PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ducado said:
I was out on site this morning I thought for my sins I would listen to Talksport, Jordon who had been one of the leading critics of City and had said some very legally close to the bone before, his tone was remarkably different, I have not head the Lance Armstrong reference I have read it on Rag Forums

It's a valid topic for discussion for the media they won't shut up about it because it generates clicks which generate money for them, but there are very few assumptions of guilt in fact that really has changed

From my observations it would appear the groundwork is being done in order to exonerate the club (or minimise things) we are not party to all the ins and outs but I can see when groups are on monoverse.

How do you change the narrative? First you stop any reference to presumed guilt, and there was a lot of that prior to a few weeks ago, then you brief chosen people in the media )and people that matter in the media)as to what the charges are really about i.e stuff that allegedly happened many years ago, I am quite confident that this matter will be closed shortly and the club will come out of it very strongly, although I think some chairment (particularly of a North London club we played recently) will be sleeping with one eye open for many years
Click to expand...
You see where you went wrong, don't you?
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
Nearly every reference to the possibilty of four titles on the bounce is closely followed by the 115 charges , the media are really hurting now they are desperate for one of their red'istree clubs to resume domination and it just isnt happening whilst Pep in managing our club.
Just imagine if ALL the charges were dropped ,the media might have to give us some credit or maybe they will continue the "no smoke without fire" theory .that was prevalent after the UEFA/CAS decision.
Suspect it will be the latter and our club will never get the plaudits we thoroughly deserve.
Click to expand...
Dan Roan just did that on the BBC News.
Reviewed both games and then threw in the "black cloud still hanging.over the club"
 
halfcenturyup said:
I am a little confused about Fordham as well, tbh, because it hasn't really been discussed in detail anywhere (unlike the sponsorships at CAS, for example).

All I know for certain is that the image rights for certain players were transferred to a third party (with whom the club had connections) in return for around 25 million, I think. The only logical rationale for that sort of investment is that the investor pays up front and gets an annual return but I have no idea of the financial mechanics behind that.

I do know the transaction wasn't hidden as some "people" have suggested. It was fully disclosed in the accounts. I also know some mechanism for Mansour to "underwrite" Fordham losses through ADUG was discussed in one of the emails, but again I have no idea if that was implemented or of the mechanics of the arrangement.

Let's be honest, Fordham was only done to generate income that would let the club (it thought) comply with the FFP limits.

But let's also be honest, selling a revenue generating asset to generate the income up front is as old as the hills and I am sure the club got legal and tax clearance on the whole transaction before entering into it. Which is one of the reasons I am pretty relaxed about it.

The other reason is that the whole thing isn't material enough to change the true and fair view given by the accounts, and as it was properly disclosed in the accounts, it can't have been knowingly concealed and so is time limited, as it was all wound down by 2017.

That's all I know about Fordham.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I don't think any other club has completely externalised some of its image rights, so this is probably unique? Yes, I am sure we have followed others in splitting wages and image rights for tax purposes, but that is a different issue, I think.
Click to expand...
Where and in which set of accounts was the Fordham transaction/ arrangement disclosed, please?
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fantastic posts...

One thought though re non-compliance... If the PL's requests are deemed unreasonable, then can we really be charged with non-compliance? Surely if they've made unreasonable requests we have every right to say no!
Then re Fordham... that was never hidden, it was registered on company's house... so how can they do us now for something that was 'declared' at the time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCC
halfcenturyup said:
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).
  • 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.
Click to expand...
Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
 
pauls said:
Apparently Ornstein at the Athletic is bang up to date and believes witness statements are being prepared.He also expects Pep to leave although he's no inside knowledge lol.
I'd love to be a Fly on the wall at the CFG, they really must piss emselves laughing at all this irritating noise whilst strategically dismantling the pisscans achievements.
This is their final throw of the dice and I'm on the Khaldoon nag.
Click to expand...

When he says he expects to leave he means when peps contract is up that's not news
 
Iassel said:
Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
Click to expand...
Get a grip.
You’re embarrassing yourself.
 
sickswancity said:
Apologies for going slightly off piste but just wondered what others thought about this conversation me and my brother had last week. We've all been so busy defending the allegations that nobody has really discussed how we should feel if we are found guilty.

Like most of you on here I seriously doubt that our owners would commit such a wide range of fraudulent acts when we really never needed to and I believe we have no reason not to trust Khaldoon when he says we have irrefutable evidence to prove our innocence but just playing devils advocate for a moment...

If we were found guilty and it all comes out that the allegations were true and it was proved beyond all doubt that our owners used tactics to circumnavigate/break the rules to gain a sporting advantage - how would you feel about our owners after such a judgement and would you just forgive them for tarnishing our clubs name because we won some (well quite a lot) of trophies?

Would any of you be angry with our owners for taking the club we have loved all our lives and dragging it through the mud for commercial gain and leaving us as fans to deal with the shit show it leaves behind (as we are now)? I feel there would never be any coming back from it as every success from here on out would just be met with the old 115 cheat tag from rivals a they are doing now before our case has even been heard. It would almost be like - what's the point anymore, we were better off without the success but our integrity in-tact.

If the owners brought that upon us I just don't know how I would feel about it all. I think it would be fair to be very angry with them.
Click to expand...
I personally don’t give a fuck I’ve had a brilliant time Wembley every year Istanbul great last day dramas winning league can’t take my memories away amazing I’ve watched us in the 80/90 00 when we were shite not bothered if I have to go to York away again
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.