PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[The Colonel]

Are we nearly there yet?

 

[mancboy]

Are we nearly there yet?

I don't know have u seen blackpool tower yet?

 

[blueste41]

Kangaroo court - Arsenal the main complainer - their headed paper. Yet the Prem allowed the so-called Independent Panel to be chaired by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder. Colossal mistake. Just my opinion here, but I believe that David Pannick would not risk his world class reputation if he thought there was evidence of wrongdoing. If he found evidence of wrongdoing he would have plea bargained years ago relative to the scale of things and explained that to the club beforehand, but that hasn't happened. We demolished UEFA at CAS when they tried to screw us over with stolen, tampered with and out-of-date so-called evidence. We were happy to take the fine for non-cooperation - why cooperate with a bent organisation trying to screw us over........??????

I don't trust the panel to treat us fairly with the red cartel pushing them/the Prem to get rid of us so although I believe we are innocent of wrongdoing I expect the Prem/the panel to try and screw us over with the result that we see them in court - more years of waiting. My second thought is that the panel are telling the Prem there's nothing of substance that can be held against us in the evidence but the Prem are begging us in reverse to accept some form of sanction that causes minimum damage to all. We should not accept responsibility for things we haven't done. The Prem therefore says nothing because they believe the longer they keep this dark cloud created by them in place it'll continue to harm us.

Murray Rosen KC is simply the Chair of the Premier League’s Judicial Panel. His job is to appoint the members of the Independent Commission, not to sit on it. The identities of the actual panel hearing the charges aren’t public, and there’s no credible evidence linking Rosen to Arsenal in any meaningful way.

Lord Pannick, meanwhile, represented Southampton in the recent “Spygate” case — and they were clearly in the wrong. Top barristers win some and lose some; their reputations come from the quality of their advocacy and the profile of the cases they take on, not the outcomes.

Personally, I think the eventual decision will be a fair one. This will be one of the most scrutinised sporting judgments ever delivered, and the Commission will know every word will be picked apart. They’ll be doing everything possible to get it right.

 

[blueste41]

The longer this goes on the more confident we should feel , if this was cut and dried it would have been over years ago , the Premier league are now scrabbling around desperately trying to find a morsel of evidence that could justify their massive multi million pound outlay on legal fees
Masters and his cohorts are just trying to save face , they are f*cked and Masters is going to get his P45 , but invariably the damage has been done , the red'istree clubs wanted to diminish our achievements at any cost because they have failed miserably on the pitch to beat us for fifteen years and we may have lost the best manager in the history of football but we will be not be going away , we are not a one man club.

The Premier League’s involvement — and City’s — effectively ended in December 2024 when the hearing concluded. At that point both parties had submitted all the evidence they had, and the process moved entirely into the Commission’s hands.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

What breaches?

Not sure but Churchill famously said that we will fight them there.

 

[Keith Moon]

Something just occurred to me after writing that that hasn't occurred to me before. We've often thought that these charges have been driven by the cartel clubs, who forced the PL into bringing them, rather than the PL acting under its own initiative although we don't know that for sure as yet.

But the PL know what the value of our sponsorships are, as we've had to have them assessed under the APT rules. I suspect they don't care one little bit about whether Etihad, Etisalat or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsor is a related party. But the other clubs don't know what the sponsors pay, and they would be interested in knowing.

I may be reading too much into this but if the bolded bits are right, and some of the focus is specifically on related parties, then this definitely points to the cartel clubs being behind this, rather than it coming directly from the PL with no input from those clubs.

The red clubs tried to use UEFA's related-party rules to do us twice and had little success, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're now using the Premier League to try the same thing. Liverpool's Ian Ayre and Arsène Wenger were yapping about Etihad, Manchester City and HH Sheikh Mansour being related parties as far back as 2011.

So, aside from the Der Spiegel allegations, maybe PL is trying the same approach UEFA took in 2014. If the PL has been trying to FMV-adjust our AD sponsorship deals over nine seasons, then it's no wonder the hearing lasted two and a half months and that we're still waiting for the panel's decision.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So, if they're APT's, we don't have to declare them in our published accounts? Apologies if this is basic stuff that I'm just not getting, but I can't see why one needs to be declared, but the other doesn't. Both would be used in any FFP/PSR calculation (even if one might be modified to FMV) so why does one not need to be declared in our accounts, but the other does?
Confused? Yes I am :-)

Apologies. I'll try and explain in simpler terms.

Related Party Transactions have to be declared in companies' accounts as part of agreed accounting standards. That applies to all companies that file accounts. As an example, a company I worked for had professional services supplied by a company owned by the wife of one of our directors. They were related parties and therefore the fact her company had supplied these services and the amount involved had to be declared in the published accounts.

There hve been attempts since 2014, when we negotiated an FFP settlement with UEFA to paint Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors as related parties, meaning we'd have to declare the sponsorship agreements in our published accounts (and likewise they in theirs). Neither City nor the commercial partners believe there is a relationship between them so these have never appeared in our (or Etihad's) accounts. This has never been formally tested in either the 2014 UEFA settlement or the subsequent UEFA/CAS case.

The PL got round this by introducing the Associated Party Transaction rules, so they could assess the market value of sponsorships like Etihad. As we now know, they refused to agree that a couple of AD-related sponsorships were fair market value, including an uplifted Etihad contract. That means you can only include their assessment of FMV as part of PSR.

However information about sponsorships assessed under APT rules is confidential, as are our FFP & PSR submissions, and aren't shared with other clubs as it's commercially sensitive. Whereas Related Party Transactions will be public knowledge via the accounts.

 

[pepguardiola'smoustache]

I don't know have u seen blackpool tower yet?

it was always "first one to see the tower wins...",
but i can't recall what the prize was.

 

[johncity]

I sense that the status is moving from 'imminent' to 'imminently imminent'

Of course I could be mistaken.

Think your right

 

[dadnlad]

I think the verdict was announced privately to both parties ages ago.
Our 'punishment' was Arsenal being blatantly 'given the title' by our accusers.
Crazy thinking I know, but they made it so obvious that Arsenal were having the title this year at our expense I can see no other explanation for this.
The only thing is they were so hellbent on giving Arsenal the title, all the other clubs saw this too, hence the snubs in congratulating them.
If not this then it's just corrupt to fuck and the verdict wait just goes on and on.
Just thought I'd dip my toe in as I'm bored to fuck with the wait

so you think pep sat back and let this happen on the quiet

 

[citizen_maine]

Apologies. I'll try and explain in simpler terms.

Related Party Transactions have to be declared in companies' accounts as part of agreed accounting standards. That applies to all companies that file accounts. As an example, a company I worked for had professional services supplied by a company owned by the wife of one of our directors. They were related parties and therefore the fact her company had supplied these services and the amount involved had to be declared in the published accounts.

There hve been attempts since 2014, when we negotiated an FFP settlement with UEFA to paint Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors as related parties, meaning we'd have to declare the sponsorship agreements in our published accounts (and likewise they in theirs). Neither City nor the commercial partners believe there is a relationship between them so these have never appeared in our (or Etihad's) accounts. This has never been formally tested in either the 2014 UEFA settlement or the subsequent UEFA/CAS case.

The PL got round this by introducing the Associated Party Transaction rules, so they could assess the market value of sponsorships like Etihad. As we now know, they refused to agree that a couple of AD-related sponsorships were fair market value, including an uplifted Etihad contract. That means you can only include their assessment of FMV as part of PSR.

However information about sponsorships assessed under APT rules is confidential, as are our FFP & PSR submissions, and aren't shared with other clubs as it's commercially sensitive. Whereas Related Party Transactions will be public knowledge via the accounts.

See, I knew it would be a simple explanation :-)
Thanks mate

 

[blueste41]

it was always "first one to see the tower wins...",
but i can't recall what the prize was.

5p in our case as it was all my single parent Mother could afford and we were in competition with the other 49 people on the shara. Thankfully I worked hard in life and see it earlier than most from my private jet on approach to Blackpool airport.

 

[mancboy]

it was always "first one to see the tower wins...",
but i can't recall what the prize was.

Was 20p in my house

 

[pepguardiola'smoustache]

Top barristers win some and lose some; their reputations come from the quality of their advocacy and the profile of the cases they take on, not the outcomes.

did anyone else love the tv series "the paper chase"?

 

[citizen_maine]

Was 20p in my house

You can see it from your house?

 

[Heath Park]

If you check out the oil production globally, the USA produces far more than Abu Dabi. Nuff said.

115 times more??

 

[Heath Park]

Arsenal would love that... yet another reason for a stoppage in play and a little team talk!

 

[Chris in London]

As if a southerner has ever had ketchup, you stick with ur grey poupon ;)

Of course I haven’t had ketchup, I still know what it is.

Just like I know what a pint of stewed tea in a chipped mug with four sugars is.

 

[mancboy]

You can see it from your house?

Ive i had a house where i could see the tower i could have bought it with the 20p

 

[blueste41]

Ive i had a house where i could see the tower i could have bought it with the 20p

And sold it today for 5p.