PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

What are the odds that the media will resume mass publishing articles outlining "penalties for City from the 115 charges case" next week in the lead-up to the Final?

It’s a cert, there’s a lot of fans that just won’t cope knowing they’ve spent more & achieved less.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Looks a right ****.

:) He does.

And I am not sure how much he knows about football finance, really. He obviously knows a great deal about media rights, but there is a tad more to the role than that. Personally, I would prefer someone who isn't a lawyer or a finance guy. He could always hire those cunts for advice. I am sure this guy will do that anyway .....

Also not sure a Labour donor does much for political independence. If I was a cynic I would suggest this may be a bad move. Thank God I am not.

But I suppose anyone who gets appointed will have their skeletons.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is my first attempt at a YouTube short. Hopefully it will give any of you some ammunition to fire back at any of the 115 Brigade! I think we need to do more to push back against what other fans post online and end up believing. I'm sure I'm right about this and if I am it drives a ramrod through the whole thing:



Please share and repost it.

Most of the charges are nothing to do with FFP.

 

[TedofChume]

I actually have no problem with tourist . My beef with how fans attending the final in Istanbul were treated is well documented if you take the trouble to read the list of complaints.

You would have loved Istanbul, the toilets were awful, food none existent, water was £5 for a gulp , 4 hours stuck in a Carpark waiting to leave , would have been a right nostalgic treat for you.

Can you imagine any of the Red top clubs fans being treated with such contempt and the club not forwarding a complaint on their behalf.

How much was your match day experience in the 80s ? Could you park near the ground in walking distance ? How many champions league finals did you attend at great expense?

You are trying to compare sticks with trees .

The games moved on. So should the matchday experience.

Next you will be telling me you had to get up for work before you went to bed and what luxury it was having a cardboard box to sleep in.

I had a great time in Istanbul. Yes the buses were crap, yes it was chaos at the end but the toilets I went in at the stadium were fine.

Liverpool supporters experienced pretty much the same thing at the same stadium 20 years before we did. So yes I know they were treated just the same.

Like I said we're treated far better now than we ever have been by the club.

I guess if you've been brought up in the last 20 years any inconvenience must be awful and difficult to cope with. Parts of Turkey are modern and parts are dreadful. Turkey is the developing world (aka third world) and you have to expect standards are different, that usually means a lot lower.

Cardboard boxes were far too expensive to sleep in as well!

 

[Bluepetal]

I had a great time in Istanbul. Yes the buses were crap, yes it was chaos at the end but the toilets I went in at the stadium were fine.

Liverpool supporters experienced pretty much the same thing at the same stadium 20 years before we did. So yes I know they were treated just the same.

Like I said we're treated far better now than we ever have been by the club.

I guess if you've been brought up in the last 20 years any inconvenience must be awful and difficult to cope with. Parts of Turkey are modern and parts are dreadful. Turkey is the developing world (aka third world) and you have to expect standards are different, that usually means a lot lower.

Cardboard boxes were far too expensive to sleep in as well!

I absolutely love Turkey , its people were absolutely outstanding, what I objected to was the absolute shambles of none existent transport, the complete abandonment of any duty of care for disabled, wheelchair uses as they scrambled across a wasteland so called carpark for hours trying to leave.

Men using the women’s toilets as theirs was flooded ( women staff alarmed as they fixing their hijab with men in the loos) .
There were no women’s loos on the long way into the stadium so having to piss behind a bush brought back memories of my long lost youth I didn’t like the fact I was being starred at by male Turkish police .

As far Turkish standards being a lot lower ! Christ that’s condescending, have you used UK public transport recently? Boy Iv I got news for you .

Although being completely squashed into a very hot bus for hours and having fans fainting around us was very reminiscent of getting the train home from wembly after cup finals .

Someone got a massive big fat brown envelope for holding the finale there. Clubs should be standing up to UEFA and put fans experience and safety first.

Yes it was great we won. But it could have been better .

 

[Bodicoteblue]

What are the odds that the media will resume mass publishing articles outlining "penalties for City from the 115 charges case" next week in the lead-up to the Final?

Already been mentioned on BBC gossip column today.
Goes along the lines of uncertainty over charges causing problem but City going to spend big anyway.
Usual cheap unsubstantiated innuendos.

 

[Gordyola]

This is my first attempt at a YouTube short. Hopefully it will give any of you some ammunition to fire back at any of the 115 Brigade! I think we need to do more to push back against what other fans post online and end up believing. I'm sure I'm right about this and if I am it drives a ramrod through the whole thing:



Please share and repost it.

PSR was brought in after the charges
The charges are in relation to inaccurate reporting of accounts to the PL
It goes to quick to make a proper assessment but from what I can see its inaccurate
Clubs have to self declare their FFP / PSR status and would always use any of the exclusions such as Women's Team and youth development
Not an accountant but City lease the stadium and if its applicable the costs would be included in any assessment also the cost of the developments City make a profit so have no risks under PSR

 

[Oldham Exile]

I had a great time in Istanbul. Yes the buses were crap, yes it was chaos at the end but the toilets I went in at the stadium were fine.

Liverpool supporters experienced pretty much the same thing at the same stadium 20 years before we did. So yes I know they were treated just the same.

Like I said we're treated far better now than we ever have been by the club.

I guess if you've been brought up in the last 20 years any inconvenience must be awful and difficult to cope with. Parts of Turkey are modern and parts are dreadful. Turkey is the developing world (aka third world) and you have to expect standards are different, that usually means a lot lower.

Cardboard boxes were far too expensive to sleep in as well!

I had a fantastic time in Istanbul - lucky enough to be there for 8 nights. I guess my experience was helped because I ignored the information about taking buses to the stadium and used the metro which was easy. That street with all the bars where everyone partied was brilliant

 

[jaiguruKun]

I had a fantastic time in Istanbul - lucky enough to be there for 8 nights. I guess my experience was helped because I ignored the information about taking buses to the stadium and used the metro which was easy. That street with all the bars where everyone partied was brilliant

I got tube back. Took less than an hour. No hint of trouble at all and Inter fans were great. Hope they win it this year.

 

[TedofChume]

PSR was brought in after the charges
The charges are in relation to inaccurate reporting of accounts to the PL
It goes to quick to make a proper assessment but from what I can see its inaccurate
Clubs have to self declare their FFP / PSR status and would always use any of the exclusions such as Women's Team and youth development
Not an accountant but City lease the stadium and if its applicable the costs would be included in any assessment also the cost of the developments City make a profit so have no risks under PSR

That's not right at all.

Allegation 4 is that City have broken PSR.

PSR is assessed by the Premier League, the process is defined in the relevsnant handbooks under rules E52-E60 for 2015-16 and rules E53-E60 for 2016-17 & 2017-18. These are 25 of the rules City are accused of breaking. It's a rolling 3 years, so the 5 seasons 2013-2018 affect the calculations for these 3 years.

The inaccurate reporting of accounts which you refer to are allegations 1 and 2, and these deals affect the accounts for the 5 seasons listed above.

Your allowances are listed in the glossary (for some obscure reason), see attached. City have included depreciation for the stadium expansion and Etihad campus in their accounts along with the other things I have mentioned. You can download the accounts from Companies House. You don't need to be an accountant it's just simple arithmetic.

City technically own the Etihad, paying a ground rent to the council, the lease was for 999 years (in much the same way you own a flat with a 999 year lease), City are responsible for all bills, maintenance, expansion etc and get the profits from gigs held there or other matches like England matches or Rangers v Zenit.

 

[TedofChume]

Most of the charges are nothing to do with FFP.

Sorry I think you've misunderstood this case.

There are 5 allegations:

1) City's sponsorship deals with Etisalat and Etihad were paid for by Seik Mansour and are therefore equity investment by the owner, and City’s revenue is therefore less. These deals run until 2018.

2) Toure and Mancini were secretly paid more than stated in the accounts, via third parties, therefore City's costs are higher. The Toure deal ran until 2015.

These two allegations combined affects the profit and loss. Therefore, according to the Premier League this means City have gained a sporting advantage as follows:

3) City have exceeded UEFA's FFP limit of spending 80% of turnover on player salaries and transfer fees. Therefore this needs to be reassessed. It's up to UEFA to consider this though and take action, not the Premier League.

4) City have breached the £105m loss indicated in rule E59, triggering disciplinary action under section W of the Premier League rules. Rules E52/E53 to E60 form the process around assessing and enforcing PSR.

It's the 4th allegation that is critical because this is where points deductions, stripping of titles expulsion, compensation etc all come from.

If 1 & 2 are proven and neither 3 or 4 occur as a result then no advantage has been gained and it has no bearing on anything, so the whole case is irrelevant.

City can still be punished if 1) and 2) are proven for not acting in "good faith" but if it makes no difference to FFP or PSR then why does it matter at all? It doesn't. A fine is the likely punishment if at all.

Finally, allegation

5) For not cooperating with this stitch up. Punishment for this is likely to be a simple fine.

Section X of the rules covers arbitration, which is the process we're going through, and waiting for the outcome of.

The Premier League statement (required under Section W), could have made all of this a lot clearer. However, it was written in such a way to deliberately obfuscate what they were doing.

In simple terms, two sponsorship deals are being challenged and the wages paid to Manicini and Toure are being queried, and how these affect FFP / PSR calculations.

(Oh yeah, and it's 115 charges so some of them must be true, yadda yadda yadda....)

 

[Maly]

Sorry I think you've misunderstood this case.

There are 5 allegations:

1) City's sponsorship deals with Etisalat and Etihad were paid for by Seik Mansour and are therefore equity investment by the owner, and City’s revenue is therefore less. These deals run until 2018.

2) Toure and Mancini were secretly paid more than stated in the accounts, via third parties, therefore City's costs are higher. The Toure deal ran until 2015.

These two allegations combined affects the profit and loss. Therefore, according to the Premier League this means City have gained a sporting advantage as follows:

3) City have exceeded UEFA's FFP limit of spending 80% of turnover on player salaries and transfer fees. Therefore this needs to be reassessed. It's up to UEFA to consider this though and take action, not the Premier League.

4) City have breached the £105m loss indicated in rule E59, triggering disciplinary action under section W of the Premier League rules. Rules E52/E53 to E60 form the process around assessing and enforcing PSR.

It's the 4th allegation that is critical because this is where points deductions, stripping of titles expulsion, compensation etc all come from.

If 1 & 2 are proven and neither 3 or 4 occur as a result then no advantage has been gained and it has no bearing on anything, so the whole case is irrelevant.

City can still be punished if 1) and 2) are proven for not acting in "good faith" but if it makes no difference to FFP or PSR then why does it matter at all? It doesn't. A fine is the likely punishment if at all.

Finally, allegation

5) For not cooperating with this stitch up. Punishment for this is likely to be a simple fine.

Section X of the rules covers arbitration, which is the process we're going through, and waiting for the outcome of.

The Premier League statement (required under Section W), could have made all of this a lot clearer. However, it was written in such a way to deliberately obfuscate what they were doing.

In simple terms, two sponsorship deals are being challenged and the wages paid to Manicini and Toure are being queried, and how these affect FFP / PSR calculations.

(Oh yeah, and it's 115 charges so some of them must be true, yadda yadda yadda....)

Have you read this mate?

115 Charges - FAQs

Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion thrown into the mix. There are also some significant...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

 

[halfcenturyup]

Have you read this mate?

115 Charges - FAQs

Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion thrown into the mix. There are also some significant...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

That, detective, is the right question.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Sorry I think you've misunderstood this case.

There are 5 allegations:

1) City's sponsorship deals with Etisalat and Etihad were paid for by Seik Mansour and are therefore equity investment by the owner, and City’s revenue is therefore less. These deals run until 2018.

2) Toure and Mancini were secretly paid more than stated in the accounts, via third parties, therefore City's costs are higher. The Toure deal ran until 2015.

These two allegations combined affects the profit and loss. Therefore, according to the Premier League this means City have gained a sporting advantage as follows:

3) City have exceeded UEFA's FFP limit of spending 80% of turnover on player salaries and transfer fees. Therefore this needs to be reassessed. It's up to UEFA to consider this though and take action, not the Premier League.

4) City have breached the £105m loss indicated in rule E59, triggering disciplinary action under section W of the Premier League rules. Rules E52/E53 to E60 form the process around assessing and enforcing PSR.

It's the 4th allegation that is critical because this is where points deductions, stripping of titles expulsion, compensation etc all come from.

If 1 & 2 are proven and neither 3 or 4 occur as a result then no advantage has been gained and it has no bearing on anything, so the whole case is irrelevant.

City can still be punished if 1) and 2) are proven for not acting in "good faith" but if it makes no difference to FFP or PSR then why does it matter at all? It doesn't. A fine is the likely punishment if at all.

Finally, allegation

5) For not cooperating with this stitch up. Punishment for this is likely to be a simple fine.

Section X of the rules covers arbitration, which is the process we're going through, and waiting for the outcome of.

The Premier League statement (required under Section W), could have made all of this a lot clearer. However, it was written in such a way to deliberately obfuscate what they were doing.

In simple terms, two sponsorship deals are being challenged and the wages paid to Manicini and Toure are being queried, and how these affect FFP / PSR calculations.

(Oh yeah, and it's 115 charges so some of them must be true, yadda yadda yadda....)

In this scenario, which I’ve not had time to digest yet where does Fordham and image rights play into this summary. I thought they formed part of the allegations . I may have misunderstood of course (not for the first time on this thread)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sorry I think you've misunderstood this case.

There are 5 allegations:

1) City's sponsorship deals with Etisalat and Etihad were paid for by Seik Mansour and are therefore equity investment by the owner, and City’s revenue is therefore less. These deals run until 2018.

2) Toure and Mancini were secretly paid more than stated in the accounts, via third parties, therefore City's costs are higher. The Toure deal ran until 2015.

These two allegations combined affects the profit and loss. Therefore, according to the Premier League this means City have gained a sporting advantage as follows:

3) City have exceeded UEFA's FFP limit of spending 80% of turnover on player salaries and transfer fees. Therefore this needs to be reassessed. It's up to UEFA to consider this though and take action, not the Premier League.

4) City have breached the £105m loss indicated in rule E59, triggering disciplinary action under section W of the Premier League rules. Rules E52/E53 to E60 form the process around assessing and enforcing PSR.

It's the 4th allegation that is critical because this is where points deductions, stripping of titles expulsion, compensation etc all come from.

If 1 & 2 are proven and neither 3 or 4 occur as a result then no advantage has been gained and it has no bearing on anything, so the whole case is irrelevant.

City can still be punished if 1) and 2) are proven for not acting in "good faith" but if it makes no difference to FFP or PSR then why does it matter at all? It doesn't. A fine is the likely punishment if at all.

Finally, allegation

5) For not cooperating with this stitch up. Punishment for this is likely to be a simple fine.

Section X of the rules covers arbitration, which is the process we're going through, and waiting for the outcome of.

The Premier League statement (required under Section W), could have made all of this a lot clearer. However, it was written in such a way to deliberately obfuscate what they were doing.

In simple terms, two sponsorship deals are being challenged and the wages paid to Manicini and Toure are being queried, and how these affect FFP / PSR calculations.

(Oh yeah, and it's 115 charges so some of them must be true, yadda yadda yadda....)

Sorry. After 10,000 pages, I really don't have the strength again.

Just to note that you have confirmed most of the allegations aren't in respect of breaching the FFP rules which was the only point I was trying to make.

I would suggest you look at Sections W and X again. The 115 case is a disciplinary matter under Section W, it is APT which is an arbitration under Section X.

Also, I think you should read the thread on the FAQs on the 115 case, in particular why the allegations in the first tranche are so serious.

Just trying to be helpful here.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

Anyone defending Istanbul mustn't have been walking through the "car park" after the match at midnight. Bangers

 

[Stoned Rose]

:) He does.

And I am not sure how much he knows about football finance, really. He obviously knows a great deal about media rights, but there is a tad more to the role than that. Personally, I would prefer someone who isn't a lawyer or a finance guy. He could always hire those cunts for advice. I am sure this guy will do that anyway .....

Also not sure a Labour donor does much for political independence. If I was a cynic I would suggest this may be a bad move. Thank God I am not.

But I suppose anyone who gets appointed will have their skeletons.

Not like you to swear HCU! Suits ya :)

 

[CC1]

Anyone defending Istanbul mustn't have been walking through the "car park" after the match at midnight. Bangers

Haven’t seen anyone “defending“ the situation but at the end of the day, you have to enjoy a great achievement or you’re wasting your life. I was in the car park but we were busy celebrating the win.

 

[Longdarnit Blue]

Fecking hell. Trump and the EPL cartel will be over the moon. The new Pope’s an American as well.

 

[TedofChume]

Sorry. After 10,000 pages, I really don't have the strength again.

Just to note that you have confirmed most of the allegations aren't in respect of breaching the FFP rules which was the only point I was trying to make.

I would suggest you look at Sections W and X again. The 115 case is a disciplinary matter under Section W, it is APT which is an arbitration under Section X.

Also, I think you should read the thread on the FAQs on the 115 case, in particular why the allegations in the first tranche are so serious.

Just trying to be helpful here.

I know you're trying to be helpful. Thank you.

I think the FAQ you are referring to is the explanation thread that no has comments/replies switched off. IMHO there are several misleading elements in that.

None of the rule breaches listed under allegations 1 or 2 trigger the disciplinary process under Section W.

It is breaching rule E59 in allegation 4 which triggers the disciplinary process under Section W. Allegation 4 could only occur if allegations 1 and/or 2 are/is proven.

This is why I say this case and disciplinary action is entirely about breaching PSR.

My point is that even if allegations 1 and 2 are proven, allegation 4 does not automatically follow and the case collapses.

It is possible for Section W to be triggered separately by a third party complaint which might have happened (ie by Daniel Levy), but it seems from the way the statement was published that the allegations flow logically and relate to each other.

Whilst Section W (Disciplinary) is separate to Section X (Arbitration), rules X3.1 and X4 effectively mean that for any decision made under Section W to stand, it must comply with the principles of Section X. So the two are linked. I apologise if I have mixed up the usage in trying to express myself.

To be honest I don't think they could have made these rules any more complicated if they tried!