Premier Lg Man City alleged breaches
- Thread starter chef
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Premier League Football
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 31,012
- 29,472
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
HAHAHA The butttthurt and desperation is real.
Magma
TheBrownDog
it's a fake quote from 5 years ago
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 31,012
- 29,472
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
A delaying tactic. Standard City protocol
Magma
TheBrownDog
what, a city fan page posting a fake quote?
moomba
TheBrownDog
A fake quote is a delaying tactic.
moomba
TheBrownDog
Even if the quote was true (I thought it was tbh) it doesn't suggest delaying tactics.
Just that we would not be prepared to just give in when UEFA asked for something we didn't think they were entitled to.
If we have to use every weapon we have to argue our case we would be happy to do so.
Just that we would not be prepared to just give in when UEFA asked for something we didn't think they were entitled to.
If we have to use every weapon we have to argue our case we would be happy to do so.
- Dec 22, 2009
- 67,244
- 41,834
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Lol, didnt think they were entitled to.
Its all in the FFP club agreements. All clubs must be transparent with financials and turn over information when requested.
Standard City response is to deflect and obfusicate. Pretty obvious why.
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 31,012
- 29,472
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
It suggests tying the matter up in court for 10 years
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 31,012
- 29,472
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
It's taken your club 4 years to give the prem what they have asked for ffs
moomba
TheBrownDog
When did that happen?
- Dec 22, 2009
- 67,244
- 41,834
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
They're cooking the books on the Abu Dhabi side of things. Thats where it will be difficult for the PL to get clear information. Banking industry are all state owned. The same state run by Mansour & the royal family - they are not going to implicate themselves. Ultimately very difficult to stop such behavior when an owner hs an entire sovereign wealth fund at their effective disposal.
Hopefully an independent regulator sees this and immediately bans any ownership groups that are either a state or state backed. This will never go away, PSG also are guilty big time of it.
Magma
TheBrownDog
i know you're giddy with all this but at least get a real quote before having a moan
moomba
TheBrownDog
If they've asked for something we don't think they're entitled to, or aren't able to give then aren't we entitled to defend that position?
A year into the investigation the league were briefing people that we had fully cooperated with the query. We went court on some matters a year or two ago, we got ruled against and told to provide the relevant information.
As far as I (and you) know that happened.
Magma
TheBrownDog
then maybe clubs should stop blocking an independent regulator. must have something to hide
moomba
TheBrownDog
I wonder if Standard Chartered would throw their books open to an investigation into Liverpool?
Or TeamViewer into an investigation into United for example?
moomba
TheBrownDog
Been one of the most interesting things to come out of the whole thing this week for me.
I wasn't aware that we were in favour of an independent regulator, or United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and Chelsea were opposed.
The whole public debate has been about needing an independent regulator to stop the likes of City, but it's clear there is more to it.
I was never really for or against, I figure the government can **** things up just as well as the Premier league. But if it can lessen the influence of a small number of clubs into pretty much every aspect of Premier league decision making that has to be a good thing.
moomba
TheBrownDog
Would love to know who shook Sorianos hand on Thursday and which childish campaigners refused to.
Magma
TheBrownDog
id say other clubs want to throw open their books about as much as we do
- Dec 22, 2009
- 67,244
- 41,834
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
If the owner of Standard Chartered was the owner of Liverpool and paid for a 3 year Man City sponsorship deal up front out of their own money then yes they would be required to open up their books. And so they should.
Those two examples you give have absolutely no relation to the club either. That's the key issue here.
moomba
TheBrownDog
No they wouldn't. Clubs have to report details relating to related parties in their accounts, the the related party has no obligation. Coming from the same country as a club owner doesn't make a business a related party.
The relevance is that a business simply has no obligation to open its books to a football authority just because it has dealings with a football club. And the football club can't be forced to provide information that they aren't legally entitled to.
IIRC the Etihad CEO spoke at the CAS hearing, and may well speak at this one.
And the challenge for the league to prove otherwise
moomba
TheBrownDog
Worth mentioning as well, that having a related party sponsor a club isn't that uncommon, and is allowable under FFP.
Think Stoke, Bayern Munich, Juventus etc.
UEFA are able to make an adjustment if they deem the sponsorship not fair market value.
At CAS, they deemed the Etihad sponsorship to be fair market value, so even if it was a related party (CAS found it wasnt) it wouldn't have made any difference to our FFP returns.
CAS did make reference to one or two other minor sponsorships, and we agreed not to increase the values of them. That to me, was pretty much saying that these ones were skating close to the edge.
For this case, not particularly relevant as if its proven we provided false accounts it wouldn't really matter if we got a benefit to it for FFP or any other rule. If the panel found (for example) that Etihad was a related party, we didn't report that but the sponsorship was fair market value so didn't make any difference to our returns the verdict would still be guilty. Punishment maybe reduced but the guilty verdict would stand
Think Stoke, Bayern Munich, Juventus etc.
UEFA are able to make an adjustment if they deem the sponsorship not fair market value.
At CAS, they deemed the Etihad sponsorship to be fair market value, so even if it was a related party (CAS found it wasnt) it wouldn't have made any difference to our FFP returns.
CAS did make reference to one or two other minor sponsorships, and we agreed not to increase the values of them. That to me, was pretty much saying that these ones were skating close to the edge.
For this case, not particularly relevant as if its proven we provided false accounts it wouldn't really matter if we got a benefit to it for FFP or any other rule. If the panel found (for example) that Etihad was a related party, we didn't report that but the sponsorship was fair market value so didn't make any difference to our returns the verdict would still be guilty. Punishment maybe reduced but the guilty verdict would stand
Bojan KantKick
Man United Legacy Supporter
- Sep 5, 2014
- 31,012
- 29,472
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Manchester United, Stevenage FC
Where was I moaning?
- Dec 22, 2009
- 67,244
- 41,834
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Your owner paid the Etisalat sponsorship deal to his own club up front in 2012 for a 3 year deal. Thats not a normal commercial transaction.
Regardless of any agreement drafted up or fair values there's no defense of such conduct (that was your defense IIRC which is laughable) Was not allowed to be introduced at CAS either.
The point is clubs owned by states or the royal families that control / run these states simply have too much room for financial abuse that cannot be monitored or regulated as they have total control of it. The risk of financial abuse simply cannot be mitigated.
Going forward if states or their representatives want to own a club they should be be banned completely from commercial transactions related to their state.
Regardless of any agreement drafted up or fair values there's no defense of such conduct (that was your defense IIRC which is laughable) Was not allowed to be introduced at CAS either.
The point is clubs owned by states or the royal families that control / run these states simply have too much room for financial abuse that cannot be monitored or regulated as they have total control of it. The risk of financial abuse simply cannot be mitigated.
Going forward if states or their representatives want to own a club they should be be banned completely from commercial transactions related to their state.
Similar threads
