Naughty Emirates Marketing Project - Spot of Compo??

[johnaliola]

Here is the bit I don’t understand and maybe there is a good explanation for it. City’s revenue exploded around 2010. In 2 years it pretty much doubled which seemed out of kilter with the rest of the league.

Why weren’t they investigated at that point? The earlier the PL went in, the smaller the investigation needs to be, the less the competition is compromised and the smaller the group of clubs, players, managers and fans that get cheated. This isn’t hindsight. Everyone was calling it long before the investigation started. If it walks like a cheating bastard, talks like a cheating bastard and smells like a cheating bastard, it’s probably a cheating bastard.

Nice set of posts Deano.

 

[thfcsteff]

That was the game when Balotelli stepped on the head of some Spurs player unpunished, and then went on to score the winner, wasn't it?

That's the match. I believe it was Luka's. I was absolutely furious.

 

[robp135]

Potentially. It certainly isn’t my area of expertise but I’d have thought that for a criminal case to proceed, they would have to show that the owners defrauded someone or tried to avoid tax or something.

Potentially, they’ve misstated accounts here but it’s with the purpose of being able to spend more money through their club than they should have been able to. In fact, potentially, they’ll have paid more tax than they otherwise would have given they were overstating revenue.

Purley over stating income would be a slap on the wrist for the business. But those responsible will face penalties that bar them from being directors and accountants invovled will have their licenses revoked.

If it’s been shown they over stated it to other parties for a financial benefit they will be in big trouble. They financially benefited from finishing higher in the Prem and getting UCL maybe they count that not sure.

If they were telling a genuine sponsors that the money they were getting from the slag sponsors was genuine that would be further grounds for fraud and they will get in big trouble.

 

[robp135]

That's the match. I believe it was Luka's. I was absolutely furious.

Scott Parker.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[billyiddo]

Here is the bit I don’t understand and maybe there is a good explanation for it. City’s revenue exploded around 2010. In 2 years it pretty much doubled which seemed out of kilter with the rest of the league.

Why weren’t they investigated at that point? The earlier the PL went in, the smaller the investigation needs to be, the less the competition is compromised and the smaller the group of clubs, players, managers and fans that get cheated. This isn’t hindsight. Everyone was calling it long before the investigation started. If it walks like a cheating bastard, talks like a cheating bastard and smells like a cheating bastard, it’s probably a cheating bastard.

Probably exceed their reach? As long as City's accounts showed that they were being paid the sponsorship money by the right company then all their ducks were in a row as far as the PL could summise. What jurisdiction would the PL have had to investigate the accounts of the sponsors?

 

[thfcsteff]

Scott Parker.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ah great, thanks...I remembered Luka's 14 in the frame. Funny how memory distorts. Still infuriates me looking at it now!!!!

 

[thfcsteff]

Probably exceed their reach? As long as City's accounts showed that they were being paid the sponsorship money by the right company then all their ducks were in a row as far as the PL could summise. What jurisdiction would the PL have had to investigate the accounts of the sponsors?

I am just hoping that somewhere along the line it doesn't come out that their rule-breaking in this regard came art a time when the rule wasn't set?

I mean, is it just me, or does the response from Soriano today (in doubling down on their 'innocence') just leave you feeling that they are going to worm their way out of the appropriate punishment? Chelsea did it (I have some recollection that it came from being able to sell their women's team? I know I am missing big details and possibly conflating several 'crimes' in their case) but between these two disgusting regimes, we have all been shafted (both Redknapp and obviously most of all, Poch).

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Potentially. It certainly isn’t my area of expertise but I’d have thought that for a criminal case to proceed, they would have to show that the owners defrauded someone or tried to avoid tax or something.

Potentially, they’ve misstated accounts here but it’s with the purpose of being able to spend more money through their club than they should have been able to. In fact, potentially, they’ll have paid more tax than they otherwise would have given they were overstating revenue.

They have, in theory paid more tax than they legitimately should have which as the club knew that, it’s fraudulent, but not a crime as it’s not tax fraud

It would be an issue if they were a traded company, but they aren’t as far as I’m aware

 

[johnaliola]

Probably exceed their reach? As long as City's accounts showed that they were being paid the sponsorship money by the right company then all their ducks were in a row as far as the PL could summise. What jurisdiction would the PL have had to investigate the accounts of the sponsors?

I don’t know but the Beeb of all cautious actors have posted this on their website: albeit with an important caveat

 

[billyiddo]

I don’t know but the Beeb of all cautious actors have posted this on their website:View attachment 23481

It has all come out now through the investigation that this is what happened - Citys owners through outside means gave money to other companies who would then use that money to 'sponsor' MCFC.

My point was in response to Deano asking why this wasn't picked up by the PL at the time as it was 'obvious' to everyone that Citys sponsorship deals were way above market rate .

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Enron (and Worldcom) were publicly traded companies so investors were lied to and defrauded. City aren’t publicly traded. That’s your main difference.

Enron was run fraudulently to the point that it made them bankrupt. City haven’t been. Their owners have bottomless pockets and were circumventing PL rules in order to spend money that the owners have but that the club wasn’t generating.

If they’ve done something illegal, I’ll be interested to know what it is.

I’m also intrigued to see how this plays out. They’ve cheated on an unimaginable scale. We all knew the revenue numbers couldn’t have been real at the time but this really is footballs equivalent of Lance Armstrong. Forever tainted, I hope they are fudging hammered for this.

I think it will be intentional paying staff off the books, which is illegal (as the means will be traced back to the employer)
And the overstating income is fraud if they have loans secured but I doubt they have any
However a creditor who has sold them a okayed could argue that they were misled by the fake revenues numbers I guess

 

[johnaliola]

It has all come out now through the investogation that this is what happened - Citys owners through outside means gave money to other companies who would then use that money to 'sponsor' MCFC.

My point was in response to Deano asking why this wasn't picked up by the PL at the time as it was 'obvious' to everyone that Citys sponsorship deals were way above market rate .

apologies

 

[Bedfordspurs]

It has all come out now through the investogation that this is what happened - Citys owners through outside means gave money to other companies who would then use that money to 'sponsor' MCFC.

My point was in response to Deano asking why this wasn't picked up by the PL at the time as it was 'obvious' to everyone that Citys sponsorship deals were way above market rate .

I believe the league had to take what they were given on face value as the accounts are audited
The only reason anyone acted was this information was leaked publicly via a Portuguese paper

 

[billyiddo]

I believe the league had to take what they were given on face value as the accounts are audited
The only reason anyone acted was this information was leaked publicly via a Portuguese paper

Yes like i say - Citys accounts would have shown payments from these companies, the PL have/had no cause to question that until whatever evidence came to light, came to light

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Yes like i say - Citys accounts would have shown payments from these companies, the PL have/had no cause to question that until whatever evidence came to light, csme to light

Yep
That’s certainly how I’ve seen it
But also when you saw the leaked evidence even redacted, there was no defence they could offer imo

 

[thfcsteff]

Is there any further light on the Haaland transfer debacle? The one which says he cost north of 200 mill versus the 50 or so on the books? Apologies for the naive questions, I am somewhat ignorant of the details when it comes to even a slightly deeper look at the financials behind all this...

 

[johnaliola]

Is there any further light on the Haaland transfer debacle? The one which says he cost north of 200 mill versus the 50 or so on the books? Apologies for the naive questions, I am somewhat ignorant of the details when it comes to even a slightly deeper look at the financials behind all this...

I believe the tranche of charges preceded that deal as it has been going on for a while! 2009–2018.

So presumably excess sponsorship deals and other crap after this is for another day.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Probably exceed their reach? As long as City's accounts showed that they were being paid the sponsorship money by the right company then all their ducks were in a row as far as the PL could summise. What jurisdiction would the PL have had to investigate the accounts of the sponsors?

You’re possibly right. I don’t know the rules or know what the rules were then. However, it’s been established that they were in breach of financial rules in 2010 and there was an abnormal growth in revenue at that time. Logically, if not legally, that should have been grounds for serious questions to be asked.

It’s easy to sit here and pontificate and I get that but I’d be very interested to hear the PL’s explanation for it.

 

[billyiddo]

Wonder if we'll get out of paying up the full amount for Savinho & Marmoush?

 

[DeanoAustin]

I am just hoping that somewhere along the line it doesn't come out that their rule-breaking in this regard came art a time when the rule wasn't set?

I mean, is it just me, or does the response from Soriano today (in doubling down on their 'innocence') just leave you feeling that they are going to worm their way out of the appropriate punishment? Chelsea did it (I have some recollection that it came from being able to sell their women's team? I know I am missing big details and possibly conflating several 'crimes' in their case) but between these two disgusting regimes, we have all been shafted (both Redknapp and obviously most of all, Poch).

I find it fascinating to be honest. The language from the investigators is very strong and the detail explicit. Yet City have responded just as strongly in maintaining their innocence and that they have evidence to support it.

Personally, I don’t see how they can be innocent. The sponsorship amounts are unrealistic and always have been.

It’s outrageous and I hope they get the good kicking they deserve. Gonna be interesting to see what sort of reception they get this weekend at Anfield and around the country during the season.

Maybe karma is a real thing though. Through all of their cheating, City were always Spurs’ bitches and gifted us 3-6 points most years. That’s pretty humiliating in itself.