The times article in detail for the charges city face. Regardless of the agenda , this is unnecessary PR headache
How Football Leaks computer hacker Rui Pinto left Manchester City’s reputation in balance
Martyn Ziegler traces series of leaks that have prompted four governing bodies to investigate
The allegations stemming from the Football Leaks data have been numerous and varied but the core question is this: have Manchester City been riding roughshod over football’s rules and regulations in their bid for global dominance?
The announcement of the opening of a formal investigation by Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) takes that question to another level because it means that City are now in danger of facing a punishment that could affect their participation in a Champions League campaign.
Uefa is one of four governing bodies of football, including the FA, Fifa and the Premier League, investigating City over issues connected to the leaks.
Over the past three months, and usually late on a Friday afternoon, a group of European newspapers and websites have published allegations stemming from the Football Leaks cache. Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea are among the clubs who have had claims made about their conduct but it is Manchester City who have borne the brunt of the allegations.
From the alleged manipulation of sponsorship income to the acquisition of youth players, from third-party ownership to questionable accounting over players’ image rights — City are under scrutiny in all those areas.
Until yesterday’s denial of financial irregularities, the club had stuck rigidly to their position of refusing to comment on any of the Football Leaks allegations beyond saying: “We will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel and associated people. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”
Uefa’s investigation is the one that potentially poses the greatest threat to City: a possible ban from European competition.
The main allegation centres on £59.5 million of sponsorship money that was supposed to come from Etihad Airways in 2015 but, according to internal club emails, it was said to have been paid instead by the club’s owners, Abu Dhabi United Group.
One email revealed by the leaks reported a City executive saying, “We can do what we want”, when asked whether they could change the date of a sponsorship payment.
That could be a breach of Uefa’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, and City executives and the club could also face disciplinary action over the allegations if they are deemed to have deliberately misled Uefa.
The Premier League investigation also concerns the sponsorship income.
Meanwhile, legal sources in France have told The Times that Uefa has asked the French financial prosecutor to share the 12 million files that it has obtained from Rui Pinto, the Portuguese 30-year-old who is at the centre of the Football Leaks cache. A spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office would not confirm whether the request would be granted.
Other allegations concerning Manchester City include that in 2013 they set up a secret scheme named “Project Longbow” to beat Uefa’s FFP rules. The scheme took up to £40 million off the wage bill by “selling” players’ image rights to another company, but it is alleged the company then paid the players for marketing appearances and were reimbursed by the Abu Dhabi United Group.
Last week it was alleged that City might have misled the FA over the ownership of a player, the Argentine Bruno Zuculini, whom the club signed in 2014. The player, who was then 21, was still part-owned by a company, MPI, but the club did not disclose that MPI was funded by an offshore entity called Mangrove, with which Ferran Soriano, the City chief executive, had previously been connected.
Reports from Football Leaks have also revealed that City could face a one-year transfer ban from Fifa over the signing of eight players under the age of 18 from overseas.
On the domestic front, the FA is looking into the signing of the Borussia Dortmund and England player Jadon Sancho as a 14-year-old from Watford, with allegations of a payment to an agent and a discussion over a possible payment to his family.
City are in the position of having, in the royal family of Abu Dhabi, an owner with almost limitless wealth. The problem has been that Uefa’s rules put a limit on how much they are allowed to spend.
With the club having been punished by Uefa in 2014 for spending too much and then promising to abide by the rules, this time the stakes are much higher.
The allegations
Manipulated sponsorship income
Leaked documents suggested income that was supposed to come from Abu Dhabi-based sponsors was in effect paid directly by the owners, in contravention of FFP rules.
Third-party ownership rules may have been breached
City are alleged not to have disclosed an involvement with a fund that owned economic rights of players, including one they signed.
Manipulated image-rights payments
A scheme called “Project Longbow” sold players’ image rights to another company, which was then reimbursed by the Abu Dhabi United Group. It meant the image rights were taken off the salary bill.
City paid the agent of Jadon Sancho £200,000 over his move from Watford when Sancho was 14.
What City say
● Any accusations of financial irregularities are “entirely false”
● The allegations are based “on out of context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel and associated people.”
How Football Leaks computer hacker Rui Pinto left Manchester City’s reputation in balance
Martyn Ziegler traces series of leaks that have prompted four governing bodies to investigate
The allegations stemming from the Football Leaks data have been numerous and varied but the core question is this: have Manchester City been riding roughshod over football’s rules and regulations in their bid for global dominance?
The announcement of the opening of a formal investigation by Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) takes that question to another level because it means that City are now in danger of facing a punishment that could affect their participation in a Champions League campaign.
Uefa is one of four governing bodies of football, including the FA, Fifa and the Premier League, investigating City over issues connected to the leaks.
Over the past three months, and usually late on a Friday afternoon, a group of European newspapers and websites have published allegations stemming from the Football Leaks cache. Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea are among the clubs who have had claims made about their conduct but it is Manchester City who have borne the brunt of the allegations.
From the alleged manipulation of sponsorship income to the acquisition of youth players, from third-party ownership to questionable accounting over players’ image rights — City are under scrutiny in all those areas.
Until yesterday’s denial of financial irregularities, the club had stuck rigidly to their position of refusing to comment on any of the Football Leaks allegations beyond saying: “We will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel and associated people. The attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear.”
Uefa’s investigation is the one that potentially poses the greatest threat to City: a possible ban from European competition.
The main allegation centres on £59.5 million of sponsorship money that was supposed to come from Etihad Airways in 2015 but, according to internal club emails, it was said to have been paid instead by the club’s owners, Abu Dhabi United Group.
One email revealed by the leaks reported a City executive saying, “We can do what we want”, when asked whether they could change the date of a sponsorship payment.
That could be a breach of Uefa’s financial fair play (FFP) rules, and City executives and the club could also face disciplinary action over the allegations if they are deemed to have deliberately misled Uefa.
The Premier League investigation also concerns the sponsorship income.
Meanwhile, legal sources in France have told The Times that Uefa has asked the French financial prosecutor to share the 12 million files that it has obtained from Rui Pinto, the Portuguese 30-year-old who is at the centre of the Football Leaks cache. A spokeswoman for the prosecutor’s office would not confirm whether the request would be granted.
Other allegations concerning Manchester City include that in 2013 they set up a secret scheme named “Project Longbow” to beat Uefa’s FFP rules. The scheme took up to £40 million off the wage bill by “selling” players’ image rights to another company, but it is alleged the company then paid the players for marketing appearances and were reimbursed by the Abu Dhabi United Group.
Last week it was alleged that City might have misled the FA over the ownership of a player, the Argentine Bruno Zuculini, whom the club signed in 2014. The player, who was then 21, was still part-owned by a company, MPI, but the club did not disclose that MPI was funded by an offshore entity called Mangrove, with which Ferran Soriano, the City chief executive, had previously been connected.
Reports from Football Leaks have also revealed that City could face a one-year transfer ban from Fifa over the signing of eight players under the age of 18 from overseas.
On the domestic front, the FA is looking into the signing of the Borussia Dortmund and England player Jadon Sancho as a 14-year-old from Watford, with allegations of a payment to an agent and a discussion over a possible payment to his family.
City are in the position of having, in the royal family of Abu Dhabi, an owner with almost limitless wealth. The problem has been that Uefa’s rules put a limit on how much they are allowed to spend.
With the club having been punished by Uefa in 2014 for spending too much and then promising to abide by the rules, this time the stakes are much higher.
The allegations
Manipulated sponsorship income
Leaked documents suggested income that was supposed to come from Abu Dhabi-based sponsors was in effect paid directly by the owners, in contravention of FFP rules.
Third-party ownership rules may have been breached
City are alleged not to have disclosed an involvement with a fund that owned economic rights of players, including one they signed.
Manipulated image-rights payments
A scheme called “Project Longbow” sold players’ image rights to another company, which was then reimbursed by the Abu Dhabi United Group. It meant the image rights were taken off the salary bill.
City paid the agent of Jadon Sancho £200,000 over his move from Watford when Sancho was 14.
What City say
● Any accusations of financial irregularities are “entirely false”
● The allegations are based “on out of context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Manchester City personnel and associated people.”