anything from $50-$70m. Anyone who has ever bought property abroad in France or Spain will have done this. It could be ADUG stepped in and provided this service.

2)
They're both state funded. Whether they get a dollop of cash once a year, every six months or every quarter, it might have been that £50m didn't coincide well with their funding cycle. This could have meant settling the City bill late. A knock on effect would be that City then couldn't settle their bills by June 30th (I think all transfer payments due have to be paid by then). So ADUG just stepped in with a short term loan to fund the gap. This isn't just in City's interest to do so, but in the interest of the clubs they owe money to.

The second allegation is about image rights payments to.players and additional payments to Mancini via third parties. Neither seem to have much merit and are not out of line with what other clubs are doing.

So I can't see why there would be any reason to uphold any of those charges.

I'm sure I'd done a post on this, maybe it's just in my head!!! If not I'll write and add it next week.
 
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