PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[GXCity]

I've just been looking at the rules we're alleged to have infringed in (as a specimen) 2012/13. That covers the Mancini contract and the sponsorship issues.

There are five rules mentioned:
B16: "...each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith."
That's really pretty subjective, unless the PL can prove that we deliberately deceived them.

E3: "Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its
annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year ... to be prepared and audited in
accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a
copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on
those accounts."
I find it hard to imagine we didn't do that.

E4: "The accounts referred to in Rule E.3 shall:
E.4.1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the total sums
payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees;

E.4.2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income."

E11 & E12 require clubs to submit future financial information by 31 March, prepared on the same basis as the annual accounts.

So unless we refused to provide annual accounts and future financial information, apart from the specific mention of a breakdown of revenue to include sponsorship & advertising, there seems to be very little substance to the actual rules themselves and there is nothing about expenses (i.e. manager remuneration).

That reinforces Stefan's point that, if the IC interpret the rules as written, we couldn't have broken any rules around Mancini's Al Jazira contract as there were no rules to break.

Re the Mancini Al Jazira contract, the PL will need to prove that Mansour/City were paying him directly. How would they be able to do that? They have no jurisdiction to access private bank records in the UAE, even the UK government wouldn't be able to do that. And Mancini is hardly going to admit to it as he would then have to pay UK tax on the earnings.

It's the same for our owner funding sponsorship from UAE companies, it is up to the PL to prove the allegations not for City to prove they aren't true. I honestly don't see how the PL can gather enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Now you finished your thought, a different comment.

There are rules about managers to breach, but they are innocuous rules as you say: manager should have a contract, contract should include these terms (all of which are, themselves, innocuous). It is difficult to imagine that the club breached those and, if it did, that it would be serious (they certainly don't cover a manager having a second employment, for example).

Where the PL has to try and get the club on Mancini is the (effective) fraud implication of the first tranche, and good luck on that one ..... It's not material so it doesn't affect the true and fair view, it was before FFP so what was the benefit and it is, I am sure, perfectly justifiable from a business and a personal (to Mancini) viewpoint.

Not much need to worry about Mancini before or after the Leicester verdict, I think.

Sorry - I missed out P7 and P8. The former states:

"No Club shall employ any person as a Manager unless and until:
P.7.1. the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written
contract of employment between the Club and the Manager; and
P.7.2. the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with
the Secretary."

'Club' (with a capital) means Manchester City, as the IC Appeal Panel in the Leicester case stated that this refers to a Premier League club, according to the Definitions in the handbook: “Club” means an association football club in membership of the [Premier] League.
Whereas "club" is explicitly defined as a club not in the PL.

We must assume there was a (presumably compliant) contract between us ("the Club") and Mancini but Al Jazira certainly aren't a "Club" (according to the PL's own definition). I guess what they're alleging is that the Al Jazira contract was a term of employment that wasn't in his contract with City.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

With the hearing starting shortly and lasting 10 weeks apparently then unless it's a slam dunk for either party you wouldn't expect the verdict to be announced until March at the earliest.

The far less complex case of our challenge to the new PL rules is now coming up to three months since the hearing in early June with no published outcome.

 

[GortonBlue62]

The whole basis of UEFA's case at CAS was that there were emails that could be interpreted in a way that suggested we were deliberately setting out to conceal owner investment via ADUG. We presented evidence that no such concealment took place and CAS fully accepted that. Not only that, they said that an inference or suggestion that something might happen, or have happened, did not mean that it did happen. UEFA could offer no evidence to substantiate their claim that we did conceal equity investment as revenue.

Unless the PL have some sort of smoking gun that uncovers a clear and deliberate attempt to conceal equity investment as revenue, then the chance of them succeeding in proving those charges is small. And, as I've speculated before, if they did have such a smoking gun, they wouldn't need to bring the Mancini charges, which are piddling in comparison, and this case would have been concluded long before now I suspect.

Thanks for that.

I know you've posted to that effect many times but it's good to hear it reiterated occasionally.

The continuous unbalanced bullshit and gaslighting by the MSM makes me need regular reassurance.

As someone with no financial or legal expertise I appreciate your input on this.

 

[slbsn]

It's exactly how it is written I'm afraid. The law is pretty clear in it's wordings

First, your suggestion was “If they find an email or document suggesting we've co cered something up or paid something we shouldn't have done” limitation would not exist.

This has no relation to the carve outs to limitations. Of course, a process of evaluation of evidence would be required to be carried out by the panel to establish if such emails or documents give rise to the high bar of fraud or concealment.

So your analysis is beyond over simplified.

I'm not being funny but you have no idea what they've admitted, I have no idea what they've admitted. Some journalist has uncovered some paperwork that they suggest shows offshore payments. There's no way you can say that these two things are one and the same. So a one sentence answer dismissing my post without giving any proof or logical reason doesn't wash I'm afraid

Chelsea’s admitted breaches have been very well documented. The only question is whether the Cyprus Papers uncovered further such breaches. I have spoken to multiple journalists on this topic who know what Chelsea have admitted because Chelsea or other sources have told them.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Re the Mancini Al Jazira contract, the PL will need to prove that Mansour/City were paying him directly. How would they be able to do that? They have no jurisdiction to access private bank records in the UAE, even the UK government wouldn't be able to do that. And Mancini is hardly going to admit to it as he would then have to pay UK tax on the earnings.

It's the same for our owner funding sponsorship from UAE companies, it is up to the PL to prove the allegations not for City to prove they aren't true. I honestly don't see how the PL can gather enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think even evidence that City paid the money would be sufficient in itself. It could be that we did pay it, but then recorded Al Jazira or ADUG as a debtor; i.e., they owed us that money. That's what happened with Etisalat, where ADUG paid the sponsorship but Etisalat were on the hook for it in the books. I really can't see City being daft or careless enough not to do things properly.

As we've said almost from the start of this in 2018, it's all about context and seeing the full chain of events rather than what Der Spiegel selectively published.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re the Mancini Al Jazira contract, the PL will need to prove that Mansour/City were paying him directly. How would they be able to do that? They have no jurisdiction to access private bank records in the UAE, even the UK government wouldn't be able to do that. And Mancini is hardly going to admit to it as he would then have to pay UK tax on the earnings.

It's the same for our owner funding sponsorship from UAE companies, it is up to the PL to prove the allegations not for City to prove they aren't true. I honestly don't see how the PL can gather enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think they need to prove that on Mancini. They only need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the arrangement was made for a financial benefit to the club and deliberately concealed from the PL. It's up to the club's counter-evidence to show a reason it was done that on the balance of probabilities wins the argument. Shouldn't be (too) difficult.

 

[lloydie]

Could you point out the clues please. I’ve finished my crossword & need something else to puzzle over

I,J,K,L,M,N - 5 letters.

My favourite ever clue, courtesy of Araucaria a long time ago.

 

[johnnytapia]

Re the Mancini Al Jazira contract, the PL will need to prove that Mansour/City were paying him directly. How would they be able to do that? They have no jurisdiction to access private bank records in the UAE, even the UK government wouldn't be able to do that. And Mancini is hardly going to admit to it as he would then have to pay UK tax on the earnings.

It's the same for our owner funding sponsorship from UAE companies, it is up to the PL to prove the allegations not for City to prove they aren't true. I honestly don't see how the PL can gather enough evidence to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.

Doesn’t have to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[slbsn]

I don't think they need to prove that on Mancini. They only need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the arrangement was made for a financial benefit to the club and deliberately concealed from the PL. It's up to the club's counter-evidence to show a reason it was done that on the balance of probabilities wins the argument. Shouldn't be (too) difficult.

I don’t agree that’s the test. The PL have to prove the consultancy was actually part of his employment with MCFC and, therefore, that the consultancy was a sham and the contract disclosed under the relevant rule was also incomplete. I don’t even think they need to show financial benefit to City although that would help prove it by explaining why City would create a sham. Remember the burden is on the PL - if they can’t prove it was a sham (Mancini for one says it was not), then it will be time barred anyway in all likelihood.