PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
The new rule was after 2012/13 iirc, after Mancini had left, so I don't think the club has a problem with a literal reading of the contract he had with the club.

I think the more serious allegation, although unlikely to succeed imo, is that, because the club apparently made some payments to Mancini for the AJ contract and was apparently involved in negotiating the AJ contract, the club should have included the AJ remuneration in his club contract and, because they didn't, knowingly understated expenses in the accounts (the first tranche of allegations along, probably, with Fordham and Toure).

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes and exactly my thinking too, said the same thing a while ago on this thread.
 
bigA said:
Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.
Click to expand...
‘sustainability’ - you can’t spend money you do have but you can spend money you don’t have
 
halfcenturyup said:
The new rule was after 2012/13 iirc, after Mancini had left, so I don't think the club has a problem with a literal reading of the contract he had with the club.

I think the more serious allegation, although unlikely to succeed imo, is that, because the club apparently made some payments to Mancini for the AJ contract and was apparently involved in negotiating the AJ contract, the club should have included the AJ remuneration in his club contract and, because they didn't, knowingly understated expenses in the accounts (the first tranche of allegations along, probably, with Fordham and Toure).

Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
All seems a very long time ago, the PL come across as a very bitter ex wife
 
bigA said:
Those clubs will always use the servicable debt reply to justify the amount of debt they are in. So it's OK to be over £1billion in debt as long as it is serviceable but not OK to spend money that you do have without going into debt.
Click to expand...
Look its not really about financial sustainability but rather about preventing clubs gaining advantages via investment and indirectly capping expenditure on player recruitment.much the same way that Sleepy Joe's Inflation Reduction Act had fuck all to do with reducing inflation. The Yanky model of entering the lucrative PL market is based on leveraging large amounts of money to purchase a club. Effectively they use other people's money to dine out and then moan when someone who pays for their own food runs a better show. Not likely to end anytime soon sadly.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Which rule is that? I don't think the accounts are required to show related party transactions at fmv, but the PL has the right to adjust to fmv for FFP reporting purposes. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Firstly, none of Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar, ADTA, Fordham, Mancini or Toure (which are apparently the target of the most serious allegations) are related parties, unless the PL is questioning the definition in the accounts, which would be a stretch as even UEFA didn't try that.

Secondly, on sponsorship, as far as I am aware, the fair value isn't being questioned. It certainly wasn't by UEFA at CAS and it hasn't been questioned in any of the years since 2009 by the PL, as far as I am aware.

Thirdly, the allegation with the AD sponsorships is that Mansour secretly funded the sponsorship commitments, deceived the auditors about the source of the sponsorship, filed accounts knowing them to be wrong, and then knowingly concealed these facts from the PL. Nothing to do with fair values.

The point of my post is that there is no rule saying owners can't fund sponsorships in the same way there was no rule (at the time) saying the club had to report all remuneration a manager received while under contract to the club.

But that doesn't matter. The allegations in the first tranche of allegations are that the club knowingly overstated income (sponsorship income) and understated costs (presumably Fordham, Mancini and Toure) in its filed accounts.

That is the actual situation, afaik, but I really don't have the energy to go through it again.
Click to expand...
you're in a bit of a mess with everything here. Take your time and read up on things. get your head in a clear space and start thinking like a lawyer. You're getting years and charges all mixed up
 
terraloon said:
If you look at my last post you will see that I talk about if there was a rule in place re disclosure of a managers remuneration.
If you then go to the allegations lodged by the PL is that there was indeed such rules in place for the first 2 years it was ruleQ7&Q8 and in 2012/13 it was re numbered P7&P8

I link rule P7 from the 24/25 rule book.

I repeat I haven’t looked at the rule books in place for the relevant 3 years but there most certainly is such a rule in place now
Click to expand...
ah so you're applying 2024/25 rules to 2009 to 2013 charges. I see where you've gone completely wrong.

here's the actual rule from the handbooks in question for the period.

1727440724930.png

As you can clearly see this is a slam dunk for city as it doesn't mention anything about renumeration or not having seperate contracts whatsoever. Case closed
 
OrigamiNinja said:
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.
Click to expand...
But but but they won the double in 1961!
 
BerkshireBlue said:
ah so you're applying 2024/25 rules to 2009 to 2013 charges. I see where you've gone completely wrong.

here's the actual rule from the handbooks in question for the period.

View attachment 133095

As you can clearly see this is a slam dunk for city as it doesn't mention anything about renumeration or not having seperate contracts whatsoever. Case closed
Click to expand...

:D No capital letters, poor grammar, lousy punctuation, spelling mistakes. If you are a lawyer, I'm a Dutchman.

Anyway, I am done. Won't bore people further.
 
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