PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Domo would suffice, no need for such formal language Blue 2 Blue ;)

To a teacher?

Anyway, I was just trying to be clever and screwed up. Nothing unusual there. :)

 

[cheekybids]

I’ve had a good look through your post history and the vast majority of your posts are negative about City and City fans.

This classic included:

View attachment 119271
You talk utter shite and tbh, I’m doubting if you even support City. Something stinks about your posts - they drip with insincerity and I don’t think it’s a coincidence you turned up when the charges dropped.

There’s no doubt…

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

(Just read this again before posting. Maybe I should have put it in a DM, but maybe someone, somewhere is interested. If you didn't like the post I am replying to, you should probably skip this).

Nothing wrong with disagreeing and you don't deserve the stick you get on here, even if you may expect it on a rival fans' forum on a particularly sensitive issue.

On Mancini, do we agree this?
* The original intent of the AJ contract was to tie Mancini down when he couldn't sign a full-time contract and other clubs were sniffing around?
* There was no FFP when Mancini was here, certainly not when he was signed?
* There was no PL requirement to include all a manager's remuneration until after Mancini left?

If we do, how can the PL show deliberate concealment (with intent) in those circumstances?

As for reducing the threshold for deliberate concealment because it's a small amount, I would be very surprised if that happens. Each allegation will be judged on its own merits, imho, not on its size in relation to the others.

On Fordham, I should probably say first that I am assuming the player contract issue in the allegations is, in fact, Fordham. We don't know, of course, and there are other murmurings in the press that it is to do with Yaya Toure's image rights. The seasons covered by the allegations cover 2010/11 to 2015/6, well before Fordham, so this could support the Toure suggestion (he started in 2010). Maybe it's a combination of both. Anyway, about the timing, the last season the allegations cover is 2015/16. Why? Maybe Fordham was wound down by then (although Fordham's accounts suggest not) or maybe Toure's contract was changed.

My point, though, is that if we can agree:
* the player contract issue relates to Fordham
* the Fordham arrangement wasn't deliberately concealed
* the allegations stop in the 2015/6 season,

then Fordham is, clearly, time limited. (I also didn't like the way you determined materiality either, but for the sake of brevity, I will let it pass).

I will, however, grant you that all the uncertainty/ lack of information over Fordham/Toure could lead to some surprises. It is the allegation I am least comfortable with, just because of how little we actually know.

So, I suppose we will continue to disagree, and that's fine.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m not

I liked that just on the off chance it's a Monty Python reference. :)

 

[Newman Noggs]

Pretty punchy stuff from Tolmie again tonight.

If this is true, it's interesting that, whilst he isn't welcome at City, he's very welcome at arsenal.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

And some fireworks

Balotelli?

 

[117 M34]

(Just read this again before posting. Maybe I should have put it in a DM, but maybe someone, somewhere is interested. If you didn't like the post I am replying to, you should probably skip this).

Nothing wrong with disagreeing and you don't deserve the stick you get on here, even if you may expect it on a rival fans' forum on a particularly sensitive issue.

On Mancini, do we agree this?
* The original intent of the AJ contract was to tie Mancini down when he couldn't sign a full-time contract and other clubs were sniffing around?
* There was no FFP when Mancini was here, certainly not when he was signed?
* There was no PL requirement to include all a manager's remuneration until after Mancini left?

If we do, how can the PL show deliberate concealment (with intent) in those circumstances?

As for reducing the threshold for deliberate concealment because it's a small amount, I would be very surprised if that happens. Each allegation will be judged on its own merits, imho, not on its size in relation to the others.

On Fordham, I should probably say first that I am assuming the player contract issue in the allegations is, in fact, Fordham. We don't know, of course, and there are other murmurings in the press that it is to do with Yaya Toure's image rights. The seasons covered by the allegations cover 2010/11 to 2015/6, well before Fordham, so this could support the Toure suggestion (he started in 2010). Maybe it's a combination of both. Anyway, about the timing, the last season the allegations cover is 2015/16. Why? Maybe Fordham was wound down by then (although Fordham's accounts suggest not) or maybe Toure's contract was changed.

My point, though, is that if we can agree:
* the player contract issue relates to Fordham
* the Fordham arrangement wasn't deliberately concealed
* the allegations stop in the 2015/6 season,

then Fordham is, clearly, time limited. (I also didn't like the way you determined materiality either, but for the sake of brevity, I will let it pass).

I will, however, grant you that all the uncertainty/ lack of information over Fordham/Toure could lead to some surprises. It is the allegation I am least comfortable with, just because of how little we actually know.

So, I suppose we will continue to disagree, and that's fine.

In terms of mancini, these are the alleged rules that were broken:
In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8;

This looks like there was some rule in place at the time about showing full manager renumeration.
I'll try and find what q7 and q8 actually say.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In terms of mancini, these are the alleged rules that were broken:
In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8;

This looks like there was some rule in place at the time about showing full manager renumeration.
I'll try and find what q7 and q8 actually say.

Been there, done that. But let me know what you see .... :)

 

[hcblue95]

Has tolmie had a good record on transfer info in recent years? Trying to work out how much I trust his info on the case.

 

[nmc]

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.

Good summary thank you.
Re Fordham - it maybe very uncomfortable ground for the PL to sanction City on the basis that there are other PL clubs who were operating similar schemes which the HMRC took a much more negative view of. City were not fined by HMRC - so City’s lawyers will almost certainly call that out as unreasonable - if they are not investigating or charging Newcastle or the Rags.