Man City Banned From Europe

[KaiserEFC]

But they are not though it looks more like they are getting punished for lying about breaking the rules.

Looks like they’ve got another punishment inbound then

 

[gwladysnight]

This needs highlighting, City havent breached FFP rules, they breached the rules regarding accounting.

Its much worse than a FFP breach, its serious fraud.

You have got this completely wrong.

They have breached FFP because Mansoor was funding their sponsorship deals through third parties. Mansoor was topping up City's commercial deals with his own funds. They haven't breached accounting rules because the money was actually going in to the Club.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

You have got this completely wrong.

They have breached FFP because Mansoor was funding their sponsorship deals through third parties. Mansoor was topping up City's commercial deals with his own funds. They haven't breached accounting rules because the money was actually going in to the Club.

Yep they were basically saying it came from Etihad but it was from Mansour's own account.

Hopefully Moshiri and Usmanov are more clever!

 

[gwladysnight]

The first, which led to Uefa’s guilty finding, was that City had overstated their sponsorship revenues to Uefa and in their own accounts between 2012 and 2016, because the club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi, was largely funding the stated £67.5m sponsorship by the country’s airline, Etihad. That was a breach of trust under Uefa’s FFP rules, which limit how much an owner can put into a club to bankroll losses.

The first ruling wasn't about sponsorship it was about City's combined losses of over £150m during the two seasons under consideration (2011-12 and 2012-13), City thought they deserved to pass Uefa's financial test. They said that there had been "a fundamental disagreement" about how the regulations regarding players bought before June 2010 should be interpreted.

UEFA raised concerns about the Etihad deal but it was allowed. That changed after the Football leaks breach and the subsequent Der Spiegel articles that showed Mansoor was topping up the Etihad deal.

 

[catcherintherye]

The first ruling wasn't about sponsorship it was about City's combined losses of over £150m during the two seasons under consideration (2011-12 and 2012-13), City thought they deserved to pass Uefa's financial test. They said that there had been "a fundamental disagreement" about how the regulations regarding players bought before June 2010 should be interpreted.

UEFA raised concerns about the Etihad deal but it was allowed. That changed after the Football leaks breach and the subsequent Der Spiegel articles that showed Mansoor was topping up the Etihad deal.

By topping up, do you mean putting additional funds on top of the publicly stated value of the deal?

 

[Goat]

The first ruling wasn't about sponsorship it was about City's combined losses of over £150m during the two seasons under consideration (2011-12 and 2012-13), City thought they deserved to pass Uefa's financial test. They said that there had been "a fundamental disagreement" about how the regulations regarding players bought before June 2010 should be interpreted.

UEFA raised concerns about the Etihad deal but it was allowed. That changed after the Football leaks breach and the subsequent Der Spiegel articles that showed Mansoor was topping up the Etihad deal.

Yes but my point is that this isnt a bog standard breach of FFP rules.

 

[gwladysnight]

Yep they were basically saying it came from Etihad but it was from Mansour's own account.

Hopefully Moshiri and Usmanov are more clever!

I think we just need to be patient. Stadium costs and academy costs are exempt from FFP. Get Moshiri / Usmanov to invest in the Stadium and Academy and there is nothing UEFA can do. I would much rather see a home grown team running out at the new Stadium and winning things than some grubby financially doped City/PSG clone.

 

[gwladysnight]

By topping up, do you mean putting additional funds on top of the publicly stated value of the deal?

From the Der Spiegel piece.

As early as April 2010, when Pearce negotiated the sponsorship deal with Aabar, he wrote a telltale email to the firm's leadership. According to the contract, the investment company was to pay the club 15 million pounds annually. But that apparently isn't the full story. "As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3 million," Pearce wrote. "The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness." With just a single sentence, Pearce confirmed the accusations that his club had repeatedly, indignantly rejected: Namely, that His Highness, Sheikh Mansour, paid a portion of the sponsoring money himself!

 

[ForeverBlue92]

I think we just need to be patient. Stadium costs and academy costs are exempt from FFP. Get Moshiri / Usmanov to invest in the Stadium and Academy and there is nothing UEFA can do. I would much rather see a home grown team running out at the new Stadium and winning things than some grubby financially doped City/PSG clone.

Well we all know Usmanov will be sponsering the new stadium via naming rights- realistically it could be anything from £20-30 million a year you would imagine.

He's paying £12 million a year for Finch Farm naming rights

News of SportsPesa deal ending at the end of the season - wouldn't be suprised at all if again USM/Megafon/Mail.ru whoever announce they have agreed to a £15-20 million a year deal considering SportsPesa were paying £9.6 million a year 3 years ago.

Whether we like it or not Usmanov will be pumping large sums of money in which is only a good thing to get around FFP - its obviously dodgy but providing we play the game (as we look to have done with that £30 million first refusal deal and speak to the authorities beforehand) I cant see us getting pulled in the same manner City have who have from the start steamrolled ahead rather than play the long game like Moshiri seems to have done.

 

[catcherintherye]

Not quite. Jimmy Bloggs paid them £20m, then Sheik Someone lobbed the other £20m in. Nothing illegal about Sheik Someone lobbing £20m at a company, unless that company operates under FFP.

I think.

Had Sheikh someone lobbed 20 million as a company, for example SUM and declared it above board would it have been ok?

The situation with City seems multi-layered and hard to call for me. From reading different things it looks as if they are in a deeper mess than is perhaps being initially broadcast. As usual you have the sensationalism idiots (mainly Liverpool fans) not grasping the issue and peddling a lot of rubbish, about how it's their sponsorships that are causing this.

From what I can see, it does look like misleading UEFA is the main gist of the problems here. I must add, this will be difficult to for City to defend if it goes further. It's one thing making an argument that FFP is flawed (which it is) but if you have lied about the information provided I'm not sure thats an area that a legal court will really seek to get involved in. It's worth noting that City do reject the claims that they misled, so we will have to see whats said about that in an impartial court.

What I take away from it, is that City were very clumsy during the early period of FFP and maybe thought the rules wouldn't be enforced. They were far more clumsy than most clubs have been subsequently and indeed we have been. I mean from the outside it looks as if they couldn't have tried harder to break the rules really.

The other interesting take out for me is they got away with it, and probably would have continued too had they not been bubbled in 2018 (years after the event itself). It doesn't say a lot for UEFA that initially they got away with it.

Crucially, it looks to me as if the values that were agreed were ok (or at the very least ok at the first reading). Thats interesting again, when you consider some of the sponsorships we may have signed.

If funds have been given, by an individuals and not a separate company, that has been concealed then it will be a challenge for City.

 

[catcherintherye]

From the Der Spiegel piece.

As early as April 2010, when Pearce negotiated the sponsorship deal with Aabar, he wrote a telltale email to the firm's leadership. According to the contract, the investment company was to pay the club 15 million pounds annually. But that apparently isn't the full story. "As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is GBP 3 million," Pearce wrote. "The remaining 12 million GBP requirement will come from alternative sources provided by His Highness." With just a single sentence, Pearce confirmed the accusations that his club had repeatedly, indignantly rejected: Namely, that His Highness, Sheikh Mansour, paid a portion of the sponsoring money himself!

Ah ok. So that looks like the composition of the original deal then, and how it's funded?

 

[gwladysnight]

Well we all know Usmanov will be sponsering the new stadium via naming rights- realistically it could be anything from £20-30 million a year you would imagine.

He's paying £12 million a year for Finch Farm naming rights

News of SportsPesa deal ending at the end of the season - wouldn't be suprised at all if again USM/Megafon/Mail.ru whoever announce they have agreed to a £15-20 million a year deal considering SportsPesa were paying £9.6 million a year 3 years ago.

Whether we like it or not Usmanov will be pumping large sums of money in which is only a good thing to get around FFP - its obviously dodgy but providing we play the game (as we look to have done with that £30 million first refusal deal and speak to the authorities beforehand) I cant see us getting pulled in the same manner City have who have from the start steamrolled ahead rather than play the long game like Moshiri seems to have done.

The worry is that it only takes a security breach or a disgruntled employee and we are facing the kind of punitive sanctions that City are facing. Conspiracies have a horrible habit of unravelling. Personally if he is involved Usmanov comes on board and invests massively in the Stadium and Academy. The Stadium will give us a massive financial uplift in terms of match day revenue. Combine that with being able to attract the best talent in the World at Academy level and Carlo and I don't think we need to cheat.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Well we all know Usmanov will be sponsering the new stadium via naming rights- realistically it could be anything from £20-30 million a year you would imagine.

He's paying £12 million a year for Finch Farm naming rights

News of SportsPesa deal ending at the end of the season - wouldn't be suprised at all if again USM/Megafon/Mail.ru whoever announce they have agreed to a £15-20 million a year deal considering SportsPesa were paying £9.6 million a year 3 years ago.

Whether we like it or not Usmanov will be pumping large sums of money in which is only a good thing to get around FFP - its obviously dodgy but providing we play the game (as we look to have done with that £30 million first refusal deal and speak to the authorities beforehand) I cant see us getting pulled in the same manner City have who have from the start steamrolled ahead rather than play the long game like Moshiri seems to have done.

Now it's clear as to why Usmanov hasn't joined the club. Investment with financial sanctions.

 

[gwladysnight]

Had Sheikh someone lobbed 20 million as a company, for example SUM and declared it above board would it have been ok?

The situation with City seems multi-layered and hard to call for me. From reading different things it looks as if they are in a deeper mess than is perhaps being initially broadcast. As usual you have the sensationalism idiots (mainly Liverpool fans) not grasping the issue and peddling a lot of rubbish, about how it's their sponsorships that are causing this.

From what I can see, it does look like misleading UEFA is the main gist of the problems here. I must add, this will be difficult to for City to defend if it goes further. It's one thing making an argument that FFP is flawed (which it is) but if you have lied about the information provided I'm not sure thats an area that a legal court will really seek to get involved in. It's worth noting that City do reject the claims that they misled, so we will have to see whats said about that in an impartial court.

What I take away from it, is that City were very clumsy during the early period of FFP and maybe thought the rules wouldn't be enforced. They were far more clumsy than most clubs have been subsequently and indeed we have been. I mean from the outside it looks as if they couldn't have tried harder to break the rules really.

The other interesting take out for me is they got away with it, and probably would have continued too had they not been bubbled in 2018 (years after the event itself). It doesn't say a lot for UEFA that initially they got away with it.

Crucially, it looks to me as if the values that were agreed were ok (or at the very least ok at the first reading). Thats interesting again, when you consider some of the sponsorships we may have signed.

If funds have been given, by an individuals and not a separate company, that has been concealed then it will be a challenge for City.

City didn't get away with it though. They were fined £49m, had their Champions League squad reduced from 25 players to 21 players and had a drastic reduction in their permissible losses for the next two seasons. Their biggest problem though was that had raised their head above the parapet. They became a target for UEFA, hackers and journalists.

 

[catcherintherye]

City didn't get away with it though. They were fined £49m, had their Champions League squad reduced from 25 players to 21 players and had a drastic reduction in their permissible losses for the next two seasons. Their biggest problem though was that had raised their head above the parapet. They became a target for UEFA, hackers and journalists.

Was this for the initial offence in 2012?

It looks as if they were very clumsy.