PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

It took the Sunday Sport years to find the bus on the moon. Some readers undoubtably believed the story and some probably still quote it as fact in the pub.

I thought the bus was found in the North Pole and a WW2 Bomber found on the moon?

 

[manimanc]

But we haven't failed psr based on the audited accounts so to add psr bullshit breach's they have to prove the failure to disclose accurate financial information and manager/player remuneration allegations first & foremost. Given they are way more severe wtf would they even add the psr as a bolt on to make the process even more convoluted is a mystery only masters could answer.

So just to simplify your post you reckon masters is pissing against the wind yeah?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I thought the bus was found in the North Pole and a WW2 Bomber found on the moon?

Bus was at the North Pole.
Some other notable ones.
Statue of Elvis found on Mars.
Gazza‘s face grows on the white cliffs of Dover.
Monkey Lands Plane.
The Worlds biggest baby. 18 months old and 8 stones.
Adolf Hitler was a woman.

And, finally, my all time favourite.
Hide and seek champ found dead in a cupboard.….

 

[Eds]

Regarding all the 'what about City' comments this is the best analogy of what is going on that I have seen. A bloke admitting he was drink driving and speeding, going to court and being banned but then moaning that the guy arrested at the same time as him for murder who pleaded not guilty hasn't even had a court date.

 

[Centurions]

But we haven't failed psr based on the audited accounts so to add psr bullshit breach's they have to prove the failure to disclose accurate financial information and manager/player remuneration allegations first & foremost. Given they are way more severe wtf would they even add the psr as a bolt on to make the process even more convoluted is a mystery only masters could answer.

If they prove that our accounts aren't accurate then those charges would actually be correct. Also we're only accused from 2009 to 2018 for the first 4 groups, the 5th one for non-cooperation are from 2018 to the present. Which raises the spectre that if they prove any of the first 4 then they may investigate or charge us from 2018 to the present for at least 1, 3 & 4 (?).

 

[Elbow beards]

Bus was at the North Pole.
Some other notable ones.
Statue of Elvis found on Mars.
Gazza‘s face grows on the white cliffs of Dover.
Monkey Lands Plane.
The Worlds biggest baby. 18 months old and 8 stones.
Adolf Hitler was a woman.

And, finally, my all time favourite.
Hide and seek champ found dead in a cupboard.….

Did you ever watch the documentary about the sport? It was hilarious. Had a bloke on who said aliens turned his wife into a fish finger. He kept her in the freezer.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If they prove that our accounts aren't accurate then those charges would actually be correct. Also we're only accused from 2009 to 2018 for the first 4 groups, the 5th one for non-cooperation are from 2018 to the present. Which raises the spectre that if they prove any of the first 4 then they may investigate or charge us from 2018 to the present for at least 1, 3 & 4 (?).

I'm not sure how that works tbh. There was no legal reason (as far as I know) why the investigation couldn't have continued up to 2023 if they found wrongdoing. In fact, you could argue they should have done.

Unless the investigation was limited to only the issues in the emails for the years referred to in the emails, which would be remarkably odd, and wouldn't take four years in my book.

Just another mystery we won't have an answer to until all this is over, I guess.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

I had to go back to refresh my memory on what we're alleged to have done.

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

So, if I've got this right:-

1. Cooked the books in regards to sponsorship and perhaps Fordham?
2. Mancini
3. Failing UEFA FFP? Obviously(?) can't be right?
4. Failing P&S
5. Failure to cooperate

Am I well wide of the mark on any of that?

Great post, am i right in thinking that in section 1 Fair and accurate does not appear within those dates, and City have pointed this out?

 

[RodneyRodney]

Did you ever watch the documentary about the sport? It was hilarious. Had a bloke on who said aliens turned his wife into a fish finger. He kept her in the freezer.

Was his name Marcus ?

 

[Centurions]

I'm not sure how that works tbh. There was no legal reason (as far as I know) why the investigation couldn't have continued up to 2023 if they found wrongdoing. In fact, you could argue they should have done.

Unless the investigation was limited to only the issues in the emails for the years referred to in the emails, which would be remarkably odd, and wouldn't take four years in my book.

Just another mystery we won't have an answer to until all this is over, I guess.

2018 was when the investigation started, they can't be investigating each season after that and adding them on as we'd never get a resolution. That's why we need a total clearance of all charges (barring perhaps the non-coop one) as 2019 on will be obviously clear of any wrong doing.