Topic: Financial Fair Play - developments in here

[kennedy81]

Worth a listen.

'Why is Man City’s FFP case taking so long to solve?' (The Athletic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngdOyZuVe28

[decosabute]

Looking domestically I expect Spurs are the poster boys for how UEFA want a club to be ran.  I think they've always been beneath the lower 70% wage:revenue ratio for a decade or more.  A decade in which they've been to a CL final, been in a title race and built one of the most impressive stadiums in Europe.  I know they get mocked with the "Spursy" comments but they've established themselves as contenders for the long-term.

We had a headstart with more of a global following but our revenue pre-FSG wasn't very good.  FSG have grown our revenue massively, improved the stadium (which also equates to further revenue), invested in our training facilities and overseen us winning the biggest trophies in club football.

777 Partners seem to believe Everton are an untapped revenue goldmine.  They may have a point as it seems like Moshiri made no effort whatsoever to improve that part of the club - instead throwing in his and Usmanov's money.

Since us and City got our acts together, Spurs haven't finished higher than 4th. And they've spent half those seasons out of the CL and sometimes out of Europe altogether. And they've still got a billion pound stadium to pay off, whilst taking out loans to keep spending.

They're having a decent season (currently 5th), and they're well run compared to some of the basket case clubs, but let's not go nuts and call them "poster boys".

[4pool]

Manchester City to be found NOT guilty of 115 charges against them, according to football finance expert

Manchester City will escape punishment from the 115 charges they face from the Premier League over financial irregularity.

Financial Fair Play regulations and the Premier League's own Profit and Sustainability rules (PSR) have dominated the news this season following Everton's 10-point deduction for failing to comply with the regulations before a further charge hit the Toffees and relegation rivals, Nottingham Forest.

At the Etihad Stadium, however, 115 charges over 10 years hang over the heads of Manchester City – but the champions are yet to be charged over the alleged breaches as the Premier League investigates.

Now, however, football finance expert Stefan Borson has told talkSPORT that while he believes City should be relegated if found guilty of misconduct, he believes it is going to be almost impossible to prove.

“It's hard to see how it can be any other way,” Borson said of the possibility of relegation during an interview with Jim White and Simon Jordan. “I don't think that the Premier League will be able to prove a case of this nature, I think it's a completely inappropriate forum for a case of this nature – but if proven, this is super serious. Nobody can argue with that. City themselves in their submissions, they will say that this is an allegation of the most serious nature.

“I think they'll clear their name because a case of this nature needs to have a level of cogent proof, which seems to me to be impossible to present to an independent commission.”

Borson insisted that given the scale of the allegations, it could be incredibly difficult to find everyone accused of being involved in such corruption.

“Furthermore, it seems to me highly unlikely that the conduct which is alleged has taken place over a 10-year period, with all sorts of individuals that are involved with the club,” Borsen, who advised City between 2001 and 2007, claimed.

“That is their starting point and it'll be a very big call for any quasi-court [or] tribunal to suggest that this number of people have been dishonest and have perjured themselves. That would be a massive call to make not just against Manchester City but against numerous executives, some third-party individuals and, of course, against senior members of foreign states.”

[Agent99]

Manchester City to be found NOT guilty of 115 charges against them, according to football finance expert

Manchester City will escape punishment from the 115 charges they face from the Premier League over financial irregularity.

[princeoftherocks]

Manchester City to be found NOT guilty of 115 charges against them, according to football finance expert

 Stefan Borson has told talkSPORT

 

man city fan?

[MonsLibpool]

man city fan?

Yeah. I wonder what people expect a fan to say. The other day, he was talking about how other clubs would sue Everton to oblivion (administration) by demanding £100m which was bollocks.

He's a decent FFP source but he's also human.

[reddebs]

man city fan?

Finance expert touting for business obviously. 

All those wealthy folks panicking over the Tories losing the election and how much those wicked Labour lefty sorts are going to rob them of their money, he'll get plenty of work if they do get off with all 115 charges.

[LiamG]

Klopp really doesn't bet enough credit

https://x.com/fc_mossman/status/1747683570540249423?s=20

[4pool]

man city fan?

Easy way out to call him that.

He was hired by Man City for 7 years when they were skint and was there when the club was sold and left at that time.

He did say if City are found guilt they will be relegated.

Now if you want to hear what he had to say, then make up your mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1dRiZJsXDY

[CraigDS]

Expect a lot more "finance experts" to appear in the media pushing a similar narrative over the coming weeks / months.

[RedSince86]

I was checking out Bluemoon.

This Stefan Whatever is a City fan and a poster at Bluemoon.

🤣

[JRed]

I was checking out Bluemoon.

This Stefan Whatever is a City fan and a poster at Bluemoon.

🤣

Haha. Was he out on day release?
They must be fucking shitting themselves on there!

[RedSince86]

His name at BlueLoon is Project River.

[Hedley Lamarr]

To be fair to that Stefan douche, from what I've read it is either being cleared and well, oblivion.  There have been plenty screaming 'what about City ?' after the Everton and Forest charges, but City have been accused of fraud, not breaching P&S, actual deliberate fraud.  A points deduction or stripping them of titles isn't an appropriate punishment, the only one on the table is relegation.  If that happens, the next problem is that they don't automatically drop down to the championship, the EFL are a completely different body, City would have to apply and I can't envisage the other championship sides being overly impressed.

I think it's either validation or bust.  Just got to hope the relevant bodies have used this time to gather evidence.

[JRed]

His name at BlueLoon is Project River.

Are they all frothing at the mouth with claims of ‘cartel’ as usual?
I think their main defence is that the uk government wouldn’t allow the deputy PM of Abu Dhabi be labelled a cheat. They’re not bothered that they’ve cheated, just aslong as they can get away with it.

[stockdam]

It's a complex one and we have no idea how it will go. If the PL try to go down the rabbit hole of proving how wrong the financial reports were then that could be very difficult. If they just state and prove that there are breaches and that they are reasonably significant then that's hopefully as far as they need to go.

i suggest that it would be like an Olympic medal winner not doing a blood or urine test. In this case it's impossible to say if they had cheated or not but they have broken the rules and in that case they would, I believe, be stripped of their medals. I'm not sure why this didn't happen everytime City broke the rules.

I suspect that the PL do not have much evidence other than the leaks. They then probably asked City for proof that the leaks were wrong and City didn't comply, hence the failure to co-operate. In which case City just state that the accounts were correct and that they are not going to provide any further evidence. This is, unfortunately where City may win their case unless a court insists that City allow a full independent audit which could take years.

I am not sure that a 3rd party leaking documents is sufficient evidence as City will just state that they have been doctored. The fact that they did not fully co-operate is maybe the only thing that the PL can get City for. It is fair and reasonable for the PL to ask any club to substantiate their submissions and to do a random audit to make sure everything lines up. If a club fails to fully comply then the assumption is that the submission is incorrect and therefore the club must be punished. For me the only way to prove what City did is to use their own records and not ones that were "supposedly" leaked. A failure to comply is a serious breach and is tantamount to trying to prevent the truth coming out. The level of cheating cannot be ascertained and so the punishment must be severe.......so severe that no club would try to take the risk.

The level of punishment is where the next sticking point may be as I don't think there are any written rules for this. I would hope that the first punishment is that all trophies won during the period are voided but also that they get relegated down a league for every failure to co-operate. So what happens when they get down to division 2? Well they cannot be promoted for the each additional failure to co-operate that hasn't been punished.


Sorry if I'm barking up the wrong tree here but I feel that the PL must use the fact that City failed to be transparent when asked.

[latortuga]

man city fan?

Well sure, but he is a legal expert in the area and provided reasonable arguments for why the case against City could fail. 

Namely, that it would be impossible for any hearing to prove such allegations to the degree required to prove the case against City. 

It's a completely different legal question to that of Everton / Forest who breached financial rules evidenced by accounting records. 

Where he veers from objectivity to subjectivity is his claim that it's impossible to imagine multiple different executives, 3rd parties, invested and uninvested interests all conspiring to perpetuate a fraud over such a lengthy period of time.  While I agree that it does seem hard to believe that no one at any point came forward about this fraud, it isn't without precedent and only a fan would believe that their club isn't capable of fraud on the level for which they are being accused.

I certainly hope he is wrong, however I think we should all be prepared for the possibility that he will be right.  After all, even if fraud was perpetrated it would require the Premier League to have clear evidence of it - not just supposition - or the extremely unlikely event of Man City admitting to it.  With the limited investigative powers the Premier League has, I'm tending to accept his point of view. 

[latortuga]

i suggest that it would be like an Olympic medal winner not doing a blood or urine test. In this case it's impossible to say if they had cheated or not but they have broken the rules and in that case they would, I believe, be stripped of their medals. I'm not sure why this didn't happen everytime City broke the rules.

Not really.  It's more like the olympic athlete provided the urine or blood sample and WADA are now challenging the validity of such sample.  Man City have provided accounts, the Premier League is arguing they are fraudulent. 

In the case of the leaked documents, it's not just a question of whether they were doctored, it's also a question of whether they were obtained illegally.  In a court of law such evidence could be deemed inadmissible evidence.  I don't know what the rules are for this hearing in regards to such evidence so perhaps it is admissible.  However the fact that the Premier League chose to charge Man City may mean that they either are able to use that evidence, or have obtained other admissible evidence that is equally damning.

[Samie]

Man City are Lance Armstrong. He passed evrey drug and blood test until her got caught.

[Jayo10]

This "failure to comply" is a red herring, we shouldn't hang on to it. It's perfectly normal to frustrate the opposing side in legal cases.

No way in hell a court would prove this.

Even less chance the premier League proves it's fraud.

Do the normal rules of law apply?

If they do, my guess is it will be a case of not guilty of fraud, but a points deduction on lesser charges to make things more palatable.

[RayPhilAlan]

This "failure to comply" is a red herring, we shouldn't hang on to it. It's perfectly normal to frustrate the opposing side in legal cases.

No way in hell a court would prove this.

Even less chance the premier League proves it's fraud.

Do the normal rules of law apply?

If they do, my guess is it will be a case of not guilty of fraud, but a points deduction on lesser charges to make things more palatable.

Are we sure of the bolded bit? I thought they were failing to comply from well before the time when they were on an opposing side of a legal case. At that time, the Premier League - the body to whom they are required to submit accounts - had asked for more information. That's what they have failed to comply with.

[jillcwhomever]

Are we sure of the bolded bit? I thought they were failing to comply from well before the time when they were on an opposing side of a legal case. At that time, the Premier League - the body to whom they are required to submit accounts - had asked for more information. That's what they have failed to comply with.

They were not handing over documents that was part of the agreement they'd signed up for, thereby it is relevant.

[clinical]

It's amazing City can waste £110m on Philips and Nunes and probably just get rid and go again.

[Zlen]

Are we sure of the bolded bit? I thought they were failing to comply from well before the time when they were on an opposing side of a legal case. At that time, the Premier League - the body to whom they are required to submit accounts - had asked for more information. That's what they have failed to comply with.

Exactly. It predates the 'legal battle', which is why it's listed in the charges. Have they since released the documents and cooperated fully? Have they fuck. If they had, perhaps these charges could be dropped or minimised in importance. As it stands - they are the cornerstone of the proceedings for me. Because they move the needle from 'things we might have done in the past but you have no evidence of' firmly towards 'things we're still doing to gain advantage by breaking rules others follow'. That's why cooperation was so strongly highlighted in the Everton charge. It didn't need to be - but it was about laying the groundwork for this case and its resolution.

[stockdam]

Exactly. It predates the 'legal battle', which is why it's listed in the charges. Have they since released the documents and cooperated fully? Have they fuck. If they had, perhaps these charges could be dropped or minimised in importance. As it stands - they are the cornerstone of the proceedings for me. Because they move the needle from 'things we might have done in the past but you have no evidence of' firmly towards 'things we're still doing to gain advantage by breaking rules others follow'. That's why cooperation was so strongly highlighted in the Everton charge. It didn't need to be - but it was about laying the groundwork for this case and its resolution.

I agree and for me this is the most important aspect. This is not a legal issue where it’s down to the PL to prove guilt. City are the ones who want to play in the PL and therefore should abide by the rules and should be open to being audited independently. If they won’t comply then the PL have every right to throw them out. HMRC have the legal right to audit any company or person as far as tax is concerned. On the other hand the PL have no legal power to ask City to do anything but they do have the power to throw them out for failing to co-operate.

If a club thinks they haven’t broken any rules then they should co-operate with the PL and try to work out what went wrong. City are arrogant in that they believe they can bully the PL and throw lawyers and money at something which just shows they have something to hide.

It smacks of a desperate attempt to try to cover things up and for me they will get severe punishment for not co-operating. I hope it sends a very strong message to other clubs that there will be zero tolerance to clubs who want to hide evidence.

[andyrol]

Should be like school. if youdid something wrong or were even accused of wrongdoing you were put on report..man city should be made to go on'report'-in this case the PL need to be shown EVERY document and shown all finances relating to wages,transfers,sponsorship etc.failure to do this means expulsion. simple, PL dont need to 'prove' anything at this point just make man city very transparent.

[zero zero]

Manchester City to be found NOT guilty of 115 charges against them, according to football finance expert

Manchester City will escape punishment from the 115 charges they face from the Premier League over financial irregularity.

-----------
“I think they'll clear their name because a case of this nature needs to have a level of cogent proof, which seems to me to be impossible to present to an independent commission.”

This "failure to comply" is a red herring, we shouldn't hang on to it. It's perfectly normal to frustrate the opposing side in legal cases.

No way in hell a court would prove this.

Even less chance the premier League proves it's fraud.

Do the normal rules of law apply?

It certainly is not a red herring. Let's remind ourselves of the charges:

54 charges: Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18
14 charges: Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009/10 to and including 2017/18
5 charges: Failure to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations
7 charges: Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability regulations from 2015/16 to and including 2017/18
30 charges: Failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 - present

In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely: (list of seasons and which rues were alleged to be broken)
https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970

Well sure, but he is a legal expert in the area and provided reasonable arguments for why the case against City could fail. 

Namely, that it would be impossible for any hearing to prove such allegations to the degree required to prove the case against City. 

Nope. He's a self-proclaimed 'finance expert'. And a City fan. And an ex-City employee. His entire argument appears to be based to two points:


1) The PL won't be able to prove the allegations
2) The amount of people at the top end of the City organistion that would have to be involved if the allegations are proved to be true


The rule of law does not apply. The commission are there to find whether PL rules have been broken, which is why the rule "requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith" is critical. The City bods have stated that they have proof that will totally exonerate them. Well, they have their opportunity to present their evidence in front of the commission. The City fan, sorry 'finance expert', wants to believe the allegations can't be proved because City won't divulge sensitive financial information. I suspect they won't. But they'll have to sit in front of the commission and continue to cooperate with them to do so.


I've said before the commissions findings and judgement will be as much to do with what happens going forward as City's breaches in the past. The precedent the PL will want to set is that if you want to be part of the PL, you have to play by the rules you and all the other clubs agreed to.

[Schmarn]

The one thing I’ve not seen addressed clearly is what happens to the period after 2018 when City ceased all cooperation. I keep hearing that the charges only go up to 2018 but if they’re found guilty of cheating surely they can’t get away with the later period just because they didn’t cooperate with the investigation. As Liverpool fans it obviously means more (pardon the pun) to us but there’s an important point here. Why would anyone cooperate if City don’t get punished for that but Everton and Forest do?

[keyop]

I agree and for me this is the most important aspect. This is not a legal issue where it’s down to the PL to prove guilt. City are the ones who want to play in the PL and therefore should abide by the rules and should be open to being audited independently. If they won’t comply then the PL have every right to throw them out. HMRC have the legal right to audit any company or person as far as tax is concerned. On the other hand the PL have no legal power to ask City to do anything but they do have the power to throw them out for failing to co-operate.

If a club thinks they haven’t broken any rules then they should co-operate with the PL and try to work out what went wrong. City are arrogant in that they believe they can bully the PL and throw lawyers and money at something which just shows they have something to hide.

It smacks of a desperate attempt to try to cover things up and for me they will get severe punishment for not co-operating. I hope it sends a very strong message to other clubs that there will be zero tolerance to clubs who want to hide evidence.

Spot on. I think this all comes down to burden of proof now:

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

Ordinarily, this burden of proof falls on the prosecutor bringing the charges, and the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach often applies. But we're way past that stage now. There's 115 charges, everyone knows City are cheats (including City), and the non-co-operation gets worse for them with each passing day. As Zlen so aptly put it:

Because they move the needle from 'things we might have done in the past but you have no evidence of' firmly towards 'things we're still doing to gain advantage by breaking rules others follow'.

So City's delaying tactics and refusal to comply increasingly moves that needle towards City being guilty of all charges. By doubling down on their apparent innocence, City are ramping up the pressure on themselves whilst gradually creating a PR disaster. Even the most neutral or indifferent football fan will be thinking 'Why not just disclose everything if you're innocent?'

City had the opportunity years ago to come clean, take their punishment, and get off much more lightly than they will when these charges come to fruition. Their arrogant denial, time-wasting, and deflection tactics have shifted the burden of proof away from the PL and entirely onto their own shoulders, and I hope it ultimately crushes the entire club to the ground. Coroner's verdict: Death by arrogance.

[vblfc]

That guy is sowing a narrative that will be set with City around burden of proof, the high profiles of some of the accused and the validity of evidence. That could get messy around failures to co-operate and such. Also the validity of info like the emails from the whistle blower. And since it’s not a court, how far does the line of burden of proof get drawn? Hopefully PL have done their homework and have good clean data/evidence. Otherwise we will hear much more from the City shills regarding “innocent until firmly proven guilty”. I would guess no-one at City will be confessing.

[MonsLibpool]

The failure to cooperate, for example,  doesn't depend on the burden of proof bollocks.  That's a very serious offence.

[[new username under construction]]

man city fan?

Yeah he literally says he's a supporter, if it's the same guy that was on the TS youtube video

[Hazell]

Worth a listen.

'Why is Man City’s FFP case taking so long to solve?' (The Athletic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngdOyZuVe28

Thanks for that, was a good listen.

[JRed]

So, that bluelooner who was on talk sport, was basically saying the PL/FA know Abu Dhabi are guilty but can they prove it against such high profile owners?

[WhereAngelsPlay]

They're a gnats cock away from claiming diplomatic immunity.

[Agent99]

They're a gnats cock away from claiming diplomatic immunity.

[TepidT2O]

Worth noting that according to Swiss ramble, Liverpool should have a PSR amount of +£140ish million for the 21-22 period.

Which is a sizeable buffer. 

[Stockholm Syndrome]

Worth noting that according to Swiss ramble, Liverpool should have a PSR amount of +£140ish million for the 21-22 period.

Which is a sizeable buffer.

I guess in business terms it is worth us using that before we lose it to the P&S records. How would that be reflected if they change to a Wages over Turnover model?

[MonsLibpool]

Marseille were thrown out of Ligue 1 in 1993 for matchfixing and the title they won is void. L'Equipe doesn't even mention that season in the list of Ligue 1 winners.

What makes City's case massive is that it can lead to effectively erasing a decade of PL football which would be damaging for the brand.

[thejbs]

Marseille were thrown out of Ligue 1 in 1993 for matchfixing and the title they won is void. L'Equipe doesn't even mention that season in the list of Ligue 1 winners.

What makes City's case massive is that it can lead to effectively erasing a decade of PL football which would be damaging for the brand.

If they strip and redistribute titles they'll be giving them to the 3 most popular clubs in England, so probably not much furore.