PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Silva61]

Just imagine the piss boiling.

Mind you it wouldn't be like the FA Cup that Arsenal suddenly started winning once the Emirates were involved.

Well said Big Sam.

Think our Natalie's been having a quiet word or two with big Sam.

 

[Blue Mist]

Wondering what would happen if club failed SPR/FFP because their predicted income was lower than expected due to PL distributing less monies due to their legal expenses. Or is that a silly question

No I would say it's perfectly reasonable. A club normally know how much to expect from the PL every year. Suddenly, having predicted an 8 mill spend on legals the PL had to find 45 mill. The shortfall per club isn't much but that was last season. They now have to pay for the 115 hearing which could easily be double, then there's Chelsea and maybe others. I think it why some clubs are questioning the clowns. They were criticised in the Everton case by an independent panel and have been shown to be utter fools in the Leicester case. Maybe we will see a club saying they wouldn't have failed PSR if the PL had not wasted the money and allocated the amount originally projected.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

No I would say it's perfectly reasonable. A club normally know how much to expect from the PL every year. Suddenly, having predicted an 8 mill spend on legals the PL had to find 45 mill. The shortfall per club isn't much but that was last season. They now have to pay for the 115 hearing which could easily be double, then there's Chelsea and maybe others. I think it why some clubs are questioning the clowns. They were criticised in the Everton case by an independent panel and have been shown to be utter fools in the Leicester case. Maybe we will see a club saying they wouldn't have failed PSR if the PL had not wasted the money and allocated the amount originally projected.

I believe the term is “allowances will be made for….”

 

[KS55]

That's why Cardiff are suing Nantes, the selling club. To get potential loss of earnings.
It's crass of Cardiff City t
However, the agent Willie McKay seems to getting out of this relatively lightly...

Willie fucking McKay, I thought that bastard was dead.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Points deduction if over 105 million. No rules to prevent it. May be a mitigating factor to reduce the sanction, though.

Edit: PL could settle without a points deduction, I suppose, but then points deductions for FFP breaches would be dead if they become discretionary.

VAR check............checking against Dulux colour chart...........red shirt, no violation!

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Well said Big Sam.

Lining himself up for the job when we get relegated.

 

[johnevans]

Get him in now.

Ready made tactic of Eddie boot it to Erling and we win everything.

Ah! The old John 'Budgie' Burridge plan, gifted from that Master of Footballing Arts & Sciences during his time at Wolves to be enjoyed, nay savoured by the rest of us mere mortal onlookers..

'Formations? Tactics? Well, we play to the 'W' plan.. if the ball comes into our area, we 'welly' it upfield as far as we can..!'

Genius. Pure, simple genius..

 

[Bez]

In the last PL accounts they had £1 billion quid in cash recorded in their current assets. They can afford to pay their legal bills.

No doubt the member clubs will be concerned by the size of the legal bills, but if the governing body is spoiling for a fight with its members then there are costs for doing that. All of the legal costs are going to pay the big fat lawyers fees that could instead be going to grass roots football.

The parasites are feeding off the PL carcass. Win or lose, the lawyers get paid and move on to their next case.

The PL have totally mismanaged the emergence of new money into the game. They've pandered to the old guard and thus created ridiculous rules on an iterative basis to try to snare the supposed nouveau riche clubs. What a bloody mess!

 

[117 M34]

Presumably the bill for the city case will be paid for out of this season's revenue.
Wonder what the newly promoted clubs think about that after the PL spent 4 years investigating

 

[johncity]

have to laugh every time at the gif of Khaldoon walking with a dozen of suits portrayed as our lawyers. gets me every time.

Me too like the mafia of football

 

[OrigamiNinja]

In the last PL accounts they had £1 billion quid in cash recorded in their current assets. They can afford to pay their legal bills.

No doubt the member clubs will be concerned by the size of the legal bills, but if the governing body is spoiling for a fight with its members then there are costs for doing that. All of the legal costs are going to pay the big fat lawyers fees that could instead be going to grass roots football.

The parasites are feeding off the PL carcass. Win or lose, the lawyers get paid and move on to their next case.

The PL have totally mismanaged the emergence of new money into the game. They've pandered to the old guard and thus created ridiculous rules on an iterative basis to try to snare the supposed nouveau riche clubs. What a bloody mess!

Only in football is change frowned upon. “You don’t have X history, so you’re not allowed to win things or earn more than Y club”. Can you imagine that being applied in other sectors? Apple nearly went bankrupt in the 90s. Amazon didn’t even exist until the mid 90s. Twitter…founded 2006, sold 16 years later for $44bn.

It blows my mind when you hear people like Spitty talking about football finance and how it’s impossible that City can earn more than Real Madrid and the rest. Football clubs from a business standpoint earn fuck all given their worldwide popularity. United talk about having 600m fans…ok, why isn’t your turnover in the multiple billions? There are thousands of companies around the world that 99.9% of people haven’t heard of, whose turnover will dwarf any football club. It tells you that football was/is crying out for visionaries who can take it to a new level but try to tell a United/Liverpool/Arsenal fan that the visionary is Mansour/City and they’ll be straight on their Amazon purchased Apple iPad to tell all and sundry on Twitter, that it’s impossible that PL and CL winners Manchester City can earn a whole £160m more than Tottenham for the same accounting period. Tottenham.

 

[terraloon]

Are you saying you think City didn't have a contract with Mancini that included termination clauses. That is the rule we've been charged with says. It makes no difference if Mancini had a separate contract with any other company at all as long as the contract between city and Mancini existed and was handed in on time. Also no fraud has been committed so statute of limitations apply. The Mancini charges are easy to prove that city haven't broken any of the PL rules

Not saying that at all nor am I saying that it would be wrong for Mancini to have a standalone contract with another entity or indeed that Mancini’s company haven’t properly accounted for the income , in Italy, for tax purposes.
The issues are:
1) Was there within the PL / FA rules at that point a requirement for City to lodge at PL /FA full details of a managers remuneration package. Clearly the PL believe there was. I personally haven’t tracked the matter back through historical rule books but it would seem the PL are confident there was such a requirement and yes I know but on that I am working on the basis that the PL have got that right. So if the IC agree with the PL box then we move to 2) If there isn’t then the matter ends there
2) Moving on If the leaked emails are correct then( and note the word if) there clearly needs for an assessment to be made by the IC as to if the second contract was or wasn’t an designed to mask the true extent of the package paid by Man City for duties undertaken as Cities HC. People talk about the overall sums are so small as to be meaningless in the overall scheme of things and yes are but the question then is was it tax efficient to Mancini to have such an arrangement?
3) I am far from a legal expert but would doubt that if 1 is correct and 2 goes against City that any criminal court would suggest that the matter was fraud but the question was the matter an attempt to conceal the true extent of Mancini’s City wages, for whatever reason and if that again is assessed by the IC to be the case then their isn’t the limitations afforded by the the Limitations Act.

So sorry I don’t think that they are easy to disprove/ prove but back to the standard of proof required that judgement won’t be beyond reasonable doubt it will be assessed on the balance of probability. That doesn’t mean that the PL will even reach that standard hence why I keep repeating it’s an assessment that the panel members will be having to make.

 

[Groke]

Presumably the bill for the city case will be paid for out of this season's revenue.
Wonder what the newly promoted clubs think about that after the PL spent 4 years investigating

Not just the newly promoted clubs, i shouldn't imagine that other teams are too happy about footing the bill for the red cartel's campaign.

 

[dickie davies]

CAS dismisses the appeal filed by Cardiff City FC and confirms that the transfer of Emiliano Sala had been fully completed prior to his death

www.tas-cas.org

Cardiff are suing Nantes for £120m arguing that if they has Sala playing for them, they would have stayed up.
Don't think they'll get anywhere with it.
However, if we do win the main case, it does open up the possibility that we can point to players who could have joined and say not signing them because of the ongoing case cost us winning a champions league and trying to sue based on that.

Bit classless by CarCardiff

See my above quoted post of when they tried to get out of paying for the player and lost at CAS

 

[SilverFox2]

The Premier League decided that they wouldn’t have a title sponsor, after the Barclays deal expired, as it could conflict any sponsor that one of the members could recruit eg. Barclays conflict the scousers money laundering bank sponsors Also Mansour doesn’t have any business interest Etihad

Given the financial predicament the PL now have with legal costs I wonder if a Sheikh M loan similar to his old Barclay's loan would be possible.
Perhaps the rule you mention excludes it but my point is that the PL is running out of money so why not borrow like Man U?

Debt seems to be accepted FOR PL members but investment frowned upon. Time for them to practice what they preach rather than complain about funds running out

 

[IrishBlueSince92]

The line from the Overlap that everyone is coming out saying that Carrager said - City can't have a bigger revenue than Real Madrid, Man United, Barcelona etc

Well we're regularly in the latter stages of the champions league where all the money is at. United are a Europa League club these days, Barca's finances are in a mess, and we've never reported to have had a bigger revenue than Real Madrid so that's just a lie thats now being taken as truth.

 

[vincent]

The line from the Overlap that everyone is coming out saying that Carrager said - City can't have a bigger revenue than Real Madrid, Man United, Barcelona etc

Well we're regularly in the latter stages of the champions league where all the money is at. United are a Europa League club these days, Barca's finances are in a mess, and we've never reported to have had a bigger revenue than Real Madrid so that's just a lie thats now being taken as truth.

Yeah. I found this article interesting. Of course no direct correlation to revenue but interesting nevertheless.

Former star highlights differences between how Barcelona and Man City operate

Claudio Bravo, a former Barcelona goalkeeper, recently made some surprising comments about his time at the club and how the club operates compared to Manchester City. Since leaving Real Betis, Bravo has been without a club, but that has not stopped him from sharing his opinions on the clubs...

barcauniversal.com

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Correct, when Bobby left Inter City put him on a contract to advise AD football until the following season.

However Hughes failed badly so Mancini's appointment was brought forward, his contract is not something we're all privy to but there's no way the PL can prove Bobby's original contract or his renegotiated one was in any way dodgy.

My point is It literally doesn't matter if he had a second contract or not as the rules only state the manager must have a contract with termination clauses set out and that is it

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Not saying that at all nor am I saying that it would be wrong for Mancini to have a standalone contract with another entity or indeed that Mancini’s company haven’t properly accounted for the income , in Italy, for tax purposes.
The issues are:
1) Was there within the PL / FA rules at that point a requirement for City to lodge at PL /FA full details of a managers remuneration package. Clearly the PL believe there was. I personally haven’t tracked the matter back through historical rule books but it would seem the PL are confident there was such a requirement and yes I know but on that I am working on the basis that the PL have got that right. So if the IC agree with the PL box then we move to 2) If there isn’t then the matter ends there
2) Moving on If the leaked emails are correct then( and note the word if) there clearly needs for an assessment to be made by the IC as to if the second contract was or wasn’t an designed to mask the true extent of the package paid by Man City for duties undertaken as Cities HC. People talk about the overall sums are so small as to be meaningless in the overall scheme of things and yes are but the question then is was it tax efficient to Mancini to have such an arrangement?
3) I am far from a legal expert but would doubt that if 1 is correct and 2 goes against City that any criminal court would suggest that the matter was fraud but the question was the matter an attempt to conceal the true extent of Mancini’s City wages, for whatever reason and if that again is assessed by the IC to be the case then their isn’t the limitations afforded by the the Limitations Act.

So sorry I don’t think that they are easy to disprove/ prove but back to the standard of proof required that judgement won’t be beyond reasonable doubt it will be assessed on the balance of probability. That doesn’t mean that the PL will even reach that standard hence why I keep repeating it’s an assessment that te panel members will be having to make.

On point (1) there is no PL rule stipulating managers renumeration must be stated in full. For the players it does the manager it doesn't. So it ends there legal as that's the rules as written and City haven't broken them. It's that simple really

 

[give it to gordon]

Not saying that at all nor am I saying that it would be wrong for Mancini to have a standalone contract with another entity or indeed that Mancini’s company haven’t properly accounted for the income , in Italy, for tax purposes.
The issues are:
1) Was there within the PL / FA rules at that point a requirement for City to lodge at PL /FA full details of a managers remuneration package. Clearly the PL believe there was. I personally haven’t tracked the matter back through historical rule books but it would seem the PL are confident there was such a requirement and yes I know but on that I am working on the basis that the PL have got that right. So if the IC agree with the PL box then we move to 2) If there isn’t then the matter ends there
2) Moving on If the leaked emails are correct then( and note the word if) there clearly needs for an assessment to be made by the IC as to if the second contract was or wasn’t an designed to mask the true extent of the package paid by Man City for duties undertaken as Cities HC. People talk about the overall sums are so small as to be meaningless in the overall scheme of things and yes are but the question then is was it tax efficient to Mancini to have such an arrangement?
3) I am far from a legal expert but would doubt that if 1 is correct and 2 goes against City that any criminal court would suggest that the matter was fraud but the question was the matter an attempt to conceal the true extent of Mancini’s City wages, for whatever reason and if that again is assessed by the IC to be the case then their isn’t the limitations afforded by the the Limitations Act.

So sorry I don’t think that they are easy to disprove/ prove but back to the standard of proof required that judgement won’t be beyond reasonable doubt it will be assessed on the balance of probability. That doesn’t mean that the PL will even reach that standard hence why I keep repeating it’s an assessment that the panel members will be having to make.

Thing that pisses me of about the whole thing is the other 19 pl aren't being investigated for you've 4 years going back decades as well.

How come the hate 9 wrote to CAS on headed arsenal paper didn't get charged with not acting in good faith rule ?

How come rags can do a deal with the pl of 75million to avoid failing ffp or whatever its called now. Yet other clubs can't do a deal and get docked points ?

The pl is bent as fuck thanks to the 3 red top American owners wanting their own way. Plus being American are racist against the middle east.

If City are guilty fair do's but I want to see the other 19 clubs investigated back decades as well. That's only fair.