It’s not just Everton, Chelsea and Manchester City that are under investigation




Please note we have added a new article index on the home page which is much more user friendly if you are viewing the site on a mobile phone

By Tony Attwood

We do, of course know a fair amount about the Manchester City case which drags on and on and on, as seemingly every single point raised by the League in its file of accusations is being hotly contested.

For example,  Give Me Sport has provided us with a breakdown of the information the Premier League has put out showing what exactly Manchester City FC is being charged with.  Thus we now know that there are 54 charges of failure to provide accurate financial information from 2009/10 up to 2017/18. 

But that is only the start for there are also 14 charges of failure to provide accurate reports for play and manager compensation over that period.

Even then we have hardly got going for there are five charges of failing to comply with Uefa regulations, seven charges of breaching the PL profitability and sustainability regulations and 26 charges of failing to co-operate with PL investigations.

And we might recall that last time Manchester City were hauled over the coals, they got off because Uefa (some would say deliberately, some would say incompetently) failed to put its appeal case in within the deadline – a failure that is well-noted (and considered inexcusable) throughout much of European football.

But this is not the only big ongoing enquiry.  For recently “the premises of the General Directorate of Public Finances [in France] have been searched, amid suspicions of a tax favour granted to PSG during the star’s transfer from Barcelona in 2017,” according to reports in Le Matin.

The issue here seems to be whether a member of parliament had a number of conversations in which he/she tried to obtain “tax benefits” from the government for PSG during its transfer negotiations.   

Now Paris Saint-Germain is primarily owned by the Qatari government-backed investment fund Qatar Sports Investments, which currently holds 87.5% of the shares. As this story broke searches were carried out at the French Ministry of Economy and Finance.

But there is also a suggestion (and hence an investigation) into the notion that Paris St Germain was granted favourable tax arrangements during the transfer of Neymar from Barcelona in 2017. That would of course be possible because of the close link between PSG and the state of Qatar, but would be completely illegal in footballing terms.

The notion that there was something very underhand indeed has been revealed by MediaPart  and one only has to spend a few minutes reading what they have to say to see just how huge the accusations here are.   A few of the headlines will give an indication…

PSG and BeIN Sports boss Nasser al-Khelaifi in second illegal employment complaint

“The murky saga involving Qatar, French football club PSG and an alleged €100m blackmail bid.”   (This story involves Tayeb Benabderrahmane, who “was arrested and detained for several months in Doha in 2020 after having obtained confidential information belonging to the PSG president Nasser al-Khelaifi.” )

But that is not all, because it is not just issues of tax fraud and blackmail.  There is also the tale of  “How a ‘digital army’ paid for by French club Paris Saint-Germain smeared its opponents online” in which we learn that PSG created an “army” of “fake Twitter accounts which then carried out aggressive and foul-mouthed online smear campaigns, in particular against the media and some of the Paris football club’s own leading figures. Mediapart and the sports newspaper L’Équipe were among the main targets.”

Then there is the issue of whether “the former vice-president (a member of Emmanuel Macron’s party) of the National Assembly, Hugues Renson, tried to obtain from the government “tax advantages for PSG”

This was a particularly potent story since when Neymar was transferred to PSG it was announced by the Minister of Finance that this was good news for France since Neymar was going to pay tax in France on his massive salary.   At that time the Minister then personally guaranteed that Neymar’s tax affairs would be closely analyzed by the ministry as would be the “financial arrangement of the transfer.”

Neymar was transferred in a deal worth 222 million euros and suspicion is growing in France that the proper amounts of tax were not paid in the country.

So yes, while Everton, Manchester City and Chelsea are all facing questions and penalties here, in France PSG are most certainly being invetigated – along with a number of rather prominent people.


9 Replies to “It’s not just Everton, Chelsea and Manchester City that are under investigation”

  1. You name 3 clubs then ultimately just talk about Man City.
    Then you quote – Give me Sport as some sort of bastion of knowledge when it comes to these charges. What you write is a bag of shite 100%, so stick to trying to get you’re trophy shy club to win something.

  2. There is a slight difficulty with your commentary Boxer, in that you give no evidence as to why everything that I have written is wrong. If you did we would indeed take you just a little more seriously.

  3. Unfortunately, like most anti City people you have failed to understand the CAS ruling in that UEFA FAILED to provide EVIDENCE of financial wrongdoings.The reason it was time barred is because they couldn’t find any EVIDENCE in 5 years of searching – Ask yourself this – how did UEFA find them guilty then with no evidence? (Clue the red cartel wanted it) This kangaroo court used criminally obtained and out of contect e-mails which is why City refused to co-operate.

    Do City not provide accounts to Companies house? what more financial details are required? Do Arsenal allow other clubs to decide what is justifiable sponsorship deals?
    The EPL have no further evidence than UEFA because there isn’t any so doomed to failure and charged city due to the impending Independant governing body imposed by the government which will negate the red cartel from ruling the EPL.

  4. Joe I have no idea if you are a solicitor or barrister, but if not do have a look at the data. This from a legal website: “UEFA found that there was compelling evidence to support the case against City. CAS however found that the allegation relating to Etisalat was time barred; the alleged breaches fell outside the 5 year statutory limit for prosecution as the payments were received in June 2012 and January 2013.”

    If you want to check, that’s from the website of a legal firm: Reeds.,June%202012%20and%20January%202013

    Now you might feel that is not right, but really to convince those of us who tend to use legal firms and listen to legal rulings, you’ll need to explain why that statement is not true.

  5. My wording is directly from the CAS 178 page report not some legal firms interpretation of it – If this compelling evidence was so compelling why Did UEFA take 5 Years to Prosecute? As you are so legal with your response may I suggest you read the real article sections 290 to 293 of the CAS ruling and get back to me. These sections refer to UEFA’s so called ‘Evidence’ the selective leaked e-mails.The Ruling by CAS states that ‘there is no EVIDENCE to conclude that what was stated in those illegally obtained e-mails was actually carried out’ and on this basis the charge remains unsustatiated. Proving once again that UEFA charged us with no EVIDENCE at the behest of the red cartel who instigated FFP in the first place in such a way it did not impact on them. Best of luck EPL with the same ‘evidence’ as i said before the accounts are registered with companies house the only legal requirement.
    MCFC did not co-operate with UEFA for good reason knowing what the agenda was and who was behind it.
    Do you still have a copy of the letter to Peter Scudamore former EPL Chairman signed by the Red Cartel + Spurs FFS.
    Spurs were found guilty of financial irregularities during the Alan Sugar days, fined £2M, docked 6 points and banned from the FA Cup – that ended well for the FA didn’t it? You see EPL rules will not stand up in the UK court of law and that is where this could end up if the EPL are foolish to continue because should this charge fail City will sue the EPL for billions and smash this cartel once and for all.

  6. Givemesport put it in easy to read format. they quote the source as from the Premier League. This is for those city fans that are so quick to play the victim.

    Plus the media at the time said that City delayed providing the evidence so the 5 year time lapsed. They got off on a technicality. Yet the city fans never mention this bit.

  7. Remind me. Wasn’t City a little backwater team frequently relegated up until the time the oil money arrived? If not for the sudden influx of dubiously-sourced funds, would they now have a worldwide following of supporters or would they be slugging it out with the teams in the bottom half of the table? They were 15th in 2006 then went to 14th, 9th, 8th 5th, 3rd and 1st in successive years. Remarkable.

  8. @ Joe Blue Nose

    You are trying to pretend that your argument is completely sound and beyond contradiction yet come up with the childish statement, “Proving once again that UEFA charged us with no EVIDENCE at the behest of the red cartel….”.

    Even if there was such a thing as this fictitious “red cartel” to which you allude, in what way does any of what you say “prove” that UEFA charged Man City “at the behest” of said “red cartel? Some of what you say may well be true but, I for one, give little credibility to an argument made by somebody who makes such absurd and completely unproven claims.

  9. Joe, all I can say is that we see matters utterly differently. When you state…

    “Proving once again that UEFA charged us with no EVIDENCE at the behest of the red cartel who instigated FFP in the first place in such a way it did not impact on them”.

    I have never seen any evidence that Uefa acted at the “behest of the red cartel” or even that there is a “red cartel”. Although even if a “red cartel” existed, that wouldn’t prove that Uefa acted at their behest.

    But obviously you see the concept of evidence in one way, and I in another.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *