Jump to content
IGNORED

Man City - no, not tickets, but dodgy stuff…as if!!!

Davefevs

By Davefevs
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, cityal said:

That fan was totally channelling his inner Derby fan - Simon Jordan made him look stupid,

I don't think Simon needed to do much - the fan managed it all on his own.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, cityal said:

That fan was totally channelling his inner Derby fan - Simon Jordan made him look stupid,

I liked the bit where he commented about Chelsea having paid out £160m in compensation for sacked managers ( all of which would be as per the managers' contracts) and all of which would have been properly disclosed in Chelsea's accounts, and them somehow used that as justification for Man City paying Mancini a "hidden" salary through another club owned by Emirates - a modern day equivalent of Arry's brown envelopes!

At the risk of mixing metaphors ( I think it is) while Man City are currently innocent until proven innocent, following their run in with UEFA, which they took to CAS, and the Der Spiegel leaks that caused the UEFA investigation and that almost certainly triggered that of the FA, it does increasingly appear that there is no smoke without fire.

It's interesting to see that Man City are playing the victims, in that there is some sort of vendetta against them and that other premier league clubs have it in for them. In that respect it resonates with everything coming out of Derby County as there financial case unfolded.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Not sure if it is on here already, but there some allegedly interesting alleged emails allegedly from someone in Man City circulating.

If rrealthey have a real problem.

Are those the ones that were originally obtained by  football leaks and sent to Der Spiegel to form the basis of their revelatory article that prompted UEFA's investigation?

If it is then it will be interesting to see how it plays out legally. With UEFA's case, my simple understanding is that Man City were not exonerated, but escaped a ban from European competition only because of time limitation on documents used as evidence. However I'm not sure if this was email evidence.

If it was, then the FA have no such time limitation on documents used in evidence.

As regards the trail of emails, does anyone expect there to be any trace of them on Man City's computers, which I wouldn't be surprised have all been replaced and upgraded over the last few years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hxj

Hxj

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, downendcity said:

As regards the trail of emails, does anyone expect there to be any trace of them on Man City's computers, which I wouldn't be surprised have all been replaced and upgraded over the last few years!

I do - webmail/server backups/'insurance emails' etc etc - currently discussing cleansing stuff going back 20 years for my employers and everyone in the organisation wants to keep everything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Are those the ones that were originally obtained by  football leaks and sent to Der Spiegel to form the basis of their revelatory article that prompted UEFA's investigation?

If it is then it will be interesting to see how it plays out legally. With UEFA's case, my simple understanding is that Man City were not exonerated, but escaped a ban from European competition only because of time limitation on documents used as evidence. However I'm not sure if this was email evidence.

If it was, then the FA have no such time limitation on documents used in evidence.

As regards the trail of emails, does anyone expect there to be any trace of them on Man City's computers, which I wouldn't be surprised have all been replaced and upgraded over the last few years!

Just come across a video on YouTube featuring Kieran McGuire discussing Man City's situation.

He made a couple of interesting points comparing the FA and UEFA cases.

UEFA'S rules contain a statute of limitations, which meant that because Man City delayed proceedings for so long, certain documents were time expired and could not be used in evidence.

The FA rules do not have a statute of limitation.

In the UEFA case Man City were able to argue that because the emails were hacked they had been obtained illegally so could not be used in evidence.

KM explained that the FA are working with a blank page, so they can allow the hacked emails/documents in evidence.

That might make things a bit more "interesting".

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
exAtyeoMax

exAtyeoMax

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just come across a video on YouTube featuring Kieran McGuire discussing Man City's situation.

He made a couple of interesting points comparing the FA and UEFA cases.

UEFA'S rules contain a statute of limitations, which meant that because Man City delayed proceedings for so long, certain documents were time expired and could not be used in evidence.

The FA rules do not have a statute of limitation.

In the UEFA case Man City were able to argue that because the emails were hacked they had been obtained illegally so could not be used in evidence.

KM explained that the FA are working with a blank page, so they can allow the hacked emails/documents in evidence.

That might make things a bit more "interesting".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Just come across a video on YouTube featuring Kieran McGuire discussing Man City's situation.

He made a couple of interesting points comparing the FA and UEFA cases.

UEFA'S rules contain a statute of limitations, which meant that because Man City delayed proceedings for so long, certain documents were time expired and could not be used in evidence.

The FA rules do not have a statute of limitation.

In the UEFA case Man City were able to argue that because the emails were hacked they had been obtained illegally so could not be used in evidence.

KM explained that the FA are working with a blank page, so they can allow the hacked emails/documents in evidence.

That might make things a bit more "interesting".

Plus, iirc CAS found one charge to be time barred and another not established (much like the not proven verdict available in Scottish law). Not quite not guilty then.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

 

 

That's the one!

I think McGuire must be the Gerry Gow if football finance, because he's here, he's there, he's every ****in where at the moment! :)

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, downendcity said:

I liked the bit where he commented about Chelsea having paid out £160m in compensation for sacked managers ( all of which would be as per the managers' contracts) and all of which would have been properly disclosed in Chelsea's accounts, and them somehow used that as justification for Man City paying Mancini a "hidden" salary through another club owned by Emirates - a modern day equivalent of Arry's brown envelopes!

At the risk of mixing metaphors ( I think it is) while Man City are currently innocent until proven innocent, following their run in with UEFA, which they took to CAS, and the Der Spiegel leaks that caused the UEFA investigation and that almost certainly triggered that of the FA, it does increasingly appear that there is no smoke without fire.

It's interesting to see that Man City are playing the victims, in that there is some sort of vendetta against them and that other premier league clubs have it in for them. In that respect it resonates with everything coming out of Derby County as there financial case unfolded.

 

It does smack a lot of Derby albeit far bigger and for far longer if proven but it has some similar ingredients. 

Some are arguing that if made to restate accounts it would constitute an accusation of fraud but Derby were made to restate without punishment for the auditors (as far as any of us know) so club punished over account doesn't necessarily lead to consequences for the auditors in q.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

An important test might be, based on the Image rights claims and I assume potential for excessively valued RPTs, does the excess in amount paid above fair value affect the FFP numbers and by how much? Talking the 3 year P&S regs.

Quite hard to fail these the, £105m which I believe is added to the youth, community etc over 3 years. UEFA at €30m is much tighter margins.

In simple terms, £105m adjusted loss allowed and club makes a 3 year aggregated pre tax profit of £25m. Then they have £15m per season in allowable costs thst is a surplus of £175m.

In simple terms...

T-2. Profit pre tax £10m and £15m Allowable costs.

T-1. Profit pre tax £5m and £15m Allowable costs.

T. Profit pre tax £9m and £15m Allowable costs.

Therefore the League would need to see a combination of costs hidden and inflated revenue of £175m in that 3 year period...for UEFA that is £25.42m as per a stated exchange rates of £1/€1.18. £95.42m.

In other words it is possible that costs and revenue overstated but not by enough to tip Man City into an FFP overspend at PL level- UEFA might differ.

Suppose the simple example would be if some commercial revenue was £100m per year but the Fair Value was an aggregated £40m per year. Suddenly a £5m FFP 3 year overspend.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just on a general note, I believe that the certainly at PL level ie the £105m plus allowable, any breaches there won't be present day IMO but long and medium term historic.

In other words probably legit bow, but on the way up? Not so much. As trophies won, success gained etc then naturally revenue will legitimately rise in all areas, likewise player sale profitability.

One thing I did notice though, certain companies that appear under City Football Group but not the cost...hmm I wonder if they are 'captured' or have been correctly in the FFP transactions. The following...

1) City Football Marketing Limited

2) City Football Image Rights Limited

3) City Football Investments Limited

4) City Football U.K. Holdings Limited

5) City Football Services Limited.

6) Fordham Sports Image Rights Limited- may have been defunct for a while anyway but bow officially wound up. Was between 2012 and 2013 known as Manchester City Football Club (Image Rights) Limited.

All of the first 5 came under City Football Group but now interestingly there is a new Controlling Company of these called City Football Group (Midco) Limited.

Unsure which other companies come under this banner, these accounts for the first time will be made up to end of June 2023 and are due by 20th February 2014- company was founded on 20th May 2022. Perhaps this will be to separate out the UK operations from the global ones.

A question I guess is, are amounts recharged between these companies and Man City? If so that sort of nets off a lot of the stuff about allocation of costs.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Meanwhile, in a galaxy far far away from the one PL clubs live in:

 

Southend United: MP Anna Firth 'hopeful' football club will survive - BBC News

 

£1.4m. What`s that? A month`s wages for Haaland?

Less than the £1.7m Mancini was paid for four days of "consultant" coaching in Abu Dhabi.

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...