PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Is everyone thinking transfer windows and other issues perhaps being linked, still being told to fuck off?

By me, yes :) But I may be wrong.

The allegations are historic and nothing to do with the last two windows. Also, there is ample evidence of financial prudence from 2012 to 2018 as the accounts all complied with FFP.

I really don't see currently spending little money on recruitment as a defence against the allegations.

I suppose, if the club have done what is alleged and they are nervous about it, then they may cut back spending to show that the amounts fraudulently accounted for have not affected the results by enough to affect recent performance on the pitch but, firstly, I can't imagine the club has done what is alleged and, secondly, in the very unlikely situation that they have, then the above "defence" doesn't affect any of the years covered by the allegations and so the club would be in big trouble, whatever they have done after 2018.

To summarise, putting current performance at risk for a "defence" that has little value just doesn't seem a sensible strategy to me.

But, of course, I may be wrong.

 

[SilverFox2]

I believe the legal advice was to go into the hearing phase with the best possible bank ballance. That would help the narrative that the club’s financial management was highly professional and highly successful. Remeber the end of season interview when Khaldoon described the club as a "money making machine". At the time I thought that was a bit weird.

The costs will be huge, I'm sure the club have done their upmost to control it but since 115 day we must have spent tens of millions on legal fees.

The North Stand development and the new stadium in New York must also have had a huge financial impact at CFG level.

All of the above plus Pep constantly prevaricating about renewal, might explain the net profit in the summer transfer window,

The knock on effect of that window plus the injuries and loss of form led to yesterday. Even the most blinkered fan would have to admit how lucky we were to get away with a 2 nil pasting.

January will be very revealing, if we make a couple of high profile signings I would be amazed. Despite the onfield risks of throwing in new players mid season I think splurging £100m on new players during the decision phase could be considered far too risky. For me, this season is a write off, we just have to hope we qualify for the 25/26 UCL.

Good post.
All you say coupled with the Pep uncertainty left buying good players that a manager wants too much of a gamble.

I think you are right and we will make do with less emphasis on older players recovering form.
Rodri's prophecy about too many games is finding us out so a definately revamp season for City I think.

 

[petrusha]

I may be wrong, but the club can present evidence at the summation stage, or at appeal, that wasn't originally available at the time of the hearing, provided the panel agrees. Is that right?

Yes, but the rules also specify that any evidence thus admitted with the appeal panel's permission must have been unavailable during the initial hearing. I don't think that will be a serious issue for us, though. Why would we not have presented available evidence at the initial hearing if it was even remotely likely to be helpful to our case.

 

[Keeper!]

I believe the legal advice was to go into the hearing phase with the best possible bank ballance. That would help the narrative that the club’s financial management was highly professional and highly successful. Remeber the end of season interview when Khaldoon described the club as a "money making machine". At the time I thought that was a bit weird.

The costs will be huge, I'm sure the club have done their upmost to control it but since 115 day we must have spent tens of millions on legal fees.

The North Stand development and the new stadium in New York must also have had a huge financial impact at CFG level.

All of the above plus Pep constantly prevaricating about renewal, might explain the net profit in the summer transfer window,

The knock on effect of that window plus the injuries and loss of form led to yesterday. Even the most blinkered fan would have to admit how lucky we were to get away with a 2 nil pasting.

January will be very revealing, if we make a couple of high profile signings I would be amazed. Despite the onfield risks of throwing in new players mid season I think splurging £100m on new players during the decision phase could be considered far too risky. For me, this season is a write off, we just have to hope we qualify for the 25/26 UCL.

You make some superb and valid points but a 300m investment in infrastructure is it any different from investing in players the actual commodity of a football club?

If we don't spend this January and make a serious statement then I am genuinely worried about this case and the implications.

 

[paulchapo]

January will be very revealing, if we make a couple of high profile signings I would be amazed. Despite the onfield risks of throwing in new players mid season I think splurging £100m on new players during the decision phase could be considered far too risky. For me, this season is a write off, we just have to hope we qualify for the 25/26 UCL.

Yes and no. I'm sure we know a couple of players we want to sign in summer already. Rodri's injury and our terrible form will have made them a priority now. Whether we can get their clubs and the player to agree to move in January is another matter.

 

[petrusha]

Yes and no. I'm sure we know a couple of players we want to sign in summer already. Rodri's injury and our terrible form will have made them a priority now. Whether we can get their clubs and the player to agree to move in January is another matter.

Let's say that, in January, we sign a player with a release clause (for the sake of argument, Zubamendi, but that's just an example) and a relatively cheap left-field option such as the Japanese striker at Celtic we were linked with in the summer. And would it be a surprise if we then we let McAtee go - I like him, but if he's getting only 72 minutes so far this season in the PL and CL with the injuries we have and given that he's 22 already, it's hard to see him playing much of a role in our future.

That still probably leaves us well up on the season's net spend. However, it might just be a sign that it's difficult to persuade clubs to release the players we want in the winter transfer window. And, while I do believe that the current disciplinary proceedings have been responsible to a significant degree for City wanting to be seen to be prudent in the market, I don't think it's the sole cause of our holding back on spending in the summer.

I also think a major factor is that they wanted to hold off and see if Pep would renew or not before committing to spending a lot of money on new players who might then not fit under the new guy. Unfortunately, that took a risk in terms of fatigue not turning into injuries in an ageing squad that's been harder worked in recent years than any of our rivals (we've had significantly more players involved in international tournaments and playing significantly more minutes than have Liverpool or Arsenal, say).

And there was also a probably a degree of complacency, perhaps even on Pep's part as well as that of the execs. If they thought that the deal for Alvarez was too good to turn down and he wanted to go, I think they thought a possible use of the false 9 system and perhaps the hoped for emergence of Oscar Bobb would see us OK. It's really been a perfect storm, unfortunately, but I'm relatively sanguine about us getting through it.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

By me, yes :) But I may be wrong.

The allegations are historic and nothing to do with the last two windows. Also, there is ample evidence of financial prudence from 2012 to 2018 as the accounts all complied with FFP.

I really don't see currently spending little money on recruitment as a defence against the allegations.

I suppose, if the club have done what is alleged and they are nervous about it, then they may cut back spending to show that the amounts fraudulently accounted for have not affected the results by enough to affect recent performance on the pitch but, firstly, I can't imagine the club has done what is alleged and, secondly, in the very unlikely situation that they have, then the above "defence" doesn't affect any of the years covered by the allegations and so the club would be in big trouble, whatever they have done after 2018.

To summarise, putting current performance at risk for a "defence" that has little value just doesn't seem a sensible strategy to me.

But, of course, I may be wrong.

Hmmm not so sure - but at least you're civil about it.
Cheers.

 

[paulchapo]

Let's say that, in January, we sign a player with a release clause (for the sake of argument, Zubamendi, but that's just an example) and a relatively cheap left-field option such as the Japanese striker at Celtic we were linked with in the summer. And would it be a surprise if we then we let McAtee go - I like him, but if he's getting only 72 minutes so far this season in the PL and CL with the injuries we have and given that he's 22 already, it's hard to see him playing much of a role in our future.

That still probably leaves us well up on the season's net spend. However, it might just be a sign that it's difficult to persuade clubs to release the players we want in the winter transfer window. And, while I do believe that the current disciplinary proceedings have been responsible to a significant degree for City wanting to be seen to be prudent in the market, I don't think it's the sole cause of our holding back on spending in the summer.

I also think a significant factor is that they wanted to hold off and see if Pep would renew or not before committing to spending a lot of money on new players who might then not fit under the new guy. Unfortunately, that took a risk in terms of fatigue not turning into injuries in an ageing squad that's been harder worked in recent years than any of our rival (we've had significantly more players involved in international tournaments and playing significantly more minutes than have Liverpool or Arsenal, say).

And there was also a probably a degree of complacency, perhaps even on Pep's part as well as that of the execs. If they thought that the deal for Alvarez was too good to turn down and he wanted to go, I think they thought a possible use of the false 9 system and perhaps the hoped for emergence of Oscar Bobb would see us OK. It's really been a perfect storm, unfortunately, but I'm relatively sanguine about us getting through it.

Spot on. It's not helped that aside from the injuries all our players seem to be off form as well. Usually one or two will drag the rest over the line but I can't say anyone has performed well lately.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Let's say that, in January, we sign a player with a release clause (for the sake of argument, Zubamendi, but that's just an example) and a relatively cheap left-field option such as the Japanese striker at Celtic we were linked with in the summer. And would it be a surprise if we then we let McAtee go - I like him, but if he's getting only 72 minutes so far this season in the PL and CL with the injuries we have and given that he's 22 already, it's hard to see him playing much of a role in our future.

That still probably leaves us well up on the season's net spend. However, it might just be a sign that it's difficult to persuade clubs to release the players we want in the winter transfer window. And, while I do believe that the current disciplinary proceedings have been responsible to a significant degree for City wanting to be seen to be prudent in the market, I don't think it's the sole cause of our holding back on spending in the summer.

I also think a major factor is that they wanted to hold off and see if Pep would renew or not before committing to spending a lot of money on new players who might then not fit under the new guy. Unfortunately, that took a risk in terms of fatigue not turning into injuries in an ageing squad that's been harder worked in recent years than any of our rivals (we've had significantly more players involved in international tournaments and playing significantly more minutes than have Liverpool or Arsenal, say).

And there was also a probably a degree of complacency, perhaps even on Pep's part as well as that of the execs. If they thought that the deal for Alvarez was too good to turn down and he wanted to go, I think they thought a possible use of the false 9 system and perhaps the hoped for emergence of Oscar Bobb would see us OK. It's really been a perfect storm, unfortunately, but I'm relatively sanguine about us getting through it.

That is a brilliant summary of where we are right now. When you say that you are sanguine about it do you mean you will just take whatever comes next in your stride or that you think it will improve markedly quickly?

If it is the latter then I'm not at all sure it will. Trying to find replacements for de Bruyne, Walker, Bernardo and possibly Stones in one summer window is a huge ask. Add to that the fact that we have three attacking wide players that don't contribute goals or many assists and no recognised left back (Gvardiol isn't one in my view) then it's a major reconstruction rather than a refresh. The club has been asleep at the wheel in the last couple of seasons and we have hit the buffers (mixed metaphor time).

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes, but the rules also specify that any evidence thus admitted with the appeal panel's permission must have been unavailable during the initial hearing. I don't think that will be a serious issue for us, though. Why would we not have presented available evidence at the initial hearing if it was even remotely likely to be helpful to our case.

You are forgetting my crazy conspiracy theory. Then again, I don't blame you :)