Time to re-open this investigation?
The UEFA Club Financial Control Body has opened formal investigations into seven clubs, including Liverpool, regarding "potential break-even breaches."
The clubs must offer information on their accounts to UEFA from the past three years, as reported by ESPN FC on Tuesday.
The Merseyside club were absent from European competition last year and only recently submitted detailed accounts to the governing body, which dictates that losses must be restricted to 35.4 million pounds over a two-year window.
Liverpool reported losses of 49.8 million pounds for the 2012-13 season, and 40.5 million pounds for the 10-month period before that, and join Monaco, Roma, Besiktas, Inter Milan, Krasnodar and Sporting Lisbon in being subjected to investigations.
Sources have also told ESPN FC that Liverpool are confident of avoiding any breaches of UEFA's financial fair play rules, despite their accounts being probed by the governing body.
A UEFA statement read: "The CFCB [club financial control body] has opened formal investigations into seven clubs as they disclosed a break-even deficit on the basis of their financial reporting periods ending in 2012 and 2013.
"These clubs will need to submit additional monitoring information during October and November upon the deadlines set by the CFCB, subsequent to which an additional communication shall be made and conservatory measures may be imposed."
Liverpool face no immediate sanction as they prepare to provide further details to UEFA throughout the next two months, though the provisional withholding of Champions League funds lingers as a potential next step.
The Reds are thought to be confident they will avoid such penalties by virtue of lucrative new commercial deals and writing off some previous losses.
FFP allows certain spending streams, including youth development and stadium expenditure, to exist outside of its strict guidelines and Liverpool will argue that a 35 million pound chunk of their 2011-12 deficit was attached to former co-owner Tom Hicks' aborted plans for a new stadium on Stanley Park.
Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were the clubs hit hardest by UEFA last season for breaching FFP rules -- they were each fined 49 million pounds and handed restrictions on transfer spending and a reduction in Champions League squad size.
UEFA has also announced that prize money has been held back from five clubs -- Bursaspor, CFR Cluj, Astra Giurgiu, Buducnost Podgorica and Ekranas -- as a result of non-payments to other clubs, players and/or tax authorities.
Reflecting on the recent work of CFCB and the FFP regulations, the UEFA statement continued: "The introduction of the UEFA club licensing and financial fair play regulations has already had a very positive impact on the scale of overdue payables, as they have decreased from 57 million euros in June 2011 to eight million euros in June 2014.
"In addition, aggregate losses reported by Europe's first-division clubs in the 2013 financial year have gone down to 800 million euros from a record-reported deficit of 1.7 billion euros in 2011.''
http://www.espn.co.uk/soccer/league-name/story/2054889/headline?device=featurephone
Liverpool Being Investigated
posted on 19/5/19
Your language is better than others. Reportedly is the correct term to use.
I actually do welcome the investigation. Given the accusations aimed at the club it should be investigated, and as with any investigation, both sides should be heard.
So I agree with your earlier comment relating to that.
Likewise, I do have a problem with people assuming guilt before an outcome has been decided. Which many on here and other sites have done. Probably based solely on them simply wanting it all to be true.
posted on 19/5/19
Fact is Man City didnt deny that re Mancini being paid by a third party to cover part of his salary.. they said the info was basically stolen
posted on 19/5/19
You’ve made your mind up as well then?
posted on 19/5/19
Unless you want to point me to where Man City denied Mancini was payed by a third party
posted on 19/5/19
Cheating caaants
Next you'll say the breach was due to the bus repairs as we all know a few milkshakes can cause an awful lot of damage
Of course you used the well known company SheikhandVac who billed you 1 billion so these costs were uncontrollable
posted on 20/5/19
Can you point me to where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party?
At the time city refused to comment.
But since it was referred a week or so ago City did make a club statement saying all allegations were false. So that would be your denial right there.
posted on 20/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 58 minutes ago
Can you point me to where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party?
At the time city refused to comment.
But since it was referred a week or so ago City did make a club statement saying all allegations were false. So that would be your denial right there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When that story first broke about Mancini, and specifically that point, which was last year, Man City didnt deny it. Rather they focused on the source of the info.
"..where City confirmed Mancini was paid by a third party" yeah and not make UEFA work for it?
After months City have their PR people briefed as to what the company line is.
No surprise that its a cohesive answer after the initial shock to the news.
No evidence has been publicised but the lack of flat out denial of it happening when reported is as dodgy as fack. If it didn't happen they would have denied it straight off the bat, rather than point at illicit gathering of info.
Of course if they denied it and were shown up straight afterwards with the evidence they would be pulled apart from all quarters.
Now the evidence is with UEFA so it won't be publicised until the investigation is done.
Man City literally have nothing to lose by saying the allegations are false while they sweep behind each accusation to make a credible excuse/defence.
posted on 20/5/19
So RC, at the time that Mancini story broke could you point to where Man City denied it around the same time frame?
You can probably only answer "no" as a direct reply, but for sure choose a more convoluted answer if you must.
posted on 20/5/19
I’ve already said - at the time City refused to comment on the allegations.
Since it was referred. city have come out and said that the allegations are false.
I have to ask. Are you suggesting that because City didn’t comment at the time, Because they didn’t deny it at the time, then it must be true?
If you think that, ok. Time will prove whether you’re right to think that. Or not.
posted on 20/5/19
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 45 minutes ago
I’ve already said - at the time City refused to comment on the allegations.
Since it was referred. city have come out and said that the allegations are false.
I have to ask. Are you suggesting that because City didn’t comment at the time, Because they didn’t deny it at the time, then it must be true?
If you think that, ok. Time will prove whether you’re right to think that. Or not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup I do.
If it was clearly wrong it would have been denied straight off the bat.