PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kinkladze's crazy skills said:
If you question sponsors maybe Leicester's title win needs to be scrutinised too, literally everything at that club was sponsored to the hilt by King Power.

Leicester were well within their rights though to prop the club up in my opinion and give their company great exposure simultaneously, unlike us though it's very unlikely they'd have raised decent money or anywhere near as much money without King Power's help, there should be no issue with this in the slightest it's all okay what they did and us too.
It's ridiculous to suggest clubs shouldn't be allowed to invest in themselves long term it destroys competition, FFP needs ditching asap as without it in place I'm pretty sure Newcastle would've pushed on and qualified for next season's UCL too.

With our sponsorship our owners wanted to give Etihad Airways the maximum exposure possible, with them nobody particularly knew of them before they sponsored us but they've had their name splashed alongside our success. Now they're a massive worldwide name in aviation rather than a massive regional airline, Emirates Airlines also had the exact same motives when sponsoring Arsenal for similar exposure, it's funny how it's not Arab money when it concerns the redshirt brigade cos without Emirates money Arsenal could've struggled.

With Leicester and King Power in their case (not sure where allegations went) as a company they've also been accused of major corruption, so by the flawed logic the freaks who carry on about us have used in the last decade they should ask whether the magic of Leicester's title win has been tainted, not that it has or should be in question it's far from tainted for me but we all know what I'm getting at.

There's many examples of shareholders propping clubs up they've invested in like Bayern and Juve, just like Ineos with Nice or the rags I'm sure in the near future I'm sure they'll help out and then there's King Power propping up Leicester, there's an extreme case of double standards everywhere you look when it comes to our owners and everyone else's.

Everything becomes a lot more scrutinised with us, they hate we've muscled in on the redshirt brigade.
Click to expand...
Emirates sponsor the F.A.Cup too....
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Clearly, I am not an auditor, but I am intrigued by the level of scrutiny they applied to City's accounts. So for example, on dd/mm/yyyy City's bank account received a payment in for £40M. Presumably the auditors query this either via email or in person, whatever. And the City accounts person replies "Oh that was a sponsorship payment from Ethihad Airways". Is that the end of the conversation ? the BDO person just says "thanks for that, moving on, next item..."
FFS there must be more scrutiny than that ?. We have never seen ANY leaked emails between City and BDO. Why might that be ?.
Click to expand...
The auditors usually would cir cularise the third party (Etihad) to confirm the transaction. Thereafter, they would review the signed contract and then confirm whether the agreed services stated in the contract has been fulfilled
Beyond this, there's not much else they can do other than maybe have a chat with City's executives about any questions or concerns,
 
meltonblue said:
The only thing I think it can be is Toure and Adug paying him directly (well, his agent).
Click to expand...
It's an interesting one. I doubt we will ever know until the IP report comes out.

If it is paying the agent off the books, that would be a breach in just one season surely, unless they are saying it should have been amortised over five years and so affected each year, which is a bit of a stretch. Also the breach is not having all player remuneration in the player's contract iirc. This would be agent remuneration not player.

It's possibly paying part of Toure's image rights off the books. He signed in 2010, when the breaches allegedly started, for five years, which is the number of seasons the breaches allegedly took place. But he renewed in 2013 for four years iirc. So the alleged breaches should either have stopped then or in 2017/18, not 2015/6, unless there was some side contract adjusting the situation (following the UEFA settlement, for example) that we don't know about.

It can't just be Fordham, as that didn't start until 2013, so it's all a bit of a conundrum. I guess we have to wait and see.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It's an interesting one. I doubt we will ever know until the IP report comes out.

If it is paying the agent off the books, that would be a breach in just one season surely, unless they are saying it should have been amortised over five years and so affected each year, which is a bit of a stretch. Also the breach is not having all player remuneration in the player's contract iirc. This would be agent remuneration not player.

It's possibly paying part of Toure's image rights off the books. He signed in 2010, when the breaches allegedly started, for five years, which is the number of seasons the breaches allegedly took place. But he renewed in 2013 for four years iirc. So the alleged breaches should either have stopped then or in 2017/18, not 2015/6, unless there was some side contract adjusting the situation (following the UEFA settlement, for example) that we don't know about.

It can't just be Fordham, as that didn't start until 2013, so it's all a bit of a conundrum. I guess we have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Was Tour mentioned in the emails ? Or any player other than the Fordham thing? I don’t remember it at CAS etc. don’t understand why we would do this with Toure and not everyone else as well.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It's an interesting one. I doubt we will ever know until the IP report comes out.

If it is paying the agent off the books, that would be a breach in just one season surely, unless they are saying it should have been amortised over five years and so affected each year, which is a bit of a stretch. Also the breach is not having all player remuneration in the player's contract iirc. This would be agent remuneration not player.

It's possibly paying part of Toure's image rights off the books. He signed in 2010, when the breaches allegedly started, for five years, which is the number of seasons the breaches allegedly took place. But he renewed in 2013 for four years iirc. So the alleged breaches should either have stopped then or in 2017/18, not 2015/6, unless there was some side contract adjusting the situation (following the UEFA settlement, for example) that we don't know about.

It can't just be Fordham, as that didn't start until 2013, so it's all a bit of a conundrum. I guess we have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
There’s this but in German

www.spiegel.de

Premier League: Yaya Touré verlässt Manchester City

Yaya Touré hat bei Manchester City keine Zukunft. Dem Ivorer sei vom Klub kein neues Vertragsangebot gemacht worden, sagt sein Berater. Als möglicher Grund gilt Noch-Bayern-Trainer Josep Guardiola.
www.spiegel.de www.spiegel.de
 
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.