Manchester City charged with breaking financial rules by Premier League

06/02/2023 86comments  |  Jump to last

The Premier League has charged Manchester City with more than 100 breaches of its financial rules following a four-year investigation.

It has referred the club to an independent commission over alleged rule breaches between 2009 and 2018.

It also accused City of not co-operating since the investigation started in December 2018.

City said they were "surprised" by the charges and are supported by a "body of irrefutable evidence".

The commission can impose punishments ranging from a fine and points deduction to expulsion from the Premier League.

» Read the full article at BBC Sport

Reader Comments (86)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Brent Stephens
1 Posted 06/02/2023 at 10:43:34
Man City referred by Premier League to independent commission about alleged breaches of financial rules – 2009/10 to 2017/18 – accuracy of financial position.
Bill Gall
2 Posted 06/02/2023 at 12:41:51
I wonder what will become of this investigation of Man City on breaking FFP rules?

This may reflect on how Chelsea have been able to conduct their transfer dealings…

Nick Page
3 Posted 06/02/2023 at 13:14:21
Well, we’ll only have to wait until 2031 for Chelsea to be investigated, lol.

The whole thing is a joke; a house of cards built on sand backed by protectionism. Man City revenues are so inflated it’s untrue but if these investigations go so far back then who else would fall short of their “regulations”. If the Premier League let these owners in, they’re culpable.

The Premier League has largely been built on the back of money laundering and sports washing (allegedly).

Jim Lloyd
4 Posted 06/02/2023 at 14:01:39
I thought the idea originally of the P&S Rules was to keep clubs from going bankrupt by spending too much on players, so I think it was supposed to be based on how much money they brought in on commercial sales, sponsorships and the like.

What a bad joke!

Danny O’Neill
5 Posted 06/02/2023 at 14:31:36
Being honest, Jim, when FFP and P&S Rules came in, I thought it was a good principle.

But now I see it as preservation of the elite.

City challenged it but really it was a predecessor of establishing that Super League and the clubs that wanted to join it.

Just an opinion but that's my view.

As I've said, we can't be too hypocritical because in the context, has football ever been different? The teams with the most money generally succeed.

If they spend it correctly and wisely.

James Newcombe
6 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:00:48
Each Premier League club should be working to the same salary cap (with no workarounds in player contracts).

I just want to see competitive football. The idea that some clubs can effectively spend whatever they like, and others can't because they received backing 'too late', is anti-sport.

Darren Hind
7 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:06:52
I think Man City are in serious trouble.

This battle has been going on (mainly behind the scenes) for about 4 years and a concerted effort has been made to make these charges stick.

Calling it now: Man City will be thrown out of the Premier League.

They'll be back quicker than you can say Glasgow Rangers, but it may mean only two teams will be relegated this season.

Dennis Stevens
8 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:12:52
The lawyers will be out in force, so I can't see a quick resolution of City's charges
Barry Hesketh
9 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:16:01
I think that Darren is correct; Man City, if found guilty, will be heavily sanctioned to prove a point, particularly as the Government are hell-bent on addressing the financial governance of the clubs in the Premier League.

Unfortunately, it might not end there either, Chelsea and Everton could also be handed some sanctions too, hopefully not in our case. Chelsea haven't gone on that current spending spree for nothing, there has to be a good reason to spend so heavily in such a short space of time.

Rob Halligan
10 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:30:32

If Man City are demoted to League Two, Sheikh Monsour sells up, Moshiri sells to the Sheikhs. Everyone's a winner!

Or is the owner sanctioned as well?

Kieran Kinsella
11 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:38:24
BBC reckon nothing is likely to happen as the independent investigation will drag on for a few years then any sanctions go to court, then they can appeal etc and the statue of limitations may expire before its resolved as happened with the UEFA case.
Brian Harrison
12 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:58:42
Hardly coincidental that the Government are considering bringing in an independent advisor to look into all clubs and all of a sudden the Premier League decide to bring charges against Man City. These charges supposedly start back in 2009, so some 14 years after the initial rules-breaking started yet the Premier league wait till 2023 to take action.

I know Gary Neville has been championing the bringing in of an independent advisor for some time now, and even Simon Jordan who has criticized Neville for insisting on an independent advisor now has to agree with Gary Neville.

Man City claim they are surprised by these charges given how much evidence they have supplied to the Premier league. I know SSN outlined the sort of sanctions that could be used if City are found guilty, from points deduction to being thrown out the league.

I doubt any of those options will be applied more like a very heavy fine running into tens of millions. I am sure there will be a lot of very nervous clubs on hearing this news, certainly Chelsea and Everton will be most concerned and will no doubt wonder if they are to be embroiled into this.

Peter Neilson
13 Posted 06/02/2023 at 15:58:59
The charges against City won't be about simply breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules but deliberately evading them. For example, by paying over half of Mancini's salary off the books.

I can't see us being sucked into this as the Premier League appear to have accepted our situation is down to gross incompetence by buffoons rather than cynical cheating.

John Keating
14 Posted 06/02/2023 at 17:38:31
Before chasing Man City, who should be third in the queue, they should be after Real Madrid and PSG.
Barry Hesketh
15 Posted 06/02/2023 at 17:47:24
Apparently, if the investigations into Man City was to lead to a call for their expulsion from the Premier League, the other 19 clubs would then be called to an EGM and, if just five clubs voted in favour of City, they would retain their membership of the Premier League.
Bill Gall
16 Posted 06/02/2023 at 17:50:09
Just a shame that they decided to start on a club that became wealthy from new owners, and yet were not bothered that Chelsea had be doing it previously for years after Abramovich had bought them. Chelsea bought league titles and cups from new ownership, so has Man City.

Why did it take so long to realize that billionaire backers would be able to bring in some of the world's best players that other clubs could not afford? If this is being investigated from years previously, how come it wasn't investigated years ago when the new FFP rules were brought into play?

It appears that Chelsea have found a back door to overcome the FFP rules but you will need more than the average club can afford to pay for players to compete. So, once again, the competition becomes unfair, will they change the FFP rules?

Ray Robinson
17 Posted 06/02/2023 at 18:06:00
Just wait until Nottingham Forest get investigated. 29 players signed in two windows this season!
Dave Lynch
18 Posted 06/02/2023 at 18:15:10
They'll get off scot free, I guarantee it.

The FA are terrified of a European Super League. If Man City are sanctioned and other big clubs are investigated, it will rear its ugly head again.

Juve are financially fucked so they would welcome it, PSG are a bunch of mercenaries and would jump ship in a heartbeat.

The Arabs would love to set this up and include a few of their nations' teams as well. Games played all over the Middle East would be very attractive to the richest men on the planet.

Peter Neilson
19 Posted 06/02/2023 at 18:30:55
I doubt it'll come to it but even if Man City was stripped of its titles there's no need to retrospectively award them to those that came second.

Follow the example of the Tour de France with Lance Armstrong, simply no winners for those discredited years. Harsh but fair as there is no real prestige in awarding titles years after the fact.

Ian Edwards
20 Posted 06/02/2023 at 18:48:52
If Man City hadn't cheated, then we would have qualified for the Champions League when we were 5th and reached the League Cup Final both under Martinez.

In fact, had we qualified for the Champions League, then Bobby Brown Shoes may have won us the Champions League and we may now have countless trophies in the cabinet.

Nurse... the tablets.

Nick Page
21 Posted 06/02/2023 at 19:14:28
See Dave @109. Absolutely spot on.

Look what they've done with LIV Golf. All about the green and they've already got their foot in the door thanks to the fucking disgrace that is the Premier League. All taking their coin.

Christy Ring
22 Posted 06/02/2023 at 22:09:54
We're worried about FFP last season, Man City now have over 100 charges from 2009 to 2018?? Am I missing something?
Danny O’Neill
23 Posted 07/02/2023 at 06:42:03
Christy, two things. Pet hate and pedantic of me, but we are not subject to FFP.

That said, it will be interesting to see how this pans out for Man City. I'll guess their lawyers are busy.

I personally suspect and hope that Everton's compliance with the Premier League will keep them on the right side of the fence.

Let's be honest, it would open a can of worms because they've all been at it for years.

If the authorities are taking this line, I would suggest Villa could be in the firing line despite the sale of Grealish. Maybe Forest. I think they bought about 30 players in the past 12 months.

I received an interesting message from Rob overnight. We talk about how much we've spent under Moshiri, but we have apparently recouped nearly the same amount from sales.

Secondly, Klopp has history of going into meltdown when his toys don't work. He done it in his last season at Dortmund.

Let's drive the nail in next week.

Robert Tressell
24 Posted 07/02/2023 at 07:19:59
Danny, we're at –€243M net spend since the 2016-17 season according to Transfermarkt. Villa are –€331M and Forest are –€166M for the same period. Obviously Forest only started their spending spree this summer, so that skews the outcome. Villa's relegation too.

However, the wage bill, overheads and commercial revenues etc are taken into account for Premier League rules presumably.

Eric Myles
25 Posted 07/02/2023 at 07:39:40
Danny, not just our development teams but I remember as a kid going to Goodison to watch schoolboy Cup ties.

I'd have liked it to be a fitting home for The David France Collection and kept as a used ground.

But I expect Bill needs the money.

Steve Shave
26 Posted 07/02/2023 at 07:59:28
Danny and Robert, totally agree on these points. As negligent and incompetent as we have been in the market we are not -£500M as is widely reported in the usual lazy journalist narratives.

There is so much media negativity around us, I feel as if they are all willing us down. People forget we actually made money on multiple signings and saw good return occasionally. It's bad but it's not as bad as depicted. That said, my 10-year-old son could have recruited better.

Robert Tressell
27 Posted 07/02/2023 at 08:13:47
Danny, the expenditure / net spend tables are weirdly fascinating.

Sadly, they show our closest match in terms of expenditure and money recouped from sales since Moshiri took over is none other than the RS.

They've spent €50M more than us but recouped more too. So their net spend is only ~€24M ahead of ours. Or one Schneiderlin to put it another way.

This tells me that they've obviously been better run in the past 6 years or so – but also that their decline is inevitable. They are being massively outspent by other clubs.

But those tables also show that West Ham, Wolves and Aston Villa are overspending very significantly – and it may only be a free stadium for the former and massive Chinese investment for the latter two that is keeping things afloat.

Otherwise, the tables also show that Brighton and Leicester operate very well indeed. No surprise. Brentford and Burnley too.

The fact that Burnley stayed up with such modest spending is how this comes back to why Dyche is a good fit for us right now.

Danny O’Neill
28 Posted 07/02/2023 at 08:39:11
On Goodison, I think it would have been a greater legacy to keep it as a downscaled stadium. And there are enough who would want to watch the kids and support the places we know and love. We still will anyway. They have supported us for life. So we support them in return, that's how it works.

On the financial side, we are no more guilty than many others. I obviously don't know the facts, but I would definitely suspect there are many other clubs looking behind their backs and cooking the books. We seem to have become a target, but at least we've come clean and we're talking to the Premier League…

Interesting that, despite terrible financial mismanagement, there is little scrutiny on the European giants. Talk again of the Super League to bail them out. But little scrutiny on their spending and debts.

I have often said, my poor mother once got a visit on School Way in Speke and was prosecuted because she was working one day a week for £20 at the time whilst on benefits. I paid her fine.

Do I approve of that? No. But my point relates to what I say above. The authorities go for the easy targets.

Anyway, excuse the emotion. Let's go for those bastards next week. And don't rip up seats. We have more class than they can every even think of.

God knows what I'm going to be like come Monday.

Jerome Shields
29 Posted 07/02/2023 at 2023/02/07 : 08:42:31

On reading that Manchester City have just been charged by the Premier League for breaking their Profitability and Sustainability rules, it occurred to me that Bill Kenwright and Denise Barrett-Baxendale will be staying in their positions. The Chairman and the Chief Executive are the ones dealing with the Premier League Profit and Sustainability Committee on behalf of Everton.

It is possible that Bill was kept on after the takeover to deal with the football authorities, which he appears to be good at, and happy to do so. Maybe he sees method in it. It should be no surprised to us he has this ability, since he has jollied us all along for 30 years. Denise, with questionable ability, has promoted herself within the Premier League, something she has been good at over her years in EitC and Everton FC.

It is ironic that the perpetrators of Everton's current financial position are the ones dealing with the Premier League Profit and Sustainability Committee to sort things out. The Premier League has been flexible with Everton in this regard and has working with a cooperative Everton, in contrast to a uncooperative Man City.

It is therefore important that, rather than the simplistic calls to 'Sack the Board', the measured and long-term objectives of NSNOW are followed. It is better to apply sustained pressure on Farhad Moshiri to communicate via the structures available and put pressure on him to apply necessary changes where needed.

There is no doubt Bill, with his Personal Assistant Denise, will reappear in the Directors Box – no doubt smiling too but with murder in his heart, confident of his importance to Moshiri in his dealing with the football authorities. It is important to realise that we are still amongst the blood and guts of the battlefield and need to follow the measured,  relevant and  appropriate objectives of NSNOW and their methods.

Danny O’Neill
30 Posted 07/02/2023 at 08:48:10
Robert, I have been hating to admit it, but "they" have been a good example of how you can sell your best players at massive profit.

But then reinvest with clever and imaginative scouting. The Coutinho deal. Wow. I think that was a profit in excess of £80M.

We apparently £50M for Richarlison. But we paid £45M for him (apparently).

Anyway, I'm in the zone and getting ready to march on that place!!

Expect a lot of nonsense from me this week.

Robert Tressell
31 Posted 07/02/2023 at 08:50:26

I've not made my point well because I expect we are in a worse financial situation than most others. That's because of our huge wage bill (relative to modest income), the overheads associated with the stadium and the deterioration in value of players bought at >£20M (other than Pickford).

Given transfer activity in the past 18 months, we must be close to bust. Our net spend figures would look much worse without the sale of Gordon, for example.

It's the reason we will sell Pickford in summer, whatever happens, and maybe Branthwaite too.

Brian Harrison
32 Posted 07/02/2023 at 10:03:41
I find any constraints in what an owner can spend is a nonsense, and these financial rules were brought in by the same cartel of clubs who want the status quo to remain. They are the same clubs who changed the format of the now incorrectly called the Champions league, it used to be a competition for league winners. But the rich and powerful clubs wanted it extended to top 4 so they could fail to win the league but still compete in the richest competition. Then not happy with the format changing to allow 4 clubs to enter instead of 1 they then persuaded the powers that be to make it league based rather than straight knockout. Their self preserving argument was you could get 2 of the top teams drawn against one another so they would only get the revenue of 1 game. Then still not happy they got it so the teams were seeded on past performances, again the cartel looking to maximise their chances of progressing.

Not happy with all the rule changes they then didnt want new super rich owners coming in and catapulting their team to the top of the league this would obviously effect the cartel. So they brought financial constraints in to try and stop this happening. What other business is constrained as to what money they can put into their business by their competitors, absolute madness.

Just to be clear these rules were brought in supposedly to stop owners coming in and putting the clubs into massive debts by overspending, and saddling the club with the debt once they leave. Well this is easily solved anyone buying a club must put a bond into the league which guarantees that the club will not be saddled with massive debt as the bond would guarantee any shortfall in were the club was financially when the owners took over to where they are now.

Danny O’Neill
33 Posted 07/02/2023 at 10:04:13
It's the wages that kill you, Robert, not the transfer fees, because they are an enduring cost.

In my opinion, we sadly only have two sellable assets: Pickford and Onana.

Worrying, but in front of us, we go to Anfield get the points and smile in the Arkles.

God I am a dick at times. I will only get worse this week.

Dave Abrahams
34 Posted 07/02/2023 at 11:27:11

going by your reckoning, then surely Kenwright and Barrett-Baxendale should have kept better watch over Everton's financial dealings if they knew so much about FFP and how it worked?

it seems like they have let Everton FC walk into this mess, if we are in possible trouble.

Paul Hewitt
35 Posted 07/02/2023 at 11:40:36
I bet if you looked more closely at all Premier League club's accounts, all are cooking the books. Biggest corrupt league in the world.
Brian Hennessy
36 Posted 07/02/2023 at 11:50:30
If City do get a huge points deduction or relegation, does this mean we will have to change all our banners to "Second-Worst Run Club In The League"?

The printers will make a fortune.

Barry Hesketh
37 Posted 07/02/2023 at 11:59:31
Brian @36,

No! I think that Everton would still retain that dubious honour, at least the City fans have seen trophies lifted in the last decade; we have now become relegation fodder despite the amount of money spent.

To think that Denise Barrett-Baxendale was thanked by Tracy Crouch MP the former sports minister for her "wisdom and counsel" during the fan-led review into football.

Danny O’Neill
38 Posted 07/02/2023 at 12:06:12
To use your point and slightly play Devil's Advocate, Barry, you have to remember what those City fans endured in previous decades.

Watching them come back from the 3rd tier, their dedication and commitment, has given them the best times of their lives.

Jerome Shields
39 Posted 07/02/2023 at 12:31:55
David #34,

The FFP rules are for those Clubs that are involved European Competition. Bill and Denise gave no backing to Ancelotti's European quest for that reason, IMO. As for Everton's financial dealings, they were only interested in their own self-interest and continued to run the Club incompetently, making sure they were okay.

In the case of dealing with the Profitability and Sustainability Rules of the Premier League, it is that Committee that is effectively running Everton Financially at the moment, not Bill and Denise. That is why the Premier League is so accommodating, flexible and generous using COVID and bending the rules a bit, even talking two Clubs that set letters in protest to withdraw them.Anything to do with Sanctions has been buried.

Bill and Denise will be in contact with Premier League staff all the time, supporting the Premier League at every opportunity. e,g Gordon's money is in the Bank this morning and we support the Premier League, not the Man City, those Super League traitors.They might be glad that Everton is it the position it is in,because Moshiri is totally dependent on them now.

I am sure when Bill walks into the Premier League Head Office with his Luvie persona and they all love it.His bare faced cheek knows no bounds. and Denise with her Eitc coffee coasters and badges.

Robert Tressell
40 Posted 07/02/2023 at 12:36:37
Brian # 32, I do not know exactly how it works but the constraint is I think on the club, not the owner.

If the owners want to pump in money, they still can. Perhaps up to certain limits, I'm not sure.

What club owners cannot do is authorise club spending without being on the hook to support the club if things go pear-shaped. Basically you have to live within your means unless someone guarantees to bankroll it all.

This is not unfair particularly. In fact it is the thing that stops idiots taking a huge risk and gambling a club into insolvency.

That's why our situation is concerning. Moshiri is not bankrolling us so far as I'm aware. He's given some loans but it doesn't mean we can spend – it means we can just about avoid going bust. Or something along those lines.

Someone else will have a better grasp of this, I am sure.

Brent Stephens
41 Posted 07/02/2023 at 12:48:37
Danny #28

"God knows what I'm going to be like come Monday."

Probably like you are every day, Danny!

Brian Harrison
42 Posted 07/02/2023 at 13:02:44
Robert @40,

Owners or clubs – it's the same thing and the limits that are set both by Uefa and the Premier League doesn't allow owners or clubs to spend what they want. The rules say how much of your income you can overspend in any 3 years, and Everton transgressed those rules.

The reason that we weren't penalised was because the club said that, despite transgressing the rules by somewhere in the region of £119M, we were looking to sell players but, because of Covid, we couldn't. How we got away with that, I don't know; that's why both Burnley and Leeds objected to our overspend not being penalised.

I am sure City's lawyers will by asking the panel how Everton were allowed to overspend on a 3-year period yet went unpunished. And in hindsight, it could be argued that none of the potential sales during Covid would have been nearly enough to offset our overspend.

Mark Taylor
43 Posted 07/02/2023 at 13:10:05
The Premier League rules are, I believe, different to FFP and I think focus on profit over a 3-year period using accounting rules such as player amortisation and, in the case of Covid, can be adjusted in exceptional circumstances.

I think our case is very different to Man City's. In theirs, it seems they may have been using a group structure to divert costs to partner clubs not part of the oversight. I believe they also may face challenges on the declared values of certain revenue streams, especially sponsorship.

To take a specific case, City had, as I recall, a very large sponsorship with Etihad at an early stage. I seem to recall something in the region of £80-90M that could be booked as revenue and this boosted the ceiling for wage costs and transfer amortisation.

However, from what I know about that airline, it was still at an early stage of its development and that sum of money would be unlikely to be a commercially viable proposition relative to its then scale. It certainly seemed an excessive deal at the time.

But the airline is, in the end, owned by the same people who own Man City. You might call that horizontal integration. Others might call it the type of cross subsidy precluded under these rules.

I doubt the airline's senior management would have been deciding this themselves, based on commercial judgements. This decision would be above their heads and they just implement, even if it ended up being commercially unsound.

It also has the advantage of allowing the Emirati owners an easy excuse to fire their westerner CEO when they ran out of favour, citing the inevitable losses in the business.

Danny O’Neill
44 Posted 07/02/2023 at 13:17:54
Mark & others. Didn't Man City effectively sponsor themselves?

I know we could say that about Usmanov, but I don't believe it was as direct and obvious.

We probably need the Esk to step in here as I am out of my depth.

Dave Abrahams
45 Posted 07/02/2023 at 13:29:36
Jerome (39),

If the people running the Premier League head office are taken in by Kenwright's Luvie persona and his bare-faced cheek, they must be bleedin' thick or luvies themselves!!

Danny O’Neill
46 Posted 07/02/2023 at 13:51:04
Dave, regardless of all this financial talk, we are marching on our former ground on Monday and we'll be ready for it.

Spirit and Forever.

Craig Harrison
47 Posted 07/02/2023 at 14:18:41
The difference between Man City and the rest of the Premier League teams… there is allegedly hacked or leaked evidence showing City actively avoiding the Premier League Rules around profitability and sustainability. Their only argument will be trying to exclude the evidence from the leaks as being inadmissible as it wasn't lawfully obtained.

Here is where I think the Premier League are being smart and covering themselves as they have also charged City with failing to co-operate with the investigation.

Jerome Shields
48 Posted 07/02/2023 at 14:28:40
Dave #46

They have been. The Golden Rule when dealing with a governing body, if they get something wrong, it is a mistake and they will sort it out; if a client makes a mistake, it is fraud and sanctions are applied.

If the Premier League Profit and Sustainability Committee are getting the full cooperation of Everton in what they require, they won't be applying any sanctions on Everton.

Man City think they know better, but have made mistakes, so they are getting sanctions.

Anyway we are not Luvies and we were all taken in by Bill at some stage.

Brian Harrison
49 Posted 07/02/2023 at 14:36:28
Danny @44,

Nice try, Danny, but it's very evident that Usmanov owned Everton and Moshiri was his frontman as, for whatever reason, Usmanov did not want to be seen as the owner. Usmanov gifted Moshiri his Arsenal shares which he sold to buy Everton, only weeks after Kronke stated he wouldn't sell Arsenal to Usmanov if he was the last man on earth.

Also, it was Usmanov's companies that poured money into Everton, and whenever has a major sponsor of a club personally interviewed the managers before they signed for the club???

Also, there are many companies who pay big money to sponsor the name of a club's new ground, but I have never heard of a sponsor paying £30 million just to be at the front of the queue for the naming rights.

I am sure, if City have broken the rules, then the Premier League will rightly punish them, and as the saying goes, let those without sin cast the first stone.

Also very interested to see some of the tabloid journalists suggesting they should be kicked out. Yet when the media darlings clubs secretly behind the backs of the Premier League were negotiating to set up the European Super League, when found guilty, the same press said "Don't punish them because you would be punishing the fans."

Funny I haven't heard the same argument put forward for the City fans being punished if their club are thrown out of the Premier League.

Michael Kenrick
50 Posted 07/02/2023 at 15:01:55

You've posted so much utter crap that I – and I'm sure most people – have learned to ignore it… but this takes the cake:

"It is that Committee that is effectively running Everton financially at the moment, not Bill and Denise."

First of all, there is no such thing as the Profitability and Sustainability Committee at the Premier League – that is a figment of your far too fertile imagination.

And the idea that a non-existent Premier League Committee is effectively running Everton Football Club is utterly preposterous. Just stop it!

The rules exist. Everton – that is the internal staff who run the business day to day – have, as far as we know, been doing their best to stay within the rules.

And that is almost certainly not Bill and Denise. It would come under Grant Ingles. Otherwise, why even have a CFO on the Board?

Pete Clarke
51 Posted 07/02/2023 at 15:15:47
I just can't see anything coming of this. Just like the infamous bribery and corruption claims against FIFA and the Qatar World Cup. Despite all of the evidence, the money won through in the end and it went ahead.

Some heads may roll but Man City with Guardiola are now a world name in the sport.

I hope I'm wrong though because I'd like to see a kind of equality and sport put back into football.

Ian Pilkington
52 Posted 07/02/2023 at 15:31:05
The repeated speculation about having to sell Pickford and/or Onana this summer reinforces my belief that it is imperative that Moshiri sells the club by the end of the season. Ambitious new owners would surely want to see our two prized assets retained.

If Moshiri actually succeeds in his quest to find new investment rather sell, this would complicate any future takeover. We really want him out as quickly as possible.

Peter Neilson
53 Posted 07/02/2023 at 15:48:33
There appear to be a couple of major differences between the PL and UEFA cases against City. The PL has no time limit on when offences occurred allowing them to go back 14 years or so, and there is no right to appeal any verdict to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It was primarily the appeal and time limit that saved City against UEFA. Maybe the PL will want to show they are keeping their house in order before the government appoint an independent regulator.
Mark Taylor
54 Posted 07/02/2023 at 15:49:15
Danny 44

Yes in a round about way, you could say that. Etihad was/is not the only Emirati sponsor, and there isn't a business in the UAE that is not at least partly Emirati owned and the really important ones- energy, property, transportation etc are pretty much all Emirati owned- and that means ultimately the Al Nayhans.

I presume City's defence would be, they were arms length sponsorships and that is was a co-incidence that they were all owned and ultimately controlled by the government, namely the Al Nayhans.

Yes, you could argue a similar position with Usmanov, although the monies involved are minor and there is to the best of my knowledge, only USM, not the long train of UAE companies like Etihad, Abu Dhabi Tourism, Etisalat, Aldar etc.

Tony Abrahams
55 Posted 07/02/2023 at 15:58:05
I understood you, Jerome! But not for one minute have I ever been taken in by Bill Kenwright though, mate. Hopefully soon the poison will be gone, but I'm sure he must be thinking 24/7, trying to work out how he can get back into Goodison, now he's facing his own sanctions from a fanbase that can finally now see right through him.

I've got a feeling that he will soon be back because I've heard he's working on a master disguise with one of the make-up artists in his theatre.

Jerome Shields
56 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:03:42
Micheal #50

Those that set the financial limits effectively control the organisation. In Everton's case, as a result of this, the Profitability and Sustainability Committee have an influence on most aspects of the Club.

This is because Everton where not able to bring accountability to their management of the club and Moshiri failed to do so, the Profitability and Sustainability Committee of the Premier League has stepped in to put in place the financial discipline necessary.

The other aspect of their role is to prevent unfair competition by financial input and to prevent any financial impropriety taking place. They have the power to act and if an Independent Regulator is appointed in the future, there will be even more powers to do so.

So you are saying that the Chairman and Chief Executive have no contact with the Premier League authorities, and Grant Ingles runs Everton Football Club?

Barry Hesketh
57 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:13:06
Jerome @56,

Didn't Joe Thomas of the Echo very recently report that Everton were no longer on the naughty step with regards to P&S?

So why would the club – a private business – allow faceless, unnamed administrators full access to the day-to-day running of the club?

And more significantly, why are you the only person privy to such privileged information?

Evidence is key, Jerome. If you don't supply proof, nobody will believe you, even if you're correct.

Ian Bennett
58 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:13:57
Apparently City were paying Mancini via a Dubai club, as well as via City. This is very much like Saracens in Rugby Union who got a 70-point fine and relegated. This is likely to be the bigger issue with the Premier League & HMRC.

The iffy sponsorships that City had, like Etihad, are similar to ours with our Russian friend. That looks harder to prove unless they had arm's length and connected party rules.

Michael Kenrick
59 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:25:59

It does not exist.

The Profitability and Sustainability Committee is something you have made up.

It does not exist.

Jerome Shields
60 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:28:00
Barry #57

Well then, the Gordon money will be available to spend during the Summer, Onano will not be sold, and there will be no problem with the EFL should Everton get relegated.

Actually, the evidence is in plain sight when one looks at the transfer policy over the last 3 years and the controls over the manager that have been exercised, along with the loan policies of the club.

Also two Premier League clubs sent submissions in querying the Premier League role in relation to Everton. They did withdraw them.

Jerome Shields
61 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:44:56
Micheal #59,

The Premier League Profitability and Sustainability Rules do exist and a team within the Premier League organisation investigates, negotiates and implements the rules.

Liking abbreviations, I refer to them as a Committee, better one word than two or more.

Michael Kenrick
62 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:50:26

You don't know what the transfer policy is, even if such a thing exists.

You don't know what controls, if any, have been exercised over the manager.

You don't know what the loan policies of the club are, if they even have any.

These are all internal matters and I feel confident in saying you have not been made privy to them. If you had, you certainly would not be posting them on here.

You are making inferences and presenting them as fact, like you have always done. As Barry says, you never cite any real evidence or credible sources for the stuff you make up.

Just stop it!

Barry Hesketh
63 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:51:31
Jerome @60

Couldn't the Gordon fee and any other monies received in the summer have nothing to do with profit and sustainability and more to do with Moshiri?

a) Wanting to retrieve his money from what has been for him a bad investment, in order to sell to a new buyer.

b) Taking the money from the playing squad to ensure that the new stadium is completed

The club has been badly managed, there is no doubt about that, but sometimes I believe that the FFP and P&S are being used as a smokescreen by the club for the lack of major purchases, particularly in the last window.

I fully admit that I'm only speculating on what might be going on, just as you are. I would think until it's explained to all of us either by the club or the authorities, most of us are merely guessing as to the true financial circumstances.

Robert Tressell
64 Posted 07/02/2023 at 16:52:51
Mark # 43, that sounds like the restrictions apply at club level and that club income has to be in some way genuine. Or something along those lines.

For us, we don't appear to have attempted anything sneaky – we're genuinely (and worryingly) skint. Hence the lack of reinvestment after the sale of Richarlison and Gordon.

City look like they have put in place some structures to game the system, enabling them to pump money into the club.

I guess we just need to (a) stay up and (b) sell Pickford. That means we stay afloat. I also think we'll sell Branthwaite because isn't there a significant accounting win if you buy low and sell high?

Anyway, it looks like recruitment will stay low-cost for the foreseeable future whatever league we're in – reinforcing my view that Dyche is the right fit for the club generally.

Kieran Kinsella
65 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:04:39
Barry 57

"So why would the club – a private business – allow faceless, unnamed administrators full access to the day-to-day running of the club?"

Like Philip Green or Usmanov? lol

Kieran Kinsella
66 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:07:19
Just wondering about the law in the UK. But allegations say City set up a another company which their owners owned and sold the clubs rights to it for £20 million or so. They also had this fake entity paying Mancini off the books. Additionally, they had the whole sponsorhip thing.

Don't all of these things fall under money laundering? – ie, disguising the source of funds? Also, does the UK like the US have laws in place over wire fraud where any electronic transaction using false info leads to draconian penalties?

Barry Hesketh
67 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:08:44
Touche Kieran
Peter Neilson
68 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:22:21
I imagine HMRC will be keeping a close eye on this. They warned Man City a few years ago but if the PL now throw the book at them, and it involves potential financial irregularities, I think they’ll make a very attractive high profile case.
Michael Kenrick
69 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:40:35

No, there is no evidence that a 'team' or 'Committee' exists to do what you claim.

The Profitability and Sustainability Rules are set out in the Premier League Handbook. It is up to the Premier League clubs themselves to implement the rules by applying them to their Annual Accounts. That's it.

These are submitted to the Premier League, where somebody no doubt checks them to see if they are in compliance. No investgation, no negotiation – just something that has to be included with the Annual Accounts.

This is not a Premier League police force in the way you have described it. They don't come barging into a club and take over the day-to-day running of that club from the appointed officials and professional employees. Your idea is completely preposterous.

Here's what probably happened – and possibly more than once over the last 2 or 3 years.

Grant Ingles (the Financial Director) and his internal team (probably along with the auditors) could see that Everton's spending was getting way beyond the club's income, which could put them in P&S Jeopardy.

When they roughed up the accounts, they knew they would need a substantial Covid write-off to stay within the P&S rules. They talked to someone at the Premier League and ran the numbers by them.

Some interim agreement was reached, allowing them to submit Annual Accounts that they could be fairly sure would not be questioned.

However, the related news stories were blown out of all proportion toward the end of last season, with Burnley and Leeds Utd adding 2 + 2 and smelling a rat, writing letters to the Premier League, questioning the high losses Everton were 'getting away with'.

Accounting smoke and mirrors, maybe… but there was no fire as far as the Premier League were concerned and Leeds dropped the issue. Burnley acquiesced soon after, when Everton (coincidentally?) paid rather a lot of money to acquire Dwight McNeil.

If there is any control being exercised over Everton's financial dealings, it is being imposed from within so that the club continues to stay within the P&S Rules.

As Barry says, there are no Premier League officials running Everton FC Co Ltd or directly involved in any way.

Danny O’Neill
70 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:46:07
Tony, I don't know how Bill can ever set foot in Goodison again.

How the supposed lifelong Evertonian chose not to attend anyway is beyond my simple head given his privileged position. Five empty seats with Leeds and Villa already sold out. Well give them up to supporters who can't get in.

Thousands give everything, every week to watch our club. We follow them everywhere into the late hours - early hours as is often the case before we get home.

Now he's made his bed, he should go and lie in it. They all should. We don't need them.

He'll probably be at Anfield on Monday. He might feel more at home there. But not in the Anfield Road with the Evertonians.

Michael Kenrick
71 Posted 07/02/2023 at 17:47:59

I've only ever heard of wire fraud in a US context, with some pretty tough penalties.

I don't think there is anything equivalent on England's Statutes, which is a pity because surely it could be used against online fraud, scams, phishing etc, which are rampant over here.

But I can't see that it would have any bearing on the Man City case.

Tony Abrahams
72 Posted 07/02/2023 at 18:08:29
Let him go to Anfield when he's finished with Everton, Danny, please don't let the phoney fucker jinx us once again next Monday night.
Derek Wadeson
73 Posted 07/02/2023 at 18:30:59
Michael @ 69.

The day we bought Dwight McNeil, I commented that it was to keep Burnley quiet/happy.

Might even turn out to be a good outcome for both parties and not just Burnley.

Also, a good job we got Sean Dyche when we did as Leeds would have come calling. The board got that one right.

Tony Abrahams
74 Posted 07/02/2023 at 18:37:49
I remember asking Dyche what Dwight McNeil was like as a footballer and his reply was that he was a ‘proper player', Derek.

Dyche lives in Nottingham so you might be right that Leeds would have been a great geographical location for our new manager.
Jerome Shields
75 Posted 07/02/2023 at 20:38:47
Barry #63,

I accept your arguement. I am only going by my personal experience in business where I have come across unorthodox situations.

I once talked to someone who I thought was the owner of a business, only for him to tell me that the bank owned the business now. They had taken the business off him and they employed him to run the business. Being in his late fifties with bills to pay, he had no choice but to accept.

Especially with Everton where information is scarce and accountability non-existent, as you say, we can only speculate. It winds Michael up if nothing else. I may be barred for a while, but I will be back.

Michael Kenrick
76 Posted 07/02/2023 at 22:07:32
So, Jerome, just because you knew some bloke who lost his business to the bank, you think the Premier League are now running Everton Football Club on a day-to-day basis?

Yea, I think monitoring your posts would be a good idea for our collective sanity since you seem to be unable to present your rubbish as speculation.

Brendan McLaughlin
77 Posted 07/02/2023 at 22:31:13
Wow...if the rumours were true about the Man City owners originally being interested in Everton...we dodged a bullet there.

Someone deserves a pat on the back?

Roberto Birquet
78 Posted 07/02/2023 at 23:04:08
Danny O’Neill

the guaranteed part of the fee for Richarlison from Spurs was £50 m, the guaranteed part of the fee we paid Watford was £35 m - NOT £45 m. So just a £15 m profit. We finally done something right with a straight £40 m profit from Gordon.

Ian Pilkington
79 Posted 07/02/2023 at 23:09:56
Brendan @77

Yes we certainly did dodge a bullet…..PL Champions 5 times and 8 domestic cups.

Well done Kenwright for not selling out to that awful Sheikh.

Oh I nearly forgot; when did we last win anything?

Don Alexander
80 Posted 07/02/2023 at 23:41:04
City coming under ludicrously late scrutiny by the Premier League doesn't surprise me in the least. I mean, a decade of profligate spending by insanely rich owners who never give a world-wide monkey's about probity has been no bad thing to the status of the Kenwright-like no-marks who pretend to run the Premier League, has it?

I'm confident the so-called investigation will eventually die in the too-difficult-to-do box that the Premier League selectively uses to avoid taking on mega-wealthy owners.

The Kenrick denigration of Jerome bemuses me. I don't know either of them as anything other than fellow devout Toffees. Jerome expresses his opinion but Michael demands factual proof of those opinions of a standard to satisfy him.

For years I have railed against Kenwright on TW but have sometimes been openly taken to task for doing so by various fellow Toffees, including Michael. Right now though enough fellow Toffees express what I've been saying for years and we just might be able to effect change for the better.

Who knows, Jerome may seem to be right in due course - despite the moral quagmire that engulfs the current Premier League and denies access to truth on a Stalinist basis?

And that's nor to denigrate any fellow Toffee. We're better than that.

Rather, it's comment on a thoroughly dubious football "industry" and club........

........ or, in our case, clubs,

Mark Taylor
81 Posted 08/02/2023 at 01:14:58
Hi Michael,

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories and I doubt it is the case that someone at the Premier League is running Everton on a day-to-day basis, but at the same time it is apparent we were close to EPL financial regulations, that we were also seemingly in contact with them on a very regular basis, to the extent even of pre-approving possible decisions.

You talk about us calling someone at EPL and no more than that, but while it may not be a Committee, that won't be a random person, nor is it likely to be someone with such absolute authority that they could give clear guidance in situations open to interpretation (so many things in life, from tax, accountancy, economics, law etc are so) without further consultation internally within the EPL.

So, while the intent is clearly not to run Everton on a day-to-day basis, it nevertheless appears that our capacity to operate has had to be monitored and perhaps at times constrained, and whether that is one single individual tasked with so doing (unlikely bordering on impossible, due to liability implications), or multiple people who may not be formally 'a committee', then the overall effect in practical terms is not a country mile away from that which Jerome articulates.

Jerome Shields
82 Posted 08/02/2023 at 05:09:53
Don #80,

Thank you very much for your support. I remember years ago in a company meeting, outlining my concerns over a strategic plan of a parent company and how it would pan out for that division of the company. I was told I was talking nonsence and was laughed at. I took my own advice and got myself a new job.

What happened later was actually as I described, so much so that I was surprised how right I was. They all at that meeting had to leave before they were made redundant and the building the meeting was held in was sold for a housing development.

I have had a lot of similar instances, fortunately in a lot of cases I was able to influence events and save the organisation and the jobs.

The truth is that most people avoid the difficult situation and having to take the necessary decision. They absolutely hate being told the truth of the situation. They like things to go as in the text books. They won't confront the issues or personalities involved, They go with the group norm. They will support those that oppose, those that question and request change.

Unfortunately I believe I am right in my opinion and my initial suggestion I stand by it. If you support Everton, you have to get used to many dawns, but there will be many more given the persistent underlying problems and the lengths that those that perpetuated them will go to to preserve their positions. I know, I also think it is unbelievable. But unfortunately it is as I see it.

Eric Myles
83 Posted 08/02/2023 at 06:41:53
What seasons did our neighbours finish second in the league?

Those are the seasons they'll strip City of their titles.

Eric Myles
84 Posted 08/02/2023 at 07:03:58
Roberto #78, our "profit" could be much more given the magical wonders of amortisation.

I always tell people of the Robinho transfer to City. Bought for £30 million, sold for £18 million and City booked a profit of £15 million on the sale!

Einstein was wrong about compound interest, amortisation beats it hands down.

Eric Myles
85 Posted 08/02/2023 at 07:46:17
Jerome #29, or possibly the opposite scenario? That BK and DBB are shitting bricks that the P&S police come knocking on their doors while Moshiri is the one smiling saying 'I have no part in the running of the Club.'

Mark #54, I beleive all businesses in U.A.E. have to be at least 51% Emirati owned.

As their sponsors are different companies, although the same owner, I'm sure City will be arguing that it was a decision of the Board of Directors to sponsor City, not a decision of the owner.

Eddie Dunn
86 Posted 08/02/2023 at 08:23:16
Thinking about the Gordon money it is worth remembering how Arsenal had to reduce their own spending during the construction of the new stadium. It probably prevented Wenger from buying the quality of player that would have won them more titles.
They had to accept top six finishes instead.
Their wages were also affected.
On that note, remember how they were exposed for paying their players using offshore accounts. Didn't they pay into trust funds, or something so that it didn't show in the books?
The biggest threat to the survival of our club is ironically our players and coaches.
Wages are out of control and the main reason why we have not invested in Goodison properly for many years.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb