PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue

I am trying to simplify this in my head.
Is my understanding correct that the PL charges are same/similer as the UEFA charges regarding Etihad and Etisalet.
plus Yaya image rights issue and Mancini under the table payments ?

We don't know for sure about the sponsorship-related ones, but the Mancini contract and the image rights payments generally (via Fordham) are definitely on the table. Those latter weren't brought by UEFA but they definitely knew about Fordham, as they supposedly spoke to us about this in 2015.

 

[halfcenturyup]

We don't know for sure about the sponsorship-related ones, but the Mancini contract and the image rights payments generally (via Fordham) are definitely on the table. Those latter weren't brought by UEFA but they definitely knew about Fordham, as they supposedly spoke to us about this in 2015.

That's the thing, isn't it. We don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are.

It's likely the most serious allegations about sponsorship income relate to more than just Etihad and Etisalat and, certainly, for more years with more "evidence" in terms of emails and, possibly, other correspondence.

Then, as you say, they seem to have Mancini, Touré and Fordham on top. And maybe ownership and related party / fair value issues as well. My only concern, really, is if Mansour really did underwrite Fordham's losses - that could be a big number, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon when he says he is confident. It would be a big porkie to claim irrefutable evidence if he knew they were in the wrong.

And, of course, there are different rules on time limitation which may, or may not, come into play.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That's the thing, isn't it. We don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are.

It's likely the most serious allegations about sponsorship income relate to more than just Etihad and Etisalat and, certainly, for more years with more "evidence" in terms of emails and, possibly, other correspondence.

Then, as you say, they seem to have Mancini, Touré and Fordham on top. And maybe ownership and related party / fair value issues as well. My only concern, really, is if Mansour really did underwrite Fordham's losses - that could be a big number, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon when he says he is confident. It would be a big porkie to claim irrefutable evidence if he knew they were in the wrong.

And, of course, there are different rules on time limitation which may, or may not, come into play.

ADUG absolutely did underwrite Fordham's losses but I doubt that's the issue here. That's probably whether we showed those Fordham payments as player income in our FFP submissions to the PL/UEFA or whether we left those out. Given that UEFA didn't charge us over these, I'm tempted to suggest that it was just the fact they were paid through a third party. And we know why that arrangement was originally set up.

I'm less convinced that the sponsorship charges are quite as serious as has been made out. I'm more of the opinion that these are more to do with the related parties issue, although the disguised equity investment issue may play a part. But that was dismissed by CAS and I'd be very surprised if the PL got a different outcome. All this is why I'm convinced these charges are more about the optics than serious financial issues.

 

[Manchester1894]

Release the verdict!

 

[asahartford1]

Release the verdict!

Release the 115 !

 

[wolviedinho]

ADUG absolutely did underwrite Fordham's losses but I doubt that's the issue here. That's probably whether we showed those Fordham payments as player income in our FFP submissions to the PL/UEFA or whether we left those out. Given that UEFA didn't charge us over these, I'm tempted to suggest that it was just the fact they were paid through a third party. And we know why that arrangement was originally set up.

I'm less convinced that the sponsorship charges are quite as serious as has been made out. I'm more of the opinion that these are more to do with the related parties issue, although the disguised equity investment issue may play a part. But that was dismissed by CAS and I'd be very surprised if the PL got a different outcome. All this is why I'm convinced these charges are more about the optics than serious financial issues.

Fully agree with the last sentence. The media and legal minds have created a conspiracy that doesn’t exist.

The black mark has worked to an extent. The serious issues are cloaked with innuendos which has allowed this sham to play out for so long which as you have alluded to many times is the main aim.

 

[Rhapsody in Blue]

If it’s not released tomorrow after the win against the dippers, then we’re 100% not guilty

 

[Gazza]

If they docked us 20 points we'd still be above Wolves.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Right, release the Epstein fil...I mean the 115 verdict!

 

[Bay Area Blue 93]

i'm a happy clapper and proud. it's something to be proud of.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Any chance of a verdict around 10am tomorrow to piss on the Scouse chips a bit more?

Asking for a mate.

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue

I am trying to simplify this in my head.
Is my understanding correct that the PL charges are same/similer as the UEFA charges regarding Etihad and Etisalet.
plus Yaya image rights issue and Mancini under the table payments ?

Alleged payments surely?

 

[BAB.DAB]

Any chance of a verdict around 10am tomorrow to piss on the Scouse chips a bit more?

Asking for a mate.

 

[Carrl]

That's the thing, isn't it. We don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are.

It's likely the most serious allegations about sponsorship income relate to more than just Etihad and Etisalat and, certainly, for more years with more "evidence" in terms of emails and, possibly, other correspondence.

Then, as you say, they seem to have Mancini, Touré and Fordham on top. And maybe ownership and related party / fair value issues as well. My only concern, really, is if Mansour really did underwrite Fordham's losses - that could be a big number, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon when he says he is confident. It would be a big porkie to claim irrefutable evidence if he knew they were in the wrong.

And, of course, there are different rules on time limitation which may, or may not, come into play.

I don't understand how you can be so confident we are proven innocent when you admit "we don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are"

 

[slbsn]

@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue

I am trying to simplify this in my head.
Is my understanding correct that the PL charges are same/similer as the UEFA charges regarding Etihad and Etisalet.
plus Yaya image rights issue and Mancini under the table payments ?

We don’t know for sure but broadly yes although a wider set of charges relating to a lengthier time period.

Although there could be limitation arguments here a) it’s probably moot either way as PL would argue the matters were concealed b) it’s not entirely clear how limitation fits into disciplinary cases (like this) vs arbitration cases (under rule X).

 

[Gingers Dad]

100%, I'm not miserable all the time. I can swear on my life on that one

I bet you're not miserable tonight

 

[chaddblue]

Look how worried he looks

We’re doomed

 

[TinFoilHat]

Fwends?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't understand how you can be so confident we are proven innocent when you admit "we don't really know what the detailed allegations actually are"

Because I have presumed the worst possible set of allegations around fraud and still come to the conclusion that they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of proving them to the standard required. I really don't care if they can prove the odd misdemeanour (they could find a couple for any club after a four year investigation) - all I care about is that my club doesn't suffer a serious sporting sanction. And it won't.

I could explain why I think that again, but nobody wants to hear it for the umpteenth time.

 

[halfcenturyup]

ADUG absolutely did underwrite Fordham's losses but I doubt that's the issue here. That's probably whether we showed those Fordham payments as player income in our FFP submissions to the PL/UEFA or whether we left those out. Given that UEFA didn't charge us over these, I'm tempted to suggest that it was just the fact they were paid through a third party. And we know why that arrangement was originally set up.

I'm less convinced that the sponsorship charges are quite as serious as has been made out. I'm more of the opinion that these are more to do with the related parties issue, although the disguised equity investment issue may play a part. But that was dismissed by CAS and I'd be very surprised if the PL got a different outcome. All this is why I'm convinced these charges are more about the optics than serious financial issues.

Fair points.

I just find it hard to believe the PL would have allowed all the discussion and conclusion around fraudulent behaviour with sponsorships without correction.

If the reasoning for the award is finally released and it turns out the only problems around sponsorship were some esoteric discussions around ownership, related parties and fair value, it will be absolutely shocking to almost everyone, imho, and damning on the PL. I can't imagine anyone is getting relegated for accounting interpretations and that potential penalty has been left hanging over the club, without any correction, for nearly three years now.

Of course, we are talking about the PL, so maybe I am giving them too much credit :)

I wouldn't have any problem at all if you turn out to be right.