PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[mcfcphil]

In hindsight, I have zero doubt it was the right thing to do and has turned out to be. Even if it did cost us a potential back to back title that year.

Tbf I can’t recall the original charges and how close the wind we were sailing, so you may well be right it was still the correct call.

 

[slbsn]

Don't think so, from memory. Could be wrong. But I could be influenced by how it has since been presented/spun and effectively accepted in the mainstream.

The general impression still remains that we took a (settled) punishment for breathing the rules. With both sides satisfied to avoid a further fight over it.

 

[Coatigan]

View attachment 183728
View attachment 183727

Thanks. Coupled with the club statement too, makes sense.

The implied perception has however stuck though, doubt anyone remembers or sees it that way now. Even in the same article I posted above, you can see the language specifies 'guilt' and 'breach' despite the quote it references.

Implication and finesse aside, and taking it back to the context of the discussion (and ban-jani's initial point), do you know if that then is why that 'breach' led to no further investigation by the PL of those same charges? Or if indeed a uefa breach automaticlly leads to a PL investigation as well? Genuinely intersted, and I was clear my take on it was my own take and not something I 'know'.

 

[Coatigan]

Tbf I can’t recall the original charges and how close the wind we were sailing, so you may well be right it was still the correct call.

That's not why I think it was the correct call tbh.

It is more because had we entered into a long fight with uefa at that point, which was the alternative, we'd still have had the der spiegel shit and the PL shit to follow either way. Meaning most of out most successful period would have been embroiled in constant regulatory battles and interpretations. That's really where I was going with it, but it is maybe a bigger discussion it its own right that.

 

[Mike S]

View attachment 183728
View attachment 183727

On behalf of most Bluemooners (99.999999%) welcome back ! :-)

 

[Chris in London]

Thanks Chris. Isn’t it enough for the Premier League to say the auditors got it wrong, and that the club ought to have known, meaning “utmost good faith” can be breached without anyone being dishonest?

Not really.

How does the. PL prove that City were acting in bad faith by saying Aabar and city were not related parties when two independent sets of auditors- not to mention Aabar’s own accounts - agree with them?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Tbf I can’t recall the original charges and how close the wind we were sailing, so you may well be right it was still the correct call.

Iirc, the club was fucked on FFP in the first two-year period. I know @Prestwich_Blue pushes the "moving goalposts" defence but I doubt that was ever going to fly. The settlement was just a way for UEFA to impose a punishment and the club to claim innocence. I imagine that neither the club nor UEFA preferred the alternative which would have been the club contesting, losing and facing more stringent sanctions, potentially in other areas too. At least, that's how I remember it.

I know it's not accepted wisdom on here, but there you go :)

 

[SilverFox2]

Our current financial position in a way justified our pinch take.
We were vulnerable then so later when the PL still saw us as easy prey Mr K was able to pick his time when his war could be won.

 

[pudge]

More days of fuck all? Groundbreaking stuff

 

[Stoned Rose]

The perception that City are breaking the rules has unfortunately been fueled from day 1 of our owners takeover.
On field or off field we endure pedantic forensic scrutiny with follow up media exaggeration and often lies.

So yes, possibly a mistake by Mr K to accept a pinch but at the time we were part way through our investment strategy and vulnerable. These days we are self sufficient .

Mr K gave them a chance to be reasonable which they rubbed in our face so the no mercy approach now being shown will prevent any further misunderstanding.

Pablo Fanque likes this.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Iirc, the club was fucked on FFP in the first two-year period. I know @Prestwich_Blue pushes the "moving goalposts" defence but I doubt that was ever going to fly. The settlement was just a way for UEFA to impose a punishment and the club to claim innocence. I imagine that neither the club nor UEFA preferred the alternative which would have been the club contesting, losing and facing more stringent sanctions, potentially in other areas too. At least, that's how I remember it.

I know it's not accepted wisdom on here, but there you go :)

Well we absolutely failed FFP in theory but my "moving goalposts defence" was based on solid evidence, including figures submitted to UEFA by City and careful analysis of the relevant documents, plus Khaldoon's statement about the issue with UEFA over the treatment of pre-2010 wages. And of course the Fordham arrangement was an attempt to end up on the right side of the line.

As with the issue of related parties though, which was also a bone of contention in 2014, this was never formally tested so we'll never know for sure.

However that settlement, as I said at the time, was actually helpful as it didn't impose any major constraints on us, and more importantly, it wiped the old losses off the slate.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well we absolutely failed FFP in theory but my "moving goalposts defence" was based on solid evidence, including figures submitted to UEFA by City and careful analysis of the relevant documents, plus Khaldoon's statement about the issue with UEFA over the treatment of pre-2010 wages. And of course the Fordham arrangement was an attempt to end up on the right side of the line.

As with the issue of related parties though, which was also a bone of contention in 2014, this was never formally tested so we'll never know for sure.

However that settlement, as I said at the time, was actually helpful as it didn't impose any major constraints on us, and more importantly, it wiped the old losses off the slate.

It was all a long time ago, and I don't suppose anybody except me is interested, but .... :)

Am I right in thinking that the wording of the pre-2010 wages allowance didn't change for the two years, but the attached calculation sheet did? So it was pretty weak to say we filled out your forms as you asked us to but we didn't check the actual wording to make sure we were doing it right?

Also, is it right the club included contract amortisation in the pre-2010 mitigation, which was never going to be allowed, in which case they were always screwed?

All in all, I seem to remember thinking it was a brave and creative attempt to claim compliance but it was doomed to failure?

 

[foggy1974]

Long post warning - sorry.

But, fair enough. Maybe I am not explaining my thought process properly or maybe I'm not making any sense. Let's see - I'll try one last time, then you can tell me.

Forget fair value for a moment. That is a separate issue which we can talk about later, if you want.

The PL is alleging (as far as we know) that Mansour came to Etihad with a fraudulent scheme whereby he wanted them to sign a super-generous sponsorship scheme with City, but they didn't have to worry about funding it because he would personally give them most of the funds himself.

Now, we can assume for a number of reasons that the PL doesn't have a "smoking gun" such as a whistle-blower with irrefutable evidence. So the PL needs to convince the panel on the balance of probabilities, with particularly cogent evidence, that that happened. They will presumably have many lines of attack - emails, presentations, financial documents and the like, and then they will have to answer the question - why would Etihad do that?

If a complete stranger came to you and asked you to break the law, you would tell him to fuck off. And quite rightly. If someone who had significant control over your life asked you to do it, you may consider it. So if the PL could show Mansour had significant control it strengthens their case, if they can't it weakens their case.

That's my point, really. Up to everyone else to pooh-pooh it. No problem.

How would the PL be able to show that? There are decades of audited accounts that show Mansour doesn't have significant control (as defined by accounting standards) over any of the club's sponsors. To over-ride that consistent and accepted auditor opinion the PL would have to have some pretty serious "evidence". Just quoting publicly known facts about who does what where won't be enough no matter what Harris and Magic Twat say.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the PL have been sniffing around the "owned by Abu Dhabi" narrative in the hope of raising it as a line of attack. I don't know enough about the legal and company structure situation in Abu Dhabi to come to any conclusion on that, but I do know the "ultimate controlling undertaking" of the club changed in the middle of these investigations from a company with one legal form to one with another. I am speculating that may be connected, as a means of strengthening the club's defence, or of weakening an attack from the PL.

In fact, the accounts now refer to Mansour as the ultimate controlling "party" under the"ultimate controlling undertaking" note, which is a little odd as it has previously referred to ADUG and then Newton. May all be nothing, it just seemed strange to me at the time, and still does, tbh.

I'm not sure I can explain it all any more clearly than that. So, there you go. It's probably all bollocks - we will see soon enough.

Oh, and corned beef sandwiches are delicious. Sue me.

Without knowing what the EPL has in the way of evidence, its difficult to know what there angle of attack is, but it certainly isnt a smoking gun & City changing the risk of these allegations in last years accounts foe me is telling.

The Epl can insinuate whatever they want, but without evidence then it's meaningless

CAS who are more official than the Epl found us not guilty under the basis of probability, so I don't see how the 3 KCs will vote against the same decision unless there is new evidence.

 

[foggy1974]

Yes, the sanction/penalty was very real with inevitable interpretation of guilt by the masses.

Looking back now, it makes you wonder if Khaldoon would still have taken the pinch.

If City thought the pinch would draw a line under everything then they got it spectacularly wrong in hindsight!

How can you say he got it spectacularly wrong, this isnt a battle with Uefa

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It was all a long time ago, and I don't suppose anybody except me is interested, but .... :)

Am I right in thinking that the wording of the pre-2010 wages allowance didn't change for the two years, but the attached calculation sheet did? So it was pretty weak to say we filled out your forms as you asked us to but we didn't check the actual wording to make sure we were doing it right?

Also, is it right the club included contract amortisation in the pre-2010 mitigation, which was never going to be allowed, in which case they were always screwed?

All in all, I seem to remember thinking it was a brave and creative attempt to claim compliance but it was doomed to failure?

You haven't quite understood the issue. The first assessment was based on 2 years' accounts, namely 2011/12 and 2012/13. The original calculation of the provision to exclude pre-2010 wages required 2011/12 accounts to meet a certain criterion and there was a worked example in the original 'toolkit' to show how that should have been calculated. Without meeting that criterion, you couldn't use the other two tests that had to be met.

We submitted accounts in 2011/12 which met that criterion, as it stood at the time we filed them. However, just after we did that, and had filed those accounts, in April 2013 UEFA released a new version of the FFP toolkit in which the worked example was changed, meaning the 2012 FY accounts didn't then meet the amended criterion and they couldn't be amended.

Once that happened there was nothing we could do, as we could no longer meet the first key criterion for claiming mitigation and I know the club were furious as they'd been working with UEFA to ensure they were on the right lines, which UEFA said they were, up to the time they changed the guidance.

As I said, the sale of IP under Fordham arrangement and to the newly set up CFS and CFM, were solely designed to bring in enough revenue to try to meet the Annex XI provision, and for no other reason. But late in the day, because of UEFA's sneaky action, there was no point in doing that.

I strongly suspect that, knowing what he knows now, Khaldoon would have gone to town on UEFA in 2014, because they'd seemingly lured us into a trap. But I suspect he decided to 'take the pinch' as he wanted to draw a line under it.

There was some talk about pre-2010 amortisation but Khaldoon explicitly mentioned the difference in the treatment of wages, and it was that which sent me back to scrutinise the two versions of the Annex XI working examples.

 

[mcfcphil]

How can you say he got it spectacularly wrong, this isnt a battle with Uefa

UEFA still charged the club with financial breaches after that settlement that were only resolved through independent arbitration at CAS.

The PL investigation is separate but essentially a rerun of that UEFA case.

You’re right they’re separate cases though.

 

[Keith Moon]

Not really.

How does the. PL prove that City were acting in bad faith by saying Aabar and city were not related parties when two independent sets of auditors- not to mention Aabar’s own accounts - agree with them?

I assume the Premier League would need to show that Sheikh Mansour had significant influence over IPIC and Aabar. If there are publicly available documents from other court cases suggesting that he was closely involved in IPIC, and official Aabar documents where the CEO confirms that Sheikh Mansour played an active role in Aabar’s business, then—if the Premier League were to put that material before the panel—would that give the panel a basis to conclude that the auditors’ assessment was wrong?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I assume the Premier League would need to show that Sheikh Mansour had significant influence over IPIC and Aabar. If there are publicly available documents from other court cases suggesting that he was closely involved in IPIC, and official Aabar documents where the CEO confirms that Sheikh Mansour played an active role in Aabar’s business, then—if the Premier League were to put that material before the panel—would that give the panel a basis to conclude that the auditors’ assessment was wrong?

Give it a fucking rest. Two sets of auditors have decided, over many years, and presumably with external advice given the scenario, that Aabar and City are NOT related parties. That view has been taken in utmost good faith. The PL have no chance of proving otherwise, unless they have evidence that we knew they were related parties and deliberately chose to ignore that, so please STFU.

 

[gocity]

You haven't quite understood the issue. The first assessment was based on 2 years' accounts, namely 2011/12 and 2012/13. The original calculation of the provision to exclude pre-2010 wages required 2011/12 accounts to meet a certain criterion and there was a worked example in the original 'toolkit' to show how that should have been calculated. Without meeting that criterion, you couldn't use the other two tests that had to be met.

We submitted accounts in 2011/12 which met that criterion, as it stood at the time we filed them. However, just after we did that, and had filed those accounts, in April 2013 UEFA released a new version of the FFP toolkit in which the worked example was changed, meaning the 2012 FY accounts didn't then meet the amended criterion and they couldn't be amended.

Once that happened there was nothing we could do, as we could no longer meet the first key criterion for claiming mitigation and I know the club were furious as they'd been working with UEFA to ensure they were on the right lines, which UEFA said they were, up to the time they changed the guidance.

As I said, the sale of IP under Fordham arrangement and to the newly set up CFS and CFM, were solely designed to bring in enough revenue to try to meet the Annex XI provision, and for no other reason. But late in the day, because of UEFA's sneaky action, there was no point in doing that.

I strongly suspect that, knowing what he knows now, Khaldoon would have gone to town on UEFA in 2014, because they'd seemingly lured us into a trap. But I suspect he decided to 'take the pinch' as he wanted to draw a line under it.

There was some talk about pre-2010 amortisation but Khaldoon explicitly mentioned the difference in the treatment of wages, and it was that which sent me back to scrutinise the two versions of the Annex XI working examples.

Was it only us who were affected by the UEFA April 2013 change of the toolkit?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Was it only us who were affected by the UEFA April 2013 change of the toolkit?

As far as I'm aware, yes. And the timing of the change was suspicious.