Premier Lg Man City alleged breaches

[moomba]

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.

IIRC Mansour fronted the money, and Etisalat paid him back. Whether that's a normal thing or not, I don't really know. But it's irrelevant, you get found guilty on breaches of the rules, not whether a deal was done normally or not. And to date we've not been found guilty of any rule relating to the Etisalat deal.

As for my defence, I'm not really sure what you're on about.

We didn't introduce a defence on Etisalat at CAS as it was time barred, no other reason. UEFA was found to have insufficient evidence on every other accusation so I suspect it would have been the same.

But hopefully we'll get to deal with that properly this time around.

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.

Any billionaire has the means of doing dodgy deals that are hard to detect.

Banning an entire nation from sponsoring a club because the clubs owner comes from that country is just rubbish.

 

[Zidane98]

IIRC Mansour fronted the money, and Etisalat paid him back. Whether that's a normal thing or not, I don't really know. But it's irrelevant, you get found guilty on breaches of the rules, not whether a deal was done normally or not. And to date we've not been found guilty of any rule relating to the Etisalat deal.

As for my defence, I'm not really sure what you're on about.

We didn't introduce a defence on Etisalat at CAS as it was time barred, no other reason. UEFA was found to have insufficient evidence on every other accusation so I suspect it would have been the same.

But hopefully we'll get to deal with that properly this time around.



Any billionaire has the means of doing dodgy deals that are hard to detect.

Banning an entire nation from sponsoring a club because the clubs owner comes from that country is just xenophic rubbish.

Your owner paid his own club a sponsorship deal up front. That's all that matters here.

Abu Dhabi based enterprises should be free to sponsor any club that they are not involved with running. Thats not xenophobic thats common sense & fairness


You dont seem bothered at all about the enormous unregulated capacity for financial abuse at your club from related Abu Dhabi businesses. No wonder your income jumped unrealistically during covid.

I can bet your tune would be different if an FSG owned company was sponsoring Liverpool and that revenue was being paid by FSG.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

 

[moomba]

Your owner paid his own club a sponsorship deal up front. That's all that matters here.

What rule did that break?

Abu Dhabi based enterprises should be free to sponsor any club that they are not involved with running. Thats not xenophobic thats common sense & fairness

So, anyone can sponsor a club they are involved in running , except for Abu Dhabi/us. And don't forget, you want all Abu Dhabi businesses barred from deal with City, whether Mansour is involved with them or not.

I deleted the xenophobic reference, but think I should have left it in there.

You dont seem bothered at all about the enormous unregulated capacity for financial abuse at your club from related Abu Dhabi businesses. No wonder your income jumped unrealistically during covid.

I think it was this thread where I proved that our increase in income over the Covid period was almost entirely down to increased TV revenue. The fact that you didn't comment at the time was funny, the fact that you just ignore all that and continue to keep trying to convince yourself and others it was something else is hilarious.

I can bet your tune would be different if an FSG owned company was sponsoring Liverpool and that revenue was being paid by FSG.

I bet you'd be defending them.

 

[Zidane98]

What rule did a club owner funding a sponsorship deal himself directly up front for a 3rd party before the contract has been completed violate?

Plenty, namely that it is owner equity, not commercial revenue and must be reported as such to the PL. Hence charges by the PL for deliberate inaccurate reporting of financials.

Hilarious you think it is all above board when you just admitted to fraudulebt behavior by your club.

 

[moomba]

What rule did a club owner funding a sponsorship deal himself directly up front for a 3rd party before the contract has been completed violate?

Plenty, namely that it is owner equity, not commercial revenue and must be reported as such to the PL. Hence charges by the PL for deliberate inaccurate reporting of financials.

Well that will be an interesting one to see over the next years. If Etisalat gets into a contract with us and ultimately fulfils the terms of its contract, that will be a fun argument to make.

I think UEFA tried to argue similar at CAS with the non time barred sponsorships and they basically got told to stop being so silly.

Hilarious you think it is all above board when you just admitted to fraudulebt behavior by your club.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and say you're talking s**t again.

 

[moomba]

Thread is from a year ago, but still relevant. The league will have to prove offences have been committed, not just that things don't look right, or are a bit dodgy.

If they do manage to prove that, the consequences will surely be severe.

By the time CAS came around I had a good feel we would get off. I knew roughly what we were accused of, knew more about accounting and FFP rules than anyone should, and had lots of good, solid insight from people like the one that tweeted the stuff above.

Don't have the same feel this time around but so much is unknown at this stage.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

 

[moomba]

Ha ha.

 

[RPCB]

Have we retired “PMSL”? Sad to see it go.

 

[moomba]

Have we retired “PMSL”? Sad to see it go.

Never

 

[moomba]

Oh Pep, what have you done

 

[Magma]

piss boiling perfection

 

[Zidane98]

Pep's losing the plot. Instead of talking about his own club he cant resist bringing up rival clubs over and over again.

Wont be too long before he blames his failure to win the Champions League with the advantage of cheating ownership on PL rivals. Stay tuned.

 

[Zidane98]

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

In none of those examples did the owner of those clubs pay their own 3 year sponsorship up front.

Fair values and/or whether are parties are related is irrelevant here.

Ownership paying their own sponsorahip up front is equity invesrtment by the owner, plain and simple. Got a mate that works at Deloitte & his opinion is the only way to explain that as a normal commercial transaction is Mansour officially provinding a secured loan for the value of the deal to Etisalat at normal market rates. A failure to declare the owner investment on the books would also be seen as fraudulent - this seems certain that City did not declare Mansour paid the sponsorship.

 

[moomba]

In none of those examples did the owner of those clubs pay their own 3 year sponsorship up front.

Fair values and/or whether are parties are related is irrelevant here.

Ownership paying their own sponsorahip up front is equity invesrtment by the owner, plain and simple. Got a mate that works at Deloitte & his opinion is the only way to explain that as a normal commercial transaction is Mansour officially provinding a secured loan for the value of the deal to Etisalat at normal market rates. A failure to declare the owner investment on the books would also be seen as fraudulent - this seems certain that City did not declare Mansour paid the sponsorship.

LOL, you must spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about City, talking to friends about City, looking through City's accounts, research third party company accounts, looking through financial rules etc etc.

Ate you sure you're not a blue?

 

[Magma]

'comprehensive'

 

[jod23]

So 6 of the 120 or so are wrong. Haha

 

[moomba]

One was for the length of grass, another another not entering the FA Cup ha ha.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

 

[moomba]

And clubs were initially pushing for a swift outcome and a verdict by the start of this summer.

But the anticipated elongated timetable was a major reason why the clubs opted not to confront City’s chief exec Ferran Soriano head-on during meetings which ran over two days at a central London hotel.

Poor dears.

 

[Fabab]

Some absolutely obsessed fans of other clubs spending time talking about city constantly.
The money in the pl is obscene and the absolute dross players that are multi millionaires is shocking.

 

[moomba]

 

[moomba]

 

[chef]