Manchester City Guilty of Financial Breaches Charges Golden Threads

[Tom]

They are cooked - a laughing stock now despite their "success".

Imagine the derision that they will be greeted with in all their away games now. Judging by the wording in the Premier League statement, the punishment is going to be severe - demotion, fines, stripping of titles. Who knows?

 

[Legion]

If they get away with it on a technicality, it would completely destroy English football.

I don't see how they can recover from this. They've committed fraud on a scale we've never seen in football before.

 

[Best]

I don't see how they can recover from this. They've committed fraud on a scale we've never seen in football before.

And they're still denying it.

 

[Best]

Wayne Rooney says Manchester United should not be awarded Premier League titles retrospectively if Manchester City are stripped of them for breaching financial rules.

"I wouldn't feel comfortable about accepting another Premier League medal if I'm being honest, because I don't think we deserve it," he said on the Stick to United podcast. "We didn't do enough that season to win the league."

He added that City players would have believed they had won the title on the pitch, and said he would not want a medal for finishing second.

"When I've heard of ex-teammates and people saying, 'we've won another medal', I'm happy with the five I've won," Rooney said. "I wouldn't want this one just sat there... 15 years later or whatever it was, you get a medal because City cheated. I wouldn't feel comfortable."

Rooney said some players might want a retrospective medal, but he would not.

"The question is, would I want to receive that medal for finishing second? No," he said. "Some players might. I just wouldn't feel comfortable accepting a Premier League medal for finishing second."

He also said he expects City to be relegated, and called for severe punishment.

"I do think we're going to see City getting relegated," Rooney said. "I'd put them in the lowest league they can go in and then put restrictions on them in terms of how much money they can spend for the next three or four seasons."

 

[Franco Pinion]

After reading the Premier League statement, they must surely be coming down on City like the proverbial ton of bricks?

It is more damning than I expected, and I don't really see the basis on which they can appeal (they have until Friday). In particular, in their obstruction of the investigation and belief that those questioned have lied through the investigation.

Beyond football, I suspect directors will have to be struck off.

I suspect there are a few other clubs who fear they may also be guilty of some of the same breaches, even if on a smaller scale.

 

[BlackEyed Pete]

Just read the statement, they are done, surely.

Lisa Nandy, was interviewed on Channel 4 and just referred to the possibility of their expulsion from the entire football league system. That would be the correct action.

I don't want to preempt any kind of appeal process, and they are entitled to a fair hearing. But what I would say is that the ultimate sanction is very serious indeed.

"I mean, a club can be expelled from the Premier League if these sorts of allegations are upheld, with obviously huge repercussions for everybody.

"So there are very serious sanctions, and I think the bigger issue is how do we make sure that we have clearly understood rules that are upheld and applied consistently, and that we can move quickly when they're breached.

"The Premier League is one of our greatest exports. It brings joy to millions of people, and we want to make sure that we protect it for the fans for the future."

Former City chairman David Bernstein said the league's findings were "damning beyond belief" and that "the sanctions cannot just be financial".

Bernstein, who spent five years in the role before stepping down in 2003, also suggested the club's board should "be suspended immediately".

"It is damning beyond belief. My immediate thoughts are, should the board continue? Should the people involved be suspended immediately?

"Very, very serious. I think it's really terrible. There's a school of thought with lawyers that is 'deny, deny, deny', but this is a football club that is part of a league and the whole credibility of the league is at stake here.

"I would go as far [as to say it is a deep-seated form of fraud] and if it is, I'm not a lawyer but as a thought this is something so serious that it goes beyond the football authorities.

"The sanctions cannot just be financial, so it's got to be way beyond that. If the appeal fails, Manchester City cannot stay in the league, they have to suffer. And I say that as a supporter and a fan."

 

[BlackEyed Pete]

Also, just read that they knew in the summer. Explains why they spent extraordinary amounts, ready for a ban.

 

[Scottish Batman]

I mean on what grounds are they going to appeal it? They either did that or they didn't, and if they did, they are absolutely screwed.

 

[Welshy]

Still trying to get my head around this. The findings are damning and astonishing yet City are adamant they have done nothing wrong.

This is massive and I think it still has a long way to run.

 

[Dylan]

According to the ruling this is how City's sham contracts and disguised funding scheme worked.

The sponsorship deals were split into two parts: a base fee, and a tagged sum.

The sponsors would pay the base fee.

And the club's owners would pay the tagged sum.

Ergo, the sponsors would not have to pay the full value of the contract. The club's owners would pay the vast majority, which enabled them to invest in players.

This, the document states, "gave the misleading impression to third parties (including regulators and its auditors) in its financial statements and any required FFP returns that its commercial revenues from sponsorship agreements were far, far greater than was in fact the case".

But the club also knew they had to be nimble.

From time to time the disguised funding scheme would be tweaked to "assist with continued concealment" and "reduce the likelihood of difficult questions being asked".

What did this all mean in reality?

Commercial income from sponsors totalled £949.94m in the seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18.

The ruling says only £119.25 million represented base fees.

A total of £830.69 million represented tagged sums - the amount paid by the club's owners.



This is how the club's financial statements for the seasons between 2009-10 and 2017-18 did not show a true and fair view of the financial position:

Sponsorship

• Income from overstated by over £830m

Contracts and image rights

• Wrongly excluded expenses by £8.866m
• Wrongly excluded expenses by £7.4m
• Wrongly excluded expenses by £0.5m

Fordham Arrangement:

• Wrongly recorded as operating income £24.5m
• Wrongly excluded expenses totalling £49.414m

Total: £920.68m