PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Asa's left peg said:
Der Spiegel's reputation has be spiralling downwards for some time. Their political reporting is no better. A few weeks ago they had to retract a story about a refugee girl being killed on the Greek/Turkish border. It wasn't just a claim, there was a full manufactured 'facts' story. It's not the first time a reporter has felt under pressure to make shit up.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good and DS reporting is the lowest of the low. But it's the documents that will be looked at and the Mancini docs are comprehensive:


FWIW these can't be a big problem because the numbers are so small in the context of the big picture.
 
domalino said:
You’re not going to find many experienced sports lawyers who aren’t fans of the biggest sport in the country.
Click to expand...
Its a fair question. Whilst on jury service I wasn't able to sit becasuse I was a customer of NatWest and the case involved an arm robbery from a related branch.

The monetary value of the damages this could inflict are huge so every option should be explored to ensure impartiality, not even an unconsious bias should considered.

As most of the serious charges are financial, I'm sure they could find an impartial group of experts to judge.
 
Scaley said:
I still like the idea of the inflatable banana to be honest.
Click to expand...

tMR8KKUH_400x400.jpg
 
Last edited:
MarsLlama said:
Must admit, now that the overwhelming consensus seems to be that the worst case scenario is a point deduction not severe enough to make relegation likely, I can’t say I’m too worried about this.
Click to expand...
They are guessing, do you really think these cunts would give us a small points deduction if they found us guilty of some of the more serious offences? I'm telling you they would hit us as hard as they could, and we will be left appealing against the severity of the sanctions in court. Don't let these scheming, morally bereft cunts lure you into a false sense of security. We need to sleep with one eye open.
 
not my fault! said:
In answer to your question…. Yes! The moment they found illegal activities such as tax fraud, they by law have to notify the police/HMRC. At which point raids would have taken place at homes, offices etc and anything they could carry confiscated. The fact that’s not happened suggests they are going off guesses rather than facts. I genuinely think the plan here is to tarnish us for good, so no matter what we prove doubt will always remain. The problem for them is that’s already the case so..
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Having had a chance to trawl through a selection of the six thousand odd posts I realise that I need to follow up a few links.Apart from the contributions of the few who understand finance or the law the overall impression is of almost overwhelming anger - not surprising either: the stuff on some of the media sites takes the breath away - guilty till proven innocent, "no smoke without fire", the harshest punishments demanded, and all this just on the strength of the charge sheet .. I had no idea..obviously I need to get out more. That said, I'm still not much wiser about the substance of the claims against City. Probably best to start with the EPL website to see what the tidily one hundred offences are.
 
petrusha said:
So, the new Manchester United-supporting CEO started last month and almost immediately we have this news. I wonder if that's a coincidence? Or did United and Liverpool have a chance to vet her, as was alleged in the media with regard to at least one previous appointee? And, if so, did the City investigation feature in those discussions?

It seems clear to me that by making the number of allegations the PL has, which cover matters going back to Mancini's contract in 2009, there's a clear aim to throw as much as they can at us in the hope that some will stick. But they've argued that we've filed dishonest accounts for nearly a decade. That's an incendiary allegation and they can't expect MCFC to do anything other than fight it with all the force we can muster.

I don't have any experience of prosecutions of directors for false accounting, but I'm led to believe that it's not conceivable that City's directors would be prosecuted for that offence in these circumstances. Nonetheless, the allegations, if true, presuppose that those directors committed actions that are in some circumstances viewed as a serious criminal matter punishable by several years' imprisonment. I can't see Khaldoon, for instance, taking that lying down.

One key thing to point out, as we did ahead of CAS, is that the reporting of this case fails to acknowledge that it's possible to work within rules to circumvent them. Instead, it's seems enough for our friends in the press that we've probably been in breach of the "spirit of the rules". But this is a bullshit concept that counts for sweet fuck all in the real world.

If UEFA or the PL want their rules to ban some kinds of sponsorship, the onus is on them to draft legal provisions which expressly say so. Otherwise, we're entitled to find whatever workarounds the applicable text of the rules allows. (To be fair, The PL have changed rules down the years to try and close what they see as loopholes).

As a defendant, what you have a right to expect when matters as serious as this are in issue is that there'll be a full and thorough examination by the panel empowered to hear the case. That could take months, if not years. Yet I see that the media this morning are suggesting that clubs want a quick resolution, with a punishment in place that applies to this season. If so, those clubs prove that they couldn't give a toss about due process.

I'm bound to say that, IF we end up being proved guilty of having falsified our accounts over many years, then one would have to say that we'd deserve a punishment of unprecedented force. But that's an extremely difficult thing for the PL to prove. We deny the charges, I believe (from my admittedly biased viewpoint) and, under any concept of due process, we're entitled to have our case heard properly before that assessment is definitively handed down.

The reaction of opposing fans, the press briefings of rival club, and the media glee at what's happened tells you that no one in this constituencies is the slightest but interested in fairness. At the moment, I'm bullish and look forward to the club approaching its defence of its position in the most forceful terms. Let's see how things look when we've done so.

In the meantime, we need to create a real siege mentality. Sometimes when one urges this, people accuse you of being paranoid. Well, in this situation, we know they really are out to try, at all costs, to damage our club irretrievably. Let's all - fans, management, players, directors, other club officials - pull together and really fucking stick it to our detractors.
Click to expand...
Brilliant post.
 
5 Hit Gibbon said:
I went to a cracking away game at Walsall in the late 80's. City went 2-0 down, keeper went off injured 1st half with Gleghorn playing in nets the rest of the match. City manged to get in front 3-2, only to let a goal in at the end from a bad back pass. The inflatable bananas in the away end when the 3rd goal went in!

Click to expand...

Was at that game, pretty sure after Walsall made it 3-3, we missed a penalty, Neil McNab, although like most of us a good piss up at away games was usually the order of the day so my memory might be off.
 
Jazzman said:
Which rules did we break according to Martin Samuel?
Click to expand...
I don’t work in papers; maybe as seems to be the case often, he didn’t write the headline for his article. Reading it, he actually says “maybe” we “broke the rules”, and if we did in as widespread a fashion as the number of accusations suggests we should suffer a points deduction or immediate relegation, if they are proved true, but tbh mate, that really isn’t the thrust of what he’s writing about.
For the avoidance of any doubt, he’s writing about Manchester united, about liverpool and about arsenal.
 
Just heard a some extraordinarily interesting bit that rang true to what I was writing and some others

listening to between Mark Champman and Matt Slater on the episode titled, 'Why the PL are going to war with Manchester City' for today's The Athletic's Football Podcast (Sam Lee was on as well).

Champan says,

"There's a difference with UEFA (a governing body) charging City vs. a member led organization where one member is charged. I think that does call into question dynamics, particularly within the football world. A lot of fans of a lot of clubs would be interested as to how that would work".

Slater: Is it Man United, Arsenal, Spurs, all that lots' fault? Are they poking the PL to do this?

"Yeah, probably. But what was the PL supposed to do"?

After going over the past events and charges against City.

He clearly lines out the other reasons.

City beat UEFA. PL has tried.

PL & City have been in "trench warfare" he says over the past few years.

Bringing up other problems PL has with reputation and finding a better process to address problems.

"Once you start down this road. You've got to see it through".

He then adds the way this is "being viewed" aka optics raising the question, "Is this incredibly embarrassing?

and to vindicate like Tebas or is it B"...

"To send a message we take financial impropriety seriously.

We will go after our biggest, most powerful people.

So, yes, you can invest here. Yes, you can trust us. We are serious. We have a rulebook. We stand by it."
 
Another point to mention, as with the UEFA charges we have apparently not complied with requests to submit financial information. And as with UEFA I think we have reasonable grounds to suspect they wouldn't keep it to themselves or use for personal gain.

Would you share your club's finances with this lot?


CEO - Richard Masters, an Aston Villa fan, accused by Newcastle of acting inappropriately during their takeover, namely by fiddling the fit and proper test to exclude Newcastle's potential new Saudi owners. In 2021 an investigation into competition law found Masters had abused his position to award Qatari tv rights to the premier league to a preferred bidder, beIN sports. He's still in position despite this.

Secretary - Kevin Plumb, who was famously involved in exchanging emails containing misogynistic and sexist views with former chief, Richard Scudamore including calling women 'gash'. Both retained their positions. He's also the guy who is tasked with bringing down illegal football streams.

Non executive director - Mai Fyfield, a Sky director whose responsibilities include the distribution of sky channels to platforms such as cable and IPTV. No conflicts there, then!

Non executive director - Dharmesh Mistry, an investment banker who describes himself as an 'avid' Liverpool fan...

Chair - Alison Brittain, a Manchester United fan and former CEO of the Whitbread group. Seemingly ok with sharing the board with sexists if it means putting down her teams' arch rivals.

That's not even mentioning former chair Gary Hoffman, also chair of the bank Monzo at the same time as his premier league role, whom are I believe still under investigation for money laundering by the FCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top