Because City have thugs and means of coercing Dortmund and Atletico and Liverpool of underreporting transfer receipts so it makes City look better
I've been told this by someone on here. True story.
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Because City have thugs and means of coercing Dortmund and Atletico and Liverpool of underreporting transfer receipts so it makes City look better
I've been told this by someone on here. True story.
It's an interesting theory, that's for sure.
Underreporting wages makes sense for the other party, because the employee gets more money for accepting it and I doubt the employee breaks any rules. For transfer fees the receiving clubs would damage themselves FFP wise, break the rules and therefore risk sanctions, and probably do some accounting fraud and risk the government coming for them as well. Santa Cruz was bought before FFP was a thing also.
Why would it be a problem for Barcelona to have a great homegrown player?
I didn't think it was a problem
Underreporting wages is tax fraud. If City have indeed paid De Bruyne 200k under the table without reporting wages, then both player and club have cheated the Exchequer and the PL should be the least of their problems.
(Definitely the player. If the club has to pay payroll taxes based on employee income then they would be guilty of tax fraud).
I don’t read any of the so called Sports writers as they are all up City’s arse. I did watch some programme where they asked which club supplied the best lunch and they all agreed City did. Gave them all a roast dinner for free. I’d write anything for a free roast. Samuels is a Spurs fan so is irrelevant. I bet he doesn’t mention the revenues of the old guard are legal and attained after years of success and having huge worldwide fan bases and genuine sponsors. Sponsors are not flocking to City for a number of reasons. Human rights, treatment of women even the treatment of Sparky who they sacked after they gave two salaries Mancini the job. It’s clear City are as guilty as hell. Now who will sit on the ‘Independent’ board, that will be where City concentrate their efforts.
They're doing it cause we cheated. They aren't going to throw it out but its very likely all those charges won't stick. Someone was saying earlier alot of the charges like non-compliance (which we were found guilty of with UEFA by CAS) are fine worthy but non huge issues as long as City comply with the commission. Its a weird one because City were open about non compliance with Uefa but argue they did comply this time. Theres about 30 or so City actually have to win to avoid getting the boot according to what I read (which is still a lot).
The feeling isn't the PL are doing this to prevent a regulator but they rushed it to prevent a regulator. At least thats the feeling at City.
The charges were coming for regardless but not as quickly, hell the PL have already had to edit a ton of the documents because they had the wrong numbers, sections and articles in there. Thats how rushed it was, they were quoting their own rule book wrong based on an older version.
If the PL did indeed rush it through to avoid the regulator, and made mistakes the bolded line is quite possible.
I actually think a heavy points deduction that messes up only 1 season for City, fine and transfer ban is the most likely outcome we'll get too. For some reason I have 30 points ro so stuck in my head.
That said its pure speculation, if 25 charges stick and they are big ones, City could well be relegated and if 40 stick and they are tiny it could well be 10 points.
The interesting thing is the more I read the more I think relegation to the championship is off the menu. It'll be stay in the Premier League or to the Conference as the Football League don't actually have to take City or if they do can put them where the like, its likely if City are found guilty of many of the most serious here, the Football League will think we can't take them in any of the top FL divisions because of the level of the crime. Again purely speculation on my part but expulsion from the PL will lead to expulsion from the Football League as well.
One of the guys works for Arsenal that we know for a fact.
Hasn't this investigation been going on four years?
That doesn't seem rushed to me.
Spot on transfer fees are off the menu (except maybe Danilo/Cancelo and anything involving Barca). No way Liverpool would cook the books on Sterling/Arsenal Nasri etc.. especially when those clubs are pushing for this look into City for years. And given Liverpool being caught hacking Cities scouting database they'd never risk the potential dirt. It makes no sense for transfer fees to be corrupt unless both clubs are complicit ala Juve and Barca for Arthur etc...
Didn’t you do the exact same deal for Cancelo with Juve?
It has but you don't think its a coincidence it was announced with tons of errors exactly 24 hours before the governments white paper with recommendations for independant regulator for the prem was to be announced, which is now coincidentally been held back for a bit?
Which is why I said thats one that could be looked into. I literally listed Juve as being a club who could be in it with City like that.
Ugh. I hate Juventus. Them and Fiat having been rigging shit since before WWII. Juve fans act like Calciopoli was the first instance of shady shit. Been doing it so long the West was still Wild.
No,
The white paper has supposedly been leaked, so we pretty much know what it states.
Also this was meant to be done last April if I am correct but was delayed already, and the timeframe wasn't written in stone (merely a rough guideline for release)
Any suggestion that a four year investigation has been rushed due to a separate entity (the Government) delaying a leaked white paper is tin foil hat stuff.
City themselves didn't even claim surprise at the charges, just the timing, which says it all to me.
the kind of ingratiating shite everyone despised Leeds for in the 70s.
plus Samuel doesn’t look like he’d duck a sandwich.
If the player is paid extra through a third party, like a sponsorship or something, then there's no reason why the player can't declare that and pay tax. It might still be illegal, though, that's true.
Most players are paid via their sponsors, that is not illegal. E.g Ronaldo will be paid by the club a salary, on top of that all his individual sponsors will pay him too.
The difference what City do is, as per the Mancini speculation, get paid /1.75m from Al Jazira for a "consulting role" and Al Jazira are paid 1.75m from City's owners. That's where its illegal.
I don't know if it's illegal on Mancini's part, maybe it is. Or, maybe more relevant, I don't know what legal punishment he risks if he has paid the correct amount of taxes.
Dude these feckers have been putting money into everyones pockets left right and centre to lie about everything, 100 separate instances of dodging rules and paying off people and you ask that question?
Also, when a player is sold many clubs including the sellers come out and label it an "undisclosed fee"
Could be City do a deal whereas they admit some of the charges others are left on file/suspended in return for a hefty fine and pts deduction/ transfer ban for 1 year.
In return I'm sure the PL would implement serious scrutiny of their accounts going forward with no excuses for not disclosing everything cos if they did,the rest of the charges would be revisited with tougher sanctions.
I think City have been trying to look/act differently the last couple of years saying we won't pay over the odds net spend on transfers a lot lower etc, so I think the days of City doing whatever they want are over regardless of the punishment.
In return I'm sure the PL would implement serious scrutiny of their accounts going forward with no excuses for not disclosing everything cos if they did,the rest of the charges would be revisited with tougher sanctions.
I think City have been trying to look/act differently the last couple of years saying we won't pay over the odds net spend on transfers a lot lower etc, so I think the days of City doing whatever they want are over regardless of the punishment.
Whoops, thats my bad. It isn't illegal if you declare it and pay your taxes.
From a City point of you it is, because you are not showing what you're actually paying your manager. There is a reason they have to muddy the waters and pay via a different company, its shady. Which is what the PL need to identify and punish. It just needs to break PL rules rather than being illegal.
PDF link to Blackburn's 2009 financial statement.
You are saying that Blackburn faked these, for what reason?
If they have the money trail, then that certainly looks dodgy. Especially if they can provide no evidence at all that Mancini did any consultancy work.
Would be surprised if Mancini hadn't paid the necessary tax on it though, either personally or if it was through a separate entity that he owned.
Like the bargain that is haaland and they only paid £50 million
Never mentioned his near 500k a week wages or the release clause, they have everyone lapping it up in the media.
I'm gonna say it.
No matter how controversial it sounds.
I don't give a feck if they did all they did, we all knew they did it, everybody knew.
They brought the Premiership to a new level of competitivness.
We have nothing to feel sorry about, we were never in the contention after Sir Alex left, even with Jose, and not because of their financial doping but because we ourselves were incompetent on all fields.
I don't give a feck if they payed Mancini that extra 2 mil in gold or virgin hookers, im not the IRS.
Fine them, don't fine them, who cares.
We're on a good trajectory with Erik and we'll soon be at the top again.
No matter how controversial it sounds.
I don't give a feck if they did all they did, we all knew they did it, everybody knew.
They brought the Premiership to a new level of competitivness.
We have nothing to feel sorry about, we were never in the contention after Sir Alex left, even with Jose, and not because of their financial doping but because we ourselves were incompetent on all fields.
I don't give a feck if they payed Mancini that extra 2 mil in gold or virgin hookers, im not the IRS.
Fine them, don't fine them, who cares.
We're on a good trajectory with Erik and we'll soon be at the top again.
And that’s the best outcome for all parties involved, if you want to affirm control without breaking the £££ toy.
What is this? Win every title because you can cheat?
So would you condone performance enhancing drugs to be taken by players?
Well, that's the controversial part.
I don't consider it cheating.
Yeah, they had the money, they bought some good players.
When you take a look back, they bought players anyone could buy.
KDB was a Chelsea reject.
The main part of their succes in the league lays in one thing only, and to be fair, it could have and should have been us.
Pep Guardiola. Had we brought him a year earlier, he would have won it more times with us then he did with City.
Regardless of points deductions/relegation and fines etc, does this effectively mean City are now back to Villa/Everton in terms of stature. If they have to rely on sponsorships or other revenue streams, befitting a club of their stature, surely their days as big spenders are done. If they start to miss out on the top 4, which they inevitbly will, even without points deductions, as without the massive advantages their shading dealings gave them, they will start to miss out on key targets more and more, to the point where they will inevitably have poor seasons, just like the rest of the big 6 have, only they won't have the infastructure to bounce back. City just aren't comparable to Arsenal, Chelsea or Spurs in terms in match day revenue. Sponsors aren't going to pay much to them compared to the other big clubs. Basically, regardless of the punishment, surely from now on, they are competing on the same level as most other Prem clubs, in that they have to generate their revenue according to the value of their brand and without the glamour signings, their brand has little value relative to other big clubs.
So that is like saying everyone has access to drugs, so you condone it?
There is a set of rules to make sure that the competition is protected. Spend what you make, when you have to cover up and breach the rules 100 times, it is clear you have something to hide.
No, it couldn't have been with us, We would not give a manager 2 £60m LB's in 2 windows. That is the difference.
Don't get the reference to drugs, but when you go there, sure, i'm all for legalizing everything.
It's not like we didn't waste shitloads of money on useless players. Pogba? Lukaku?
60 million leftbacks at least made them win matches, the wankers we wasted money on were fecking useless.
If Mancini’s second salary was supposedly for work performed in the Middle East, presumably taxes were paid there (if they were due). However, if that money was really for managing City, as suspected, then that is tax fraud since he wouldn’t have paid tax in the UK on it.
Obvisouly dodgy but hard to prove; they can easily ‘prove’ he did separate work in the UAE for that separate salary and paid whatever taxes he should have there also.
How is Chelsea not gonna be in trouble with 34 players? How does giving longer contracts help, these players didn’t take less money per year because of that, did they?
Agreed. ‘Hard to prove‘ is the key phrase. It is ‘obvious’ he didn’t have time to work significant hours at any other job while managing City, nor would the owners have wanted him to, but how do you prove that he didn’t?
I'm sorry what?
Correct, but they obviously haven't been that stupid.
I imagine it's more like the proposed scenario wherein one of their "partners" or "sponsors" (or even actual, legit sponsors, who knows) formally hires Player X as...something (a brand ambassador or something like that) and pays him shitloads for pretty much nothing.
In City's case, the "partner" would most likely be based outside the UK, and as such wouldn't have anything to do with HMRC (the taxes in question would be a matter for...whichever tax authority the "partner" answers to).
I too don’t consider breaking the rules cheating. Who’s to say what cheating actually is? It’s not like there are definitions for that sort of thing.
Don't fool yourself, at the top of the pyramid in any hierarchy, it's never about the crime and the punishment. It's always about conflicting interests. The people who run the Premier League are already in bed with the oil states. They opened the door wide open for them to go through. They don't want them and their money out of the game, they just want them to acknowledge that the governing body of the league will be the one to decide how much they are allowed to bend the rules. Money and prestige.
I don't blame people for not sifting through 3.5 TBs of Football Leaks posted by Der Spiegel to get a better picture. It is a shame though that the few journos who were on the case and were screaming "scandal" were so easily waved away by the big media, which never really cared to inform football fans what the fuss was all about. Because, back then, UEFA and City as opposing parties in court was the least expected thing in the football world. In the documents, UEFA had open channels of communication with both the City and PSG ownerships and they were the ones presenting them with safe ways to bypass the FFP rules. By saying UEFA, we're not talking about a few accountants with basement offices in Nyon. Here, we have officials going as high as Gianni Infantino telling Al-Khelaifi and Mansour how to make their sponsorships/deals under the table look as legitimate as possible. All the while, UEFA were banning any club from countries like Turkey and Romania which couldn't meet the FFP requirements. That's how crime and punishment works at the top of the pyramid. Bottom line is that UEFA's deal was a conditional fine and a pre-agreed amount of cash under the table per year - from now on - in exchange for turning a blind eye to what had been going on until then. According to the same leaks, Ifantino met Soriano in 2014 in London and the alleged deal that was put on the table for City was 26 million Euros of financial doping above the Emirates contracts' real price per year with the promise that UEFA would never look into the 233 million deficit City had then, going by FFP rules. What happened? Al-Khelaifi took the deal offered to PSG, while Mansour refused to kneel and kiss the ring. Afterwards, UEFA fecked up royally their case in CAS.
If you connect the dots, you'll see why PSG stood firmly by UEFA's side when the whole thing with the European Super League broke out. The Premier League is no different. They probably fear that United, Liverpool (Klopp has always been outspoken about City's spending and i guess it's not happening against his employers' will), Arsenal, Chelsea and other clubs will want to break the agreements already set in place and look to sign separate deals that will allow them to maximize their income (especially United and Liverpool as "legacy" clubs with already established global fanbases) in order to level the field. Basically, what the ESL would, more or less, allow them to do. Then, all hell will break loose. I know it's only one season, but it looks like the PL might have struck an agreement with Newcastle on that matter. My guess is that Mansour's stance hasn't changed much. They have been oiling the machine for 15 years now, and i wouldn't blame them if they felt invincible. So, we're probably going to see a face-off between City Group and the PL. But don't kid yourself that this is about doing the right thing or anything. If that was the case, they would not have allowed oligarchs and oil states into the PL in the first place. They knew what was going to happen. Pep knows, too, despite acting like the most innocent child in the world.
Last edited: