It means they've now had five defeats in a row.
115(+15) vs the world
- Thread starter MomoWASright
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
It means they've now had five defeats in a row.
He will have loads of clauses to make it easier for him to swerve it if he can’t be arsed playing Shrewsbury
Fixed.
Ya sure didn't he first say he'd walk if it turned out the owners lied to him....
I was curious to know what City's losses should actually look like, and went off doing some digging. And I found something that hasn't been reported previously. So what you're reading here is something of an exclusive.
In City's 2013 accounts, there is some one-off income relating to sale of various "intellectual property", which I had assumed was basically the image rights stuff that DER SPIEGEL has reported on. But it turns out that they provide something of a breakdown. £24.5m of the income comes from third parties - this is probably the image rights sale. They also made sales of intellectual property to two related companies:
City Football Marketing Limited - £11.6m
City Football Services Limited - £10.9m.
So I wondered what these companies did.
CFML provides "commercial and marketing services to football clubs".
CFSL provides "scouting services, performance analysis and other sporting advice to professional sports clubs".
They imply that turnover is mostly derived from 3 clubs - all members of City Football Group. There is little or no third party consultancy. And I think it's safe to assume that most of these services, all conducted in the UK, are provided to Manchester City.
So in a commercial world, if you bought out a department from a football club, and you paid good money for it, you would expect to turn a profit on providing services back to that company, right? Cover your costs and return some profit.
Well, you're in for a shock because these companies have, to date, incurred cumulative losses as follows:
CFML £112.6m
CFSL £62.4m
So between them, these companies have taken costs of £175m out of City's accounts over the last 10 years.
Nothing to see here lads, nothing to see.
I hope to fuck that the Premier League are aware of this and are including it in the 115 charges.
In City's 2013 accounts, there is some one-off income relating to sale of various "intellectual property", which I had assumed was basically the image rights stuff that DER SPIEGEL has reported on. But it turns out that they provide something of a breakdown. £24.5m of the income comes from third parties - this is probably the image rights sale. They also made sales of intellectual property to two related companies:
City Football Marketing Limited - £11.6m
City Football Services Limited - £10.9m.
So I wondered what these companies did.
CFML provides "commercial and marketing services to football clubs".
CFSL provides "scouting services, performance analysis and other sporting advice to professional sports clubs".
They imply that turnover is mostly derived from 3 clubs - all members of City Football Group. There is little or no third party consultancy. And I think it's safe to assume that most of these services, all conducted in the UK, are provided to Manchester City.
So in a commercial world, if you bought out a department from a football club, and you paid good money for it, you would expect to turn a profit on providing services back to that company, right? Cover your costs and return some profit.
Well, you're in for a shock because these companies have, to date, incurred cumulative losses as follows:
CFML £112.6m
CFSL £62.4m
So between them, these companies have taken costs of £175m out of City's accounts over the last 10 years.
Nothing to see here lads, nothing to see.
I hope to fuck that the Premier League are aware of this and are including it in the 115 charges.
Should whack that one on x and tag der spegiel and the premier league.
Cheating cunts. Don’t even relegate them. Refuse entry to any football league.
I've leaked it to Kieran Maguire (who was a tutor of mine, back in the day).
Sounds like the whole league, apart from the city bitches, are circling around them and wanting them gone.
City's argument will be that they sold potentially profitable businesses and they were mis-managed and hence made losses.
The counter to that will be to understand the degree of common management between the companies (the usual suspects are directors) and to dig into who decided what fees would be charged and when. I'd also want to see the business plans the companies put together and how they showed it would turn a profit. I'm pretty sure that, if they even exist, those business plans will be flimsy at best.
Basically, they will say it was a bad commercial decision by the two companies (and they try to provide for this in the accounts by saying that it was always expected they would lose money initially).
The panel will need to test the commerciality and conclude that the whole thing was a ruse.
City's defence is basically the same argument as Brexit paying off in 100 years' time, by which time all its opponents will be dead. It's bullshit.
And if you were an independent party, had paid £25m for a business and it had lost £175m, losing money every year for 10 years, and showing no sign of ever turning a profit, you'd cut your losses and close it down.
It will need a pragmatic panel to say "yeah, that's bollocks" and add it to the list of offences.
The counter to that will be to understand the degree of common management between the companies (the usual suspects are directors) and to dig into who decided what fees would be charged and when. I'd also want to see the business plans the companies put together and how they showed it would turn a profit. I'm pretty sure that, if they even exist, those business plans will be flimsy at best.
Basically, they will say it was a bad commercial decision by the two companies (and they try to provide for this in the accounts by saying that it was always expected they would lose money initially).
The panel will need to test the commerciality and conclude that the whole thing was a ruse.
City's defence is basically the same argument as Brexit paying off in 100 years' time, by which time all its opponents will be dead. It's bullshit.
And if you were an independent party, had paid £25m for a business and it had lost £175m, losing money every year for 10 years, and showing no sign of ever turning a profit, you'd cut your losses and close it down.
It will need a pragmatic panel to say "yeah, that's bollocks" and add it to the list of offences.
I also just found the company they sold the image rights to. That took a further £69m of losses out. It looks like it stopped operating in 2018, and then there is a big uptick in City's wage costs in 2019, so I think that must have been the point where they brought the image rights back into the club.
Good lord what a cliff hanger
The other one is only small. So far I've clocked up £251m of manufactured profit / costs moved off book.
OK, here's the detail:
2013 - £47m inflated profit, £4.5m costs moved = £51.4m impact on bottom line.
For all other years, it's just costs moved off book:
2014 - £44.3m
2015 - £16.5m
2016 - £25.3m
2017 - £28.8m
2018 - £15.5m
2019 - £23.4m
2020 - £13.4m
2021 - £7.6m
2022 - £6.5m
2023 - £18.3m
Total of £47m inflated profit, £204.1m costs moved off book.
But remember, "they've done nothing wrong".
2013 - £47m inflated profit, £4.5m costs moved = £51.4m impact on bottom line.
For all other years, it's just costs moved off book:
2014 - £44.3m
2015 - £16.5m
2016 - £25.3m
2017 - £28.8m
2018 - £15.5m
2019 - £23.4m
2020 - £13.4m
2021 - £7.6m
2022 - £6.5m
2023 - £18.3m
Total of £47m inflated profit, £204.1m costs moved off book.
But remember, "they've done nothing wrong".
You should send that to all and sundry - newspapers, PL etc. (anonymously from a new email account if necessary). If they haven't already they could so some digging and it'd be great to see that in the mainstream.
Working on it.
Nominative determinism ✅
Love it @Beamrider please share any links if it goes public.
It’s a shame @gkmacca doesn’t post any more as i think he’s well connected in LFC media.
It would also be great through any source not just LFC though!
It’s a shame @gkmacca doesn’t post any more as i think he’s well connected in LFC media.
It would also be great through any source not just LFC though!
LFC know about this. I'm sure they'll have told the PL.
Most likely publisher isn't online and publishes fortnightly, but assuming they pick it up then I'll post a scan of the story.
If they don't pick it up then I'll see if anyone else is interested.
Send it to Paul Ghorst, the lurker
A hearing examining more than 100 Premier League charges against Manchester City is due to conclude next month, according to reports.
The Lawyer magazine has reported that the hearing, which began on September 16, is currently paused as the two sides prepare closing arguments, which will begin in early to mid-December.
The independent commission hearing has been held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in central London.
The club were charged in February last year with 115 alleged breaches of top-flight financial rules, and with failing to co-operate with the subsequent investigation.
City have denied the charges. An outcome is expected next year.
If found guilty, City could face a severe punishment, including the possibility of relegation, although there is a strong possibility of an appeal whatever the final outcome.
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola recently signed a new contract through to the summer of 2027 and insisted he would "be here" even if they are relegated.
Earlier this month, the Times reported four clubs – Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham – had lodged legal notices reserving the right to claim compensation if City were found guilty of any serious breaches.
City are charged with failing to report accurate financial information for nine seasons stretching from 2009-10 to 2017-18, as well as failing to provide full details of former manager Roberto Mancini's pay between 2009-10 and 2012-13.
They are also charged with failing to provide full details of remuneration in contracts with players between 2010-11 and 2015-16, and with failing to co-operate with the investigation over a period from 2018 to 2023.
The club deny any wrongdoing and have previously said they have a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" to support their stance.
The Lawyer magazine has reported that the hearing, which began on September 16, is currently paused as the two sides prepare closing arguments, which will begin in early to mid-December.
The independent commission hearing has been held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in central London.
The club were charged in February last year with 115 alleged breaches of top-flight financial rules, and with failing to co-operate with the subsequent investigation.
City have denied the charges. An outcome is expected next year.
If found guilty, City could face a severe punishment, including the possibility of relegation, although there is a strong possibility of an appeal whatever the final outcome.
Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola recently signed a new contract through to the summer of 2027 and insisted he would "be here" even if they are relegated.
Earlier this month, the Times reported four clubs – Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham – had lodged legal notices reserving the right to claim compensation if City were found guilty of any serious breaches.
City are charged with failing to report accurate financial information for nine seasons stretching from 2009-10 to 2017-18, as well as failing to provide full details of former manager Roberto Mancini's pay between 2009-10 and 2012-13.
They are also charged with failing to provide full details of remuneration in contracts with players between 2010-11 and 2015-16, and with failing to co-operate with the investigation over a period from 2018 to 2023.
The club deny any wrongdoing and have previously said they have a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence" to support their stance.
Similar threads
- Locked
