PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Apologies if already asked, but I've not been on the forum for a few days and haven't got the time to plough through hundreds of pages. With regard to United's losses, I believe they were allowed to deduct £40m for Covid, and £35m for the expenses of the club sale, but weren't their 3 year losses around £240m ??? If so, even with those discounted, the 3 year losses would still be around £165m which is STILL around £60m more than permitted losses under PSR ??

They also get around 30 million per year deductible costs like infrastructure, women's football, community and youth.

The bigger question is why the Ratcliffe acquisition costs were deductible. I am not sure if there has ever been an instance of costs being deducted except for those four categories. Maybe there has been?

 

[cheekybids]

Did anyone ring Everton to ask or inform them ? :-)

Elton said it’s true…..

 

[paulchapo]

But could he have been genuinely asking, since the media give no explanation as to what the charges actually relate! Maybe he had a lightbulb moment and thought, hang on, what the fuck has all this noise really been about, coz no-one lays it bare - even the very occasional media listing of the '115' breakdown is so vague it gives no-one who doesn't read bluemoon any inkling of the actual subject...

No I have seen a few media outlets actually break down all the charges. All it takes is a bit of effort to search for them. I doubt anybody here is going to take the time to keep posting them to everybody who asks.

 

[Canter]

When we emerge victorious from this hearing the red tops will want to take their ball home.

I guarantee some sort of breakaway league whisperings will start.

United are shit deep in debt and know that they can't take us on even when we've been fighting them with one hand tied behind our backs.

Liverpool won't want to go toe to to with us and splurge on big signings.

And Arsenal are just Arsenal.

Deep down they know that an innocent verdict for us will affect them more than it will effect City!

The breakaway super league is completely separate though. I'm talking about a reform within the league itself.
I'm not talking about what other clubs can or cannot do or won't do compared to us.
A reform to the league has positives and negatives for everyone depending on who you are and what your outlook is.
For example less FFP restrictions for a start, I mean look at all these clubs sailing close to the wind already. Governance restructuring could come into it too, a complete overhaul of the current regime.

 

[bigA]

Or like Luca Brasi "he sleeps with the fishes".

Richard Keys or Magic Hat gets the Luca Brasi treatment.

 

[danielwood5]

@BerkshireBlue: I hope the IC agrees with your assessment. My reasoning regarding Mancini's situation is this: given that the charges were announced in February 2023, the Statute of Limitations (SoL) must be considered by the IC. The consultancy contract, in my view, was neither criminal nor mistaken — but was it concealed?

We could argue that, since there were no specific rules in the Premier League handbook (circa 2008) requiring a club to report contracts between its parent company (ADUG) and a club employee (Mancini), there was no concealment in our accounts. If there was no criminality, no mistakes, and no concealment, then the issue should be time-barred.

The Premier League could counter with an argument of "not acting in good faith," which carries non-sporting sanctions if the IC agrees.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd love to know if my reasoning is flawed — or perhaps, not?

This is what I'm intrigued by too.
Without going down the "obviously United can do whatever they want, dur, dur, dur" route, did United have to report the finances of the dealings Ferguson did with the owners of the club outside of United? So did they have to report all the goings on with the racehorses and whatever else?
Surely, that's a similar business transaction as Mancini working for the Abu Dhabi club and as long as everyone has paid tax in the correct way depending on the country the business has been conducted in then what business is it of the Premier League?
When does a working business relationship outside of a football club become disguised owner funding?
Does City have to give the Premier League access to the finances of the restaurant in town owned by Pep, Txiki and Soriano? Do they have to prove that they own the restaurant and not Sheikh Mansour?
This is where I don't understand where the whole 'if City are guilty then people will go to jail' stuff comes from, if tax has been paid and all the accounts are in order and show where money came from and went to then why would HMRC or the Fraud Squad get involved?
Surely the only issue would be whether the Premier League think that Mancini being paid by a club in Abu Dhabi was actually disguised remuneration for the City job? That would be a Premier League issue rather than an legal issue.
Like a lot of things with them, it feels like the Premier League have put all these half-arsed rules in place that don't stand up to scrutiny and don't work particularly well in the real world.

 

[jimharri]

Elton said it’s true…..

So does Daniel at Spurs.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

When we emerge victorious from this hearing . . . . . . . .

We might be found less than innocent for the equivalent of stealing a slice of bread off the PL table. The punishment will be identical to the Middle Ages treatment and that would be a summary hanging.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Someone I was talking to put up this scenario: If we are cleared of all charges, United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs will breakaway from the PL and join a European Superleague which we will be asked by the other European Clubs involved to join. If we are found guilty then we will breakaway and form a European Superleague. The red shirt cartel will be asked to join by the other European Clubs involved to join.

Could this be a false flag war to enable this European Superleague to finally happen. Money talks and this could be the perfect excuse for Clubs breaking away from their respective league.

It would certainly tie in with the way football clubs have exploited their local support since covid, not my opinion or view but some feel they’re merely place holders these days, while the fan from a far away land is fluffed into parting with a lot more money than a so called legacy fan, clubs can’t lose (short to mid term) really

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Without wanting to getting in to the whole

This is what I'm intrigued by too.
Without going down the "obviously United can do whatever they want, dur, dur, dur" route, did United have to report the finances of the dealings Ferguson did with the owners of the club outside of United? So did they have to report all the goings on with the racehorses and whatever else?
Surely, that's a similar business transaction as Mancini working for the Abu Dhabi club and as long as everyone has paid tax in the correct way depending on the country the business has been conducted in then what business is it of the Premier League?
When does a working business relationship outside of a football club become disguised owner funding?
Does City have to give the Premier League access to the finances of the restaurant in town owned by Pep, Txiki and Soriano? Do they have to prove that they own the restaurant and not Sheikh Mansour?
This is where I don't understand where the whole 'if City are guilty then people will go to jail' stuff comes from, if tax has been paid and all the accounts are in order and show where money came from and went to then why would HMRC or the Fraud Squad get involved?
Surely the only issue would be whether the Premier League think that Mancini being paid by a club in Abu Dhabi was actually disguised remuneration for the City job? That would be a Premier League issue rather than an legal issue.
Like a lot of things with them, it feels like the Premier League have put all these half-arsed rules in place that don't stand up to scrutiny and don't work particularly well in the real world.

I was thinking about the point Berkshire blue made regarding the "in good faith" argument up for consideration if the IC accept that the Al Jazira Mancini contract was outside reporting requirements in the rule book at the time.
I may be mistaken here as I don't have a copy of the PL handbook for 2010/11 to refer to, perhaps someone can confirm or put me right!
Surely the good faith argument can only be applied to the rules present as written? (Post Leicester) How can one display good faith in relation to something that wasn't present at the time? Is there a separate alleged rule breach that requires the good faith element separately? i.e. in relation to all matters at all times.
I'm not insinuating we didn't act in good faith, only that in the case of this rule, at the time, there was no requirement to.