PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Agree 100% - it’s a forum of opinions. Yet any of us that ask questions why posters think this will be settled in the summer are called a miserable **** !

Stefan said months ago he could not envisage a scenario where this doesn’t go to the full hearing. A summer settlement will set off the tinfoil hat brigade that there has been government intervention.

The only mention of a summer settlement was on that anonymous note doing the rounds a couple of weeks ago.

Hope it’s true but will wait to hear some more trusted leaks before I start getting giddy.

Which leak would you consider trusted?

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Was that broadcast or printed? And of course it would only apply to those who had received it, again it’s not about stopping discussion of this but attempting to stop the cheating narrative, I don’t know if they sent them however the cheating narrative does appear to have stopped

Was that broadcast or printed? And of course it would only apply to those who had received it, again it’s not about stopping discussion of this but attempting to stop the cheating narrative, I don’t know if they sent them however the cheating narrative does appear to have stopped

The BBC published a big story earlier in the week that assumed City had cheated and were awaiting punishment.

It was amended fairly quickly - but that and Lance Armstrong broadcast on Talksport does not indicate the cheating narrative has stopped to me.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I reckon @Prophet of Doom is on a wager that they can deploy the word ‘giddy’ over 100 times throughout the month of May.

 

[cibaman]

IF there is a settlement I would have thought they'd announce it during the euros when everyone had that to distract them

I think there’s probably pros and cons. Obviously, if City are to be exonerated they would want that to be done asap.Perhaps not the week we win the league, but a couple of weeks later. I don’t think the Euros would distract anyone from criticism of a favourable outcome. There might also be additional criticism if that occurred during the Euro's. “burying bad news”.

I’m highly sceptical that there will be an early settlement, but if doesn’t happen before the Euros I don’t think it will happen until just before the Inquiry is due to start

 

[cibaman]

Just don't city accepting any settlement unless we are exonerated of all charges. We have said we are not guilty and can prove it and look forward to proving it and having the case closed once and for all. Making a settlement wont do that.

I think we would settle if it were just over non cooperation and resulted in a fine. It’s clearly in our interests to put the matter to bed rather than having it drag on for another year.

i think we will settle providing there are no football penalties and no admission of guilt on the main charges on our part.Nothing that might encourage the SFO or HMRc to open criminal investigations, nothing that would encourage our rivals to launch civil action.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's normal that people over-react to perceived good news, or perceived slights but really just take it all in, make up your own mind and relax.

It's entirely possible that some letters were sent out to some outlets and not others, that some outlets choose to ignore them.

It's entirely possible the PL is saying hearing in the autumn but negotiating a settlement behind closed doors.

No-one needs to feel superior if they choose to believe one or the other. Just make your own minds up and make peace with it. You will find out sooner or later if you were right or not.

 

[BlueRockape]

The only way I can see the PL get out of this is when the government regulated body kicks in.
They look at the facts throw it out and claim the PL were off their box to bring the charges in the first place

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's normal that people over-react to perceived good news, or perceived slights but really just take it all in, make up your own mind and relax.

It's entirely possible that some letters were sent out to some outlets and not others, that some outlets choose to ignore them.

It's entirely possible the PL is saying hearing in the autumn but negotiating a settlement behind closed doors.

No-one needs to feel superior if they choose to believe one or the other. Just make your own minds up and make peace with it. You will find out sooner or later if you were right or not.

You sound like you are simultaneously giddy and shitting it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Warning *Long post*

We go around and around sometimes, so I tried to summarise where we are and how we got here. By necessity it avoids some of the intricacies, but I tried to be factual where I could. Feel free to comment if I have said anything you disagree with.

2014 UEFA investigation and settlement

• City were never charged with anything.
• City accepted the settlement without accepting guilt.
• There was an investigation but UEFA and City settled before referral to the Adjudicatory Chamber for verdict.
• A settlement does not indicate guilt.
• UEFA moving the goalposts was the club’s main concern for an FFP breach but it wasn’t the only issue.
• Other issues included fair values of sponsorships, related party nature of sponsorships, the inclusion of contract amortisation in the pre-2010 squad cost mitigation, the sale of IP to CFG and the sale of image rights to Fordham.
• Any of these could have led to a breach even if the goalposts hadn't been moved.
• It was in the interest of both parties not to litigate all this, so they settled.
• Importantly for City, the settlement meant the issues of fair value, related party, CDG and Fordham weren’t raised again in 2019.

2019 UEFA investigation, punishment and CAS

• City were found guilty by UEFA but all charges except non-compliance were not proven on appeal at CAS
• So, while it is accurate to say City were found guilty by UEFA, it is disingenuous to say that without referring to the successful appeal.
• The issues for which City were punished by UEFA were: funding of Etihad sponsorship, funding of Etisalat sponsorship, filing incorrect accounts, filing incorrect FFP information.
• City were banned from the CL for two years and fined 30 million Euros (for all the charges, there was no split).
• City appealed to CAS and provided new information, mostly external.
• City didn’t choose the Chairman of the CAS panel, City chose one arbitrator, UEFA chose one and City proposed the Chairman, which was accepted by UEFA. CAS rules allow the two parties to choose the three arbitrators, if they can’t agree they select one each and the two selected arbitrators choose a Chairman and, finally, if they can’t agree then the Chairman of the Judicial Panel can appoint a Chairman. Nothing untoward there.
• CAS time limited the Etisalat issue and part of the Etihad issue.
• Note time limiting isn't a “got off on a technicality”, it is a part of case law in every jurisdiction and just means the issue can’t be proven.
• CAS found, on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the “evidence” presented by UEFA and the counter-evidence provided by the club, that the issue of Etihad was not proven.
• CAS found that City had not complied sufficiently with UEFA, distinguishing three areas: information requested by UEFA on which they later did not insist - no sanction; information requested by UEFA but was presented for the first time at CAS - sanction; information not requested by UEFA that was later presented to CAS - no sanction.
• So the CAS award was Etihad and Etisalat not proven, non-compliance partly proven - CL ban overturned and 10 million Euro sanction.

2019 PL investigation

• Investigation was opened concurrently with UEFA investigation.
• Was delayed firstly by UEFA investigation/ charges and CAS then by some procedural complaints from City on cooperation (countered by PL) and confidentiality (backed by PL).
• Complaints were legitimate but ultimately rejected.
• Allegations referred to disciplinary panel chairman in February 2023.
• Alleged rule breaches were:
• Filing incorrect accounts, presenting incorrect financial information to the PL, acting in bad faith, 50 alleged breaches.
• Understating manager remuneration, 8 alleged breaches.
• Understating player remuneration, 12 alleged breaches.
• UEFA FFP and licensing, 5 alleged breaches.
• PL FFP, 6 alleged breaches.
• Non-cooperation, 30 alleged breaches.
• Total 111 alleged breaches (plus 4 for when rule changes mid-season led to two rule breaches multiple times in a season).

2023 Independent PL Panel (more personal comment as in progress)

• Three member panel chosen by chairman of judicial panel who was chosen by PL.
• We don't know the detail of the allegations, but:
• Some of the allegations mirror the UEFA charges (funding of sponsorships, filing incorrect accounting information, acting in bad faith), so it is safe to assume the detail of the allegations, and the evidence to support them, is also the same.
• The PL may also have additional evidence from their investigation, but, even if the allegations were true, any real incriminating evidence would be external and I doubt any external evidence was provided to the investigation.
• There are also additional allegations concerning matters that were clearly time limited at UEFA (certainly Mancini), matters that were time limited by CAS (Etihad partly, Etisalat), matters that were included in the 2014 settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (most probably Fordham) and, possibly if unlikely, matters that were not in the leaked emails but were included in the 2014 UEFA settlement and therefore not raised by UEFA in 2019 (fair values, related parties, IP sale to CFG).
• General consensus is a hearing in the autumn, an award next year followed by the inevitable appeals.
• Possibility of a settlement before that.

Predictions (completely personal)

• Mancini, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely).
• Fordham, time- limited unless the PL can show knowing concealment (unlikely, but don’t know enough about Fordham to be sure).
• Etihad, same as CAS, unproven unless PL have some particularly cogent incriminating evidence from somewhere (unlikely).
• Etisalat, CAS evidence will show no knowing concealment, so time- limited.
• Filing of incorrect accounts, hinges on Etihad (rest isn’t material), so unlikely to be proven.
• Acting in bad faith, if the above comes to pass, this falls away.
• PL FFP breaches, if Etihad resolved as above, shouldn't be a problem.
• UEFA FFP and licensing breaches, if all resolved as above, shouldn’t be a problem.
• So what is left -1? Non-compliance. I can’t imagine that City didn't comply with all reasonable requests from the PL after the failed court appeals, so that leaves requests from the PL that City considered either unreasonable (fishing) or requests outside the scope of the PL rules (external information, imo). Probably same as CAS, financial sanction, maybe reduced if City can show unreasonable or outside scope.
• So what is left - 2? PL disagreeing with some 10 year old accounting treatments (understating expenses due to Fordham / IP sales to CFG). Possible sporting sanction (very unlikely), possible financial sanction (more likely, possibly suspended).
• So that is it, imho. Most likely outcome: financial sanction for non-compliance and (possibly) understatement of expenses on Fordham/IP sales.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You sound like you are simultaneously giddy and shitting it.

I'm gidding it :)