Football, lawyerball, forensicball, businessball, moneyball, psrball, ffpball... I block and mute a lot.
- Tweets 79,284
- Following 903
- Followers 49,204
- Likes 7,610
Pinned Tweet
It’s a feature of Twitter that content is free to share or stealable but in major publications, credit should be given. Thank you for your attention.
11
5
167
713,246
Inexplicable valuation at Valencia.
Wild week in football M&A. What’s the more surprising valuation: Wimbledon at £87m or Valencia at £1.05bn? Both are huge bets on long-running stadium projects & returning to former glories. Some interesting names/initials behind this Valencia deal.
nytimes.com/athletic/7716973…
1
45
16,141
Hard to see how it can cost £6m in lost revenue to close it for a season, yet generate an incremental £11m to service the debt - never mind repay the £150m - once rebuilt bigger. Shows the challenges of even “good spending”
Have you seen Aston Villa's Villa Park recently? It looks odd.
With work being undertaken on the North Stand, there are only three sides in use.
@J_Tanswell explains how the work is going, the financing behind it — and when the work should be completed.
🔗 nyti.ms/47zHc32
4
73
21,226
Separate firm and Sir James Eadie plus a hearing of some sort last week is likely significant. Hard to know what it relates to. Sounds more likely a distinct Rule X process/dispute rather than part of the main process which would surely still be led by Bird & Bird for PL. One to watch.
EXCL: The Premier League’s secret weapons in Man City fight – The Treasury Devil and Slaughter and May.
The Treasury Devil (Sir James Eadie KC) and Slaughter and May are both acting for the Premier League in the Man City case, The Lawyer has learned. 1/5
thelawyer.com/premier-league…
5
104
40,857
It might be double the initial estimate (which always looked impossibly light) but £20m is still relatively cheap given the IFR remit and the challenges faced.
Regulator costs hit £20m a year with Premier League clubs to pay more. Operational costs over £18m with a further £2m needed for legal and set-up expenses. Basically double initial government estimates. IFL due to issue statement later today.
thetimes.com/article/9900da4…
9
1
49
20,002
Given how public and well ventilated the allegations have been, BDO will not be able to simply say “we were misled”.
It will be many years before we see the FRCs report if the investigation is formally opened. It can only cover BDO and accountants.
The Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee is today publishing a letter from the Financial Reporting Council re Manchester City.
The FRC has now confirmed it is examining Manchester City’s audit - but the regulator's letter exposes gaps in its ability to compel evidence from the club and pursue directors who fall outside its disciplinary rules.
This raises serious questions about the powers available to hold companies and directors to account.
The Government has a responsibility to explain why reforms to close these gaps were abandoned - and what will now be done to strengthen accountability.
Read the letter 👇
1/2
12
73
29,371
Very little of the process has been decided at this stage - parties don’t even agree which rule book applies.
There is unlikely to be agreement between City and the PL on the process, order of events and timetable. This means hearings will be needed to decide - this all takes time. It is already mid October. The parties will not be asked to take part in a sanction hearing and simultaneously prepare for an appeal. It will largely be the same legal teams and it is pretty unlikely everybody key is available in Q4 2026 anyway. Whatever order is agreed will need time - I’d be cautious about any article suggesting very tight sequences from this point.
As for “insiders’” view on sanctions, the most that can be leaked is how the Premier League’s legal team intend to play it - aggressively per Everton (scaled up for many charges) or more passively like the FA in the Chelsea case.
Nobody knows how the IC will decide although it is obvious they are very against MCFC given their decision.
Soundings from insiders suggest the most likely punishment for #ManCity is a huge points deduction which will ensure relegation to the Championship, plus a huge fine.
The Premier League are pressing for @ManCity’s punishment to be announced before the appeal result, which is unlikely to be decided before the end of January.
It is also possible the punishment would include a further points deduction effectively confining the club to the Championship for at least one more season. The EFL would not be obliged to accept that, but it is probable they would.
[via @MailSport]
49
495
73,493
Seems to have been “forgotten” that every commercial deal with an associated party (a broad definition beyond related parties) has required formal fair market value assessment AND Premier League approval since December 2021.
Even before that, related party transactions were always permitted up to fair market value. ADUG could have taken every sponsorship property themselves for FMV. FMV was far in excess of the “Base Fees” found by the IC. We do not know the delta between the total recorded Sponsorship Amounts and FMV at this stage. But it will not total anywhere near £830m.
This doesn’t change the core findings of the IC in terms of sham agreements but does change the likely counter factual in compensation claims and may well be relevant in assessing calculations at appeal and sanction.
51
505
98,318
For the avoidance of doubt, obviously, if the agreements are all found to be shams, none of this fine detail matters. This addresses a specific suggestion of contradiction in this language.
🤓 In fact, these extracts ARE consistent with City's case. I have not reviewed the full report but those 2 extracts distinguish debt and equity from subsidies. Once debt is raised or equity is issued, the cash proceeds become "liquidity" of Etihad.
Subsidies are, in this sense, gifts and the funder gets nothing. Equity is dilutive and shareholder loans are repayable. Neither are "subsidies". This detail does matter and is potentially undermined elsewhere in those docs. I haven't checked.
PS I'm not putting a disclaimer on every tweet about the merits of the appeal.
9
138
33,813
🤓 In fact, these extracts ARE consistent with City's case. I have not reviewed the full report but those 2 extracts distinguish debt and equity from subsidies. Once debt is raised or equity is issued, the cash proceeds become "liquidity" of Etihad.
Subsidies are, in this sense, gifts and the funder gets nothing. Equity is dilutive and shareholder loans are repayable. Neither are "subsidies". This detail does matter and is potentially undermined elsewhere in those docs. I haven't checked.
PS I'm not putting a disclaimer on every tweet about the merits of the appeal.
From Etihad Airways 60-page submission to John Kerry, US Department Secretary of State, Antony Foxx, US Department of Transportation Secretary and Penny Pritzker, US Department of Commerce Secretary on May 31, 2015
110
712
182,708