PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gone for a Burton]

I thought the way he singled me out and copied and pasted what I posted here onto his Twitter page utterly bizarre. I was having a bit of a rant on here and said the club should sue him and somebody mentioned the death of his wife. I think I said although sad he was a c**** before it and has been one after it, or something like that. The way it was implied was that my "Deranged" post was indicative of the terrible abuse he gets from City fans. As a result I was piled on by his followers, redshirts of course and even fucking Gary Lineker called me, or rather my post, vile. I actually thought given some posts I'd seen about him mine was fairly mild. I didn't like the twist that I was either making light of his wife's death or mocking it, that certainly wasn't the case.

What I did do however was take a look online about his wife's death. It was very sad and I could see how this could easily mentally affect someone. As a result I posted here that I was sorry if what I posted was misconstrued and if it caused him any distress that was not my intention and it wasn't. I posted that here as apparently somebody relayed my original post to him, so whoever was doing so, if true, could send him that one.

As for the offer he was putting out there to meet me for dinner and constantly saying I hadn't replied to him, with a possible inference I was somehow running scared, that wasn't the case. He has no email address I could find and even if on Twitter you have to be a blue tick member to message him. I did pm somebody here who'd had dealings with him to try and get a contact number but was advised against it . Apparently anybody who had done so had been bombarded with abuse and hounded to the point that an injunction had been sought. I am far too long in the tooth for that nonsense. Given the way he has reacted to @projectriver on Twitter after their spot on Talksport I think I did well to heed that advice. As for actually having dinner with him why on earth would I do that? We have absolutely nothing in common and we are poles apart on our views on City and the charges. There is also a chance it could have deteriorated in a not too pleasant way. I am too old and wise these days to let my ego lead me into such situations and I'm happy that's the case.Thirty years ago it would have been very different.

This sick freak was deranged before his missus past.

He is one of several heads of the snake who have been undermining our club since day one.

They are so deeply embedded in their hatred and delusion that they've lost all reality and objectivity.

If you look beyond their shit, there is often a common background denominator.

These lying,casual racists have much in common with manics like Chemical Ali, Putin and an infamous Austrian.

 

[Newman Noggs]

The next time Nick tries this disingenuous "City fans are paranoid and delusional" narrative, someone should ask him if we imagined the creation of the G-14 too.

And it's worth reiterating that The 3 English clubs that were part of that G-18 (as it later became) who put pressure on Platini to shift the emphasis of UEFA's FFP away from the debt it was originally intended to control, were none other than United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

The idea that those clubs were anything other the prime movers in shaping PL's version FFP is simply beyond rational thinking. That Harris finds such a notion incomprehensible proves it.

 

[SiMCFC]

One thing's for sure, he isn't paying his bills with his income from Sporting Unintelligence if you look at there filing history on companies house.

He's a sad, pathetic loser and should maybe change his direction and go and drum up some interest around something closer to home, rather than obsessing about little City. Might even work out for him financially?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

All the mood music from within the club indicates the charges are being systematically destroyed year by year. The confidence levels are even higher now than on "charges day" back in February 2023. This begs the question, how the hell is the IC/PL going to extricate itself from this omnishambles. I suspect they will go down the route of "NOT PROVEN" for the substantive charges, i.e., a compromise based on the verdict used in Scottish criminal law. They will no doubt throw in a non-cooperation verdict, probably with another ridiculously high fine, to appease the City haters and afford the PL a wee bit of credibility. This is all my own guesswork, but I can see a situation where the PL will claim a complete lack of jurisdiction over City's sponsors, Etihad, Etisalat, and Aabar, making it impossible to prove the contracts were in any sense illegitimate. I think the same will apply to the Al Jazira/Mancini contract. All independent experts suggest the image rights charges are completely dead in the water, as anything that was dubious would be investigated by HMRC, who clearly are not the slightest bit interested.

So what would the legal advice be to City and the sponsors given a "Not Proven" outcome. The sponsors would have to demonstrate that the IC/PL ruling would cause material damage to their businesses. I doubt they could prove this, so they would probably take no further action. That just leaves the club's response. I'm guessing again, but I think a settlement whereby the PL stated publicly and unequivocally that all historical investigations into City's accounts from 2008 to the present day have been terminated in perpetuity. Of course, the downside would be that this outcome would allow the professional City haters to continue to scrape a subsistence living as click bait life forms, i.e., continuing to spread the inevitable slurs and tropes. Hopefully City's response would involve a newly uplifted long term partnership with Etihad Airways, Let's hope it's a whopper and a world beater, as befitting for the best team in the world.

One thing we have all learned since 2008 is the following: when Khaldoon Mubarak says something is going to happen, we can be pretty sure it will, and that includes his "plenty to say" promise in last year's end-of-season review. Let's just say the chances of Richard Masters being the CEO of the Premier League after this case are virtually zero. He could perhaps form a comedy duo; the "Masters and Harris" podcast would be a sensation with at least 20 subscribers.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I'm not sure where this is headed, but in my view, a certain journalist / campaigner appears to be quite mentally unbalanced. We should not go tit for tat with him. The club has the correct approach in just not engaging with him in any way whatsoever. If something should happen to him, please don't let there be anything on here that might show City fans as being a contributory factor.

It wouldn't be - people used to their own autonomy. I don't buy into your viewpoint - we come from a different place - you prefer yours - fair enough

 

[Inter Me Nan]

How can a financial expert not know what a settlement is?
I know what a settlement is and I'm a pleb on a forum!

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'll take the self-publicist remark as a compliment, although I've never set out to promote my "brand" over my mission of demystifying football finance and defending City's corner. You've been a staunch ally in that latter and I think we've earned our reputation as two of the leading City financial figures.

But I'm most surprised at the toolkit comment. I started on that road when Khaldoon mentioned at the time of the 2014 settlement that the beef with UEFA was over the treatment of wages.

I did a forensic deep-dive into the FFP regulations, including the toolkit and I've documented the change from version 1 of the toolkit dealing with eligible wage deductions to version 2. It's unarguable that there was a material change in a key part of the basis of calculation.

I worked with Swiss Ramble, whose sources at UEFA were invaluable in accurately identifying some of the key figures, and we agreed the calculations. He agreed it was a key issue. Professor Rob Wilson at Sheffield Hallam reviewed my work and accepted it.

Furthermore I've had indications from the club that I was on the right lines. So I'm fully confident in my work. I therefore think your choice not to believe it reflects on you, not me.

I suppose this is ancient history now, but it sets the scene for what happened later, and I always liked history. So bear with me ....

I read your excellent blog on the 2014 disagreement over pre-FFP contracts, but am I right that the wording of the mitigation rule didn't change, what did change was the spreadsheet in the toolkit for the second year? As far as I could see the wording was reasonably clear in support of the amended toolkit.

So, although we were screwed by the 2012/13 toolkit change, maybe the club was hoping to "get away" with the 2011/12 toolkit until it was changed, by which time it was too late?

All a bit messy and, with all the other issues, you can see why both parties settled.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I suppose this is ancient history now, but it sets the scene for what happened later, and I always liked history. So bear with me ....

I read your excellent blog on the 2014 disagreement over pre-FFP contracts, but am I right that the wording of the mitigation rule didn't change, what did change was the spreadsheet in the toolkit for the second year? As far as I could see the wording was reasonably clear in support of the amended toolkit.

So, although we were screwed by the 2012/13 toolkit change, maybe the club was hoping to "get away" with the 2011/12 toolkit until it was changed, by which time it was too late?

All a bit messy and, with all the other issues, you can see why both parties settled.

That's quite correct. The overall rule didn't change but the method of calculation changed, to our disadvantage, when it was too late to do anything to rescue the situation.

In theory we could've challenged that legally but we decided to reach a settlement and put the matter to bed. I've also said that the settlement worked in our favour as it committed us to a revised schedule of allowable losses, unlike Everton who are stuck with a double jeopardy scenario.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

You pull someone that way now and you'll get accused of messing their head and emotional state up

That would be my plan.

 

[vincent]

He came across so weak in that podcast and out of his depth. He must be hurting and also a tad embarrassed.