Manchester City thread
- Thread starter Oggiman
- Start date
An appeal from City is expected to be a formality.
City's legal team is being led by Lord Pannick KC, who is reported to charge £5,000 an hour for his services. He helped City overturn their two-year European ban in 2020.
However, considering we are already eight years into this process - and two years beyond the start of the hearing itself - it is impossible to speculate when this could come to an end.
Until now, the case has been watertight, with no media leaks from any of the parties involved.
This is just the latest chapter.
However, while the commission's judgement can be directly appealed against, it is not possible for City to take it to Cas.
That includes their first in the Premier League era in 2011-12, plus 2013-14 and 2017-18.
They won the FA Cup in 2011, and the EFL Cup three times - 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2017-18.
Since their 2008 takeover by ADUG, City have won eight league titles, and multiple cups including the Champions League as part of a Treble in 2023.
If the commission choses to hand City's titles to other clubs, this is who could benefit:
Premier League
2011-12: Manchester United
2013-14: Liverpool
2017-18: Manchester United
FA Cup
2010-11: Stoke City
EFL Cup
2013-14: Sunderland
2015-16: Liverpool
2017-18: Arsenal
Clubs who had their league positions impacted by City's offences could potentially claim a loss of chance to win potential honours.
These would need to be individually heard by an independent commission.
City's legal team is being led by Lord Pannick KC, who is reported to charge £5,000 an hour for his services. He helped City overturn their two-year European ban in 2020.
However, considering we are already eight years into this process - and two years beyond the start of the hearing itself - it is impossible to speculate when this could come to an end.
Until now, the case has been watertight, with no media leaks from any of the parties involved.
This is just the latest chapter.
However, while the commission's judgement can be directly appealed against, it is not possible for City to take it to Cas.
What titles did City win and who was affected?
City won the Premier League three times during the period in question.That includes their first in the Premier League era in 2011-12, plus 2013-14 and 2017-18.
They won the FA Cup in 2011, and the EFL Cup three times - 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2017-18.
Since their 2008 takeover by ADUG, City have won eight league titles, and multiple cups including the Champions League as part of a Treble in 2023.
If the commission choses to hand City's titles to other clubs, this is who could benefit:
Premier League
2011-12: Manchester United
2013-14: Liverpool
2017-18: Manchester United
FA Cup
2010-11: Stoke City
EFL Cup
2013-14: Sunderland
2015-16: Liverpool
2017-18: Arsenal
Could affected clubs claim compensation from City?
Premier League clubs have already sought legal advice over whether they would have a case for financial compensation as a result of City's breaches.Clubs who had their league positions impacted by City's offences could potentially claim a loss of chance to win potential honours.
These would need to be individually heard by an independent commission.
miggy
Well-known member
Vultures the lot of them. Lets screw City for every penny. I sincerely hope the table doesn't turn on you all or you will all be bankrupt.
Demoted to League 2 and £900 Million fine will be enough, I don't want no trophiesVultures the lot of them. Lets screw City for every penny. I sincerely hope the table doesn't turn on you all or you will all be bankrupt.
An independent Commission found that during 2009-10 and 2017-18 Manchester City arranged "sham contracts" with a number of its commercial partners, as well as "relying on sham agreements to artificially inflate the club's revenues and reduce its costs".
The statement also said that City were guilty of the majority of charges in relation to its failure to co-operate.
The Premier League published a redacted version of the commission's report, which said the charges "concerned well over 100 alleged individual breaches of Premier League Rules across four broad charge categories".
They also found the club guilty of all charges except one relating to non-cooperation with the Premier League investigation.
The sham commercial deals were described as being part of a "disguised funding scheme" to the scale of £830.69m.
Richard Masters, chief executive of the Premier League, said: "The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade."
The statement also said that City were guilty of the majority of charges in relation to its failure to co-operate.
The Premier League published a redacted version of the commission's report, which said the charges "concerned well over 100 alleged individual breaches of Premier League Rules across four broad charge categories".
They also found the club guilty of all charges except one relating to non-cooperation with the Premier League investigation.
The sham commercial deals were described as being part of a "disguised funding scheme" to the scale of £830.69m.
Richard Masters, chief executive of the Premier League, said: "The core decision establishes the facts of what happened at Manchester City during this period. It details how the club systematically broke Premier League Rules for nearly a decade."
miggy
Well-known member
So in other words the Arabs used their own money instead of going through the books perhaps?. Its their business they have invested wisely and created hundreds of jobs with the co op arena and now the hotel. Can you name any other club that has done that?. Some cant even afford to fix a leaky roof and are a billion in debt. Does that get questioned???.
Nowuckinfurries
Member
Have City still got their dinner ladies........
Avid
Active member
I think in Pep’s leaving agreement he could take one with him.
Nowuckinfurries
Member
Very good.
miggy
Well-known member
Ermm no we are not. The question is Are City too good to stay with some of these backstabbing premier league clubs Joe?. I feel a super league coming up. The elite.Going down, Yes you are, Playing QPR
HibbyDave
Active member
Ermm no we are not. The question is Are City too good to stay with some of these backstabbing premier league clubs Joe?. I feel a super league coming up. The elite.
Aw miggs don't look back in anger, cheating like that was always going to end with a wonderfall, the Champagne is superover.
some might say, whatever, but you've just got to roll with it and stand by me.
It could get potentially worse for Manchester City ............
Manchester City have been accused of potentially avoiding paying about £12m in income tax and national insurance in relation to Roberto Mancini’s salary, according to new claims published on Thursday.
A report by Tax Policy Associates claims City could face a tax bill and penalty of up to £24m as well as fresh scrutiny from investigators over payments made to Mancini, the former manager, made through a consultancy arrangement involving Abu Dhabi-based Al Jazira Sports and Cultural Club.
The analysis follows the findings of an independent commission that ruled City were guilty of serious and extensive breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules.
The chair of the Treasury Committee has also asked HMRC whether it is looking into any potential tax implications for City in the wake of the commission’s damning findings.
Dame Meg Hillier MP has written to JP Marks, permanent secretary of HMRC, to seek “reassurance” that they have “seized of the importance” of the case.
Dame Hillier said she wanted to know if HMRC had requested an unredacted copy of the commission’s report and was aware of its findings. She has also asked for an overview of HMRC’s work any other potential tax avoidance within football clubs. The Treasury Committee scrutinises the spending, policies and administration of the Treasury and its associated public bodies and plays a key role in holding ministers to account.
On Tuesday, an independent commission found that City used a “disguised funding scheme” under which the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the club’s owner, helped to fund sponsorship payments that were recorded as revenue.
The commission also referred to a consultancy arrangement that it described as a “sham” in its verdict. The decision was heavily redacted and does not refer to Mancini by name.
But Tax Policy Associates – a not-for-profit company led by Dan Neidle, former head of tax at international law firm Clifford Chance – says leaked documents indicate the £8.866m discussed in the commission’s findings was ultimately paid to companies associated with Mancini under the arrangement.
It claims payments represented remuneration for Mancini’s work at City and, as such, should have been processed through UK payroll.
The report estimates that, if the tax remains unpaid, interest and penalties could take the potential liability to between £23m and £24m.
Manchester City have been accused of potentially avoiding paying about £12m in income tax and national insurance in relation to Roberto Mancini’s salary, according to new claims published on Thursday.
A report by Tax Policy Associates claims City could face a tax bill and penalty of up to £24m as well as fresh scrutiny from investigators over payments made to Mancini, the former manager, made through a consultancy arrangement involving Abu Dhabi-based Al Jazira Sports and Cultural Club.
The analysis follows the findings of an independent commission that ruled City were guilty of serious and extensive breaches of the Premier League’s financial rules.
The chair of the Treasury Committee has also asked HMRC whether it is looking into any potential tax implications for City in the wake of the commission’s damning findings.
Dame Meg Hillier MP has written to JP Marks, permanent secretary of HMRC, to seek “reassurance” that they have “seized of the importance” of the case.
Dame Hillier said she wanted to know if HMRC had requested an unredacted copy of the commission’s report and was aware of its findings. She has also asked for an overview of HMRC’s work any other potential tax avoidance within football clubs. The Treasury Committee scrutinises the spending, policies and administration of the Treasury and its associated public bodies and plays a key role in holding ministers to account.
On Tuesday, an independent commission found that City used a “disguised funding scheme” under which the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), the club’s owner, helped to fund sponsorship payments that were recorded as revenue.
The commission also referred to a consultancy arrangement that it described as a “sham” in its verdict. The decision was heavily redacted and does not refer to Mancini by name.
But Tax Policy Associates – a not-for-profit company led by Dan Neidle, former head of tax at international law firm Clifford Chance – says leaked documents indicate the £8.866m discussed in the commission’s findings was ultimately paid to companies associated with Mancini under the arrangement.
It claims payments represented remuneration for Mancini’s work at City and, as such, should have been processed through UK payroll.
The report estimates that, if the tax remains unpaid, interest and penalties could take the potential liability to between £23m and £24m.
Leeds already been there lol, the whole EFL turned on usI sincerely hope the table doesn't turn on you all or you will all be bankrupt.
miggy
Well-known member
That useless cnut will pull of out of it Mr Ferret. Burnham said we can all have cheap bus tickets on the way out of the door.Leeds already been there lol, the whole EFL turned on us
Manchester City have confirmed they have lodged an appeal after an independent commission found the club guilty of all charges relating to breaches of the Premier League's financial regulations.
In a short statement, the club said the commission's ruling contained "clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe".
Asserting its innocence, the club added it had filed "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence [that] exists in support of all of its positions" on Thursday evening.
Earlier on Friday, the Football Association said the verdict against City has "significant implications for the integrity of the game".
In a statement, English football's governing body added: "We are carefully considering the decision and its implications and will take action where appropriate."
The appeal will now be heard in private by a new, three-person independent commission panel, each with a similar expert background in law.
One section of the Premier League regulations says that an appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks of it being heard, and a decision communicated within 30 days of that.
Twelve weeks from Thursday – when City say they lodged the appeal – would be 24 December.
But this timeframe can also be disapplied if deemed necessary, meaning it remains uncertain how long the process will actually take.
The relevant regulation was only added to the rule book this summer.
Previous precedent suggests that sanctions against City will only be imposed after a decision on the appeal, though this is not guaranteed.
There could therefore also be a second appeal later down the line, against any sanctions imposed on the club.
City will claim as part of their appeal that key sponsorship deals were funded by the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club's owners.
Owners Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) - a private investment company belonging to United Arab Emirates vice-president and deputy prime minister Sheikh Mansour - are said to have topped up the value of commercial deals as part of a "disguised funding scheme" to the scale of £830.69m.
This, it was argued, enabled the club to appear to comply with Premier League and Uefa financial rules.
Premier League rules allow state-owned bodies to sponsor clubs.
In a short statement, the club said the commission's ruling contained "clear material errors, of law, principle and fact and is unsafe".
Asserting its innocence, the club added it had filed "a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence [that] exists in support of all of its positions" on Thursday evening.
Earlier on Friday, the Football Association said the verdict against City has "significant implications for the integrity of the game".
In a statement, English football's governing body added: "We are carefully considering the decision and its implications and will take action where appropriate."
The appeal will now be heard in private by a new, three-person independent commission panel, each with a similar expert background in law.
One section of the Premier League regulations says that an appeal hearing should conclude within 12 weeks of it being heard, and a decision communicated within 30 days of that.
Twelve weeks from Thursday – when City say they lodged the appeal – would be 24 December.
But this timeframe can also be disapplied if deemed necessary, meaning it remains uncertain how long the process will actually take.
The relevant regulation was only added to the rule book this summer.
Previous precedent suggests that sanctions against City will only be imposed after a decision on the appeal, though this is not guaranteed.
There could therefore also be a second appeal later down the line, against any sanctions imposed on the club.
City will claim as part of their appeal that key sponsorship deals were funded by the Abu Dhabi government, rather than the club's owners.
Owners Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) - a private investment company belonging to United Arab Emirates vice-president and deputy prime minister Sheikh Mansour - are said to have topped up the value of commercial deals as part of a "disguised funding scheme" to the scale of £830.69m.
This, it was argued, enabled the club to appear to comply with Premier League and Uefa financial rules.
Premier League rules allow state-owned bodies to sponsor clubs.