The disguised funding scheme
- Published
The independent commission's ruling shows how Manchester City owners Abu Dhabi United Group were also topping up the value of deals.
The so-called Disguised Funding Scheme is the central plank in a series of charges that Manchester City have been found guilty of by the Premier League.
This scheme managed to hide more than £830m of sponsorship funding, while other devices hid £90m in expenses.
In early 2010, Manchester City took the first steps to get the additional funding into the club.
The club would enter into sponsorship agreements which were record amounts and were significantly above fair market value, something referred to as the 'disguised funding scheme'.
This is how it worked, according to the ruling:
The sponsorship deals were split into two parts: a base fee and a tagged sum.
The sponsors would pay the base fee.
The club's owners would pay the tagged sum.
Ergo, the sponsors, would not have to pay the full value of the contract.
The club's owners would pay the vast majority, which enabled them to invest in players.
This, the document states, "gave the misleading impression to third parties in its financial statements and any required FFP returns that its commercial revenues from sponsorship agreements were far, far greater than was in fact the case".
But Manchester City also knew they had to be nimble. From time to time, the 'disguised funding scheme' would be tweaked to "assist with continued concealment" and "reduce the likelihood of difficult questions being asked".
What did this all mean in reality?
Commercial income from sponsors totalled £949.94m in the seasons from 2009-10 to 2017-18.
The ruling says only £119.25m represented base fees. A total of £830.69m represented tagged sums - the amount paid by the club's owners.
Manchester City have denied the claims and they say the Premier League has misunderstood the sponsorship agreements. However, the panel said it "rejected that explanation as untrue".
It said it was "concocted well after the event in an attempt to obscure and conceal the realities of the disguised funding scheme".
An example given of the 'disguised funding scheme' in action: plugging an unexpected shortfall in May 2013.
Less than a week before the end of that 2012-13 financial year, the club knew they were £9.9m short of complying with Uefa's financial rules.
In a matter of days, without sponsors even being approached, a number of modified sponsor agreements were generated which increased recorded sponsorship fees to pay bonuses for events that had already taken place and to pay for a US tour.
The feared Uefa FFP shortfall was thus "plugged".
