PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prophet of Doom]

Which leak would you consider trusted?

Well my bar is a little higher than the anonymous note that was doing the round recently which most seem to be pinning their hopes on.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

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

Giddy or Miserable ****.

Everybody needs to choose their side

 

[KS55]

Anyone who compares City to Lance Armstrong is effectively claiming City's players are on drugs. Because that is the true implication. A more obvious libel can barely be imagined.

I tried to make this point on the BBC the other day, but inevitably it was deleted as 'off topic'. In fairness, so was the post that prompted mine.

'Off topic' has a special meaning at the BBC. It does not mean starting to talk about boxing or World War II on a football thread. It means daring to contest the Red Shirt Agenda.

BTW more of us should write to our MPs about the clear bias on the BBC. It's probably a waste of time mentioning the press, as the MPs like the bias of the press.

The press, a group of private companies, are entitled to be biassed. The BBC is funded by taxation and subject to rules in the charter. So, a big difference.

 

[East Level 2]

Giddy or Miserable ****.

Everybody needs to choose their side

Can we flip from giddy to miserable based on results, the weather, and quality of pies?

 

[grim up north]

Everybody on here got giddy after being told last week that City were very bullish and sending legal letters out all over the shop.

That tuned out to be complete bollocks so the giddiness has vanished and everybody is back to shitting it again.

I’m not

 

[KS55]

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.

Thank you for an excellent summary. On Fordham, it should be noted that we negotiated with HMRC and were effectively cleared with no extra tax being levied. About six clubs were given tax levies, I am not sure whether those cases are still being argued about or whether they have paid the extra tax. None of those clubs have been charged by the PL.

 

[mancboy]

You sound like you are simultaneously giddy and shitting it.

he is cognitively dissident

 

[Bluetobits1951]

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.

they can't avoid being guilty of failing to co-operate with the EPL so they will be guilty of some of the charges and that will be enough for the red cartel media.

What I don't understand is the fact that the EPL has no Legality under UK law and as the FA found out with spurs when Alan Sugar he took them to the High Court and wiped the floor with them - can we do the same?
ALSO
The Manchester United Evening News ran an article regarding City having to pay out £350m to other premier league clubs if found guilty!!! no mention of if we are found innocent where we could sue the EPL for defamation of character and loss of revenue fo a similar amount or even bring the EPL crashing down

 

[dario2739]

they can't avoid being guilty of failing to co-operate with the EPL so they will be guilty of some of the charges and that will be enough for the red cartel media

Not a legal expert obviously, but surely that's contentious too?
City have submitted all the financial documents/records they are required to by the PL... if the PL are now saying there's something wrong, then it's up to them to prove it, I just don't see how City are legally required to supply anything more than they have?!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

There is a very good chance this will be concluded in the closed season, to do so now takes the eye off the product they sell, I have no doubt that the club will be exonerated, it’s just a matter off how the PL climbs down the hill they are stuck on, they need a way out, the whole FFP debacle has been a disaster from start to finish, and it proved to many that the industry can not police itself

My money is on sometime during the Euros.