PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
Ric - how do you think I feel? Another four fucking years of trawling through handbooks, toolkits, legal judgements, working out what they all mean and trying to make sense of them for City fans.
Click to expand...
On a serious note, I thought your conversation with Jon Northcroft during Covid was exceptional. You explained everything in a clear and cogent way, which greatly enhanced the understanding of many supporters. To his great credit, Northcroft renounced his initial skepticism and congratulated you on a job well done. He spoke for many of us.
 
HelloCity said:
Oh come on ffs. You have got to be kidding?

I’d be like if a robber commits a crime and gets arrested for it without much evidence but then the people who grassed him up fancied doing a robbery too, so those in power, who were the grasses mates, quickly changed the law to make it legal in order to suit the grasses.

Perfectly fair because the robber broke the law but the latter didn’t right? Absolutely reasonable behaviour. You can’t pick and choose when laws stand or exist in order to suit an agenda.
Click to expand...

Isn't that life though? Some are punished and some aren't.

Fuck the law. Lie, cheat, steal, kill, smoke weed, don't get dead.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
What you mean by this?

The exact charges against City are already known in detail.

The Athletic, for example, has even analyzed each of the 105-or-so charges against City and have lumped them into 4 broad categories: 1) most are apparently due to accounting practices with regard to sponsorships; 2) the second set of charges are related to alleged improper compensation for Mancini; 3) the third category of charges involves the license requirements to qualify for play in European football; 4) and the final category is due to City's perceived obstruction of the investigation into its finances.
Click to expand...

Well, I could have told you all those would have been issues last week, apart from the UEFA licensing I suppose, that wouldn't have occurred to me.

What accounting practices re sponsorship, for example? The value, the funding, the policies used, the bookkeeping, the question of related party, or ten other options. If it's just the value, the funding or the related party narure I doubt we have much to worry about having been cleared once. How can anyone say this is a serious issue warranting expulsion or points deduction without knowing the details?

Mancini? What contracts were there, who paid what, where and when, were taxes paid, where and when, were services performed, for who, when and at what value, any inter-group transactions to settle, who ultimately bore the cost? No details, so we can't say how serious it is.

I could go on.

And I will if you encourage me. :)
 
domalino said:
We don't know who voted which way, we only know that all 3 were deemed to be fair and impartial.

The point is not that City had a man on the board, it's that at this level people are grown up enough to know everyone's going to have tangential connections somewhere in a small industry and it doesn't get in the way of doing their jobs fairly.
Click to expand...
A small industry? It’s f**kin giant
 
Tb1981 said:
So yesterday Simon Jordan wants the book thrown at us
Today (talking about Qatar and united) he believes the rules should be rewritten to allow owner investment
hmmm….
Click to expand...
Someone said on here the other day that he's a United fan - apparently he even entertained Pete Boyle in an exec box at Selhurst Park at a Palace v United fixture some years back (and probably sucked his cock into the bargain!) which would explain a lot.
 
HelloCity said:
Oh come on ffs. You have got to be kidding?

I’d be like if a robber commits a crime and gets arrested for it without much evidence but then the people who grassed him up fancied doing a robbery too, so those in power, who were the grasses mates, quickly changed the law to make it legal in order to suit the grasses.

Perfectly fair because the robber broke the law but the latter didn’t right? Absolutely reasonable behaviour. You can’t pick and choose when laws stand or exist in order to suit an agenda.
Click to expand...
But that’s not right either

Laws need to change at some point to match the environment they apply in

We’d all be living by the Old Testament laws if that were the case
 
am i right in thinking this all boils down to non cooperation? the PL wants us to give them evidence of us inflating sponsorship paying players and staff through other companies etc and we are saying that non of this excist? and basically they are saying it does through old hacked emails? or maybe i am just reading it all wrong?
 
Tb1981 said:
So yesterday Simon Jordan wants the book thrown at us
Today (talking about Qatar and united) he believes the rules should be rewritten to allow owner investment
hmmm….
Click to expand...
Let's invite him to a game with a seat in the South Stand lower tier and see how he gets on.
 
BRONSON said:
Sorry If this has been asked previously, but who picks up the cost of all this, If we win, do we claim costs off the Premier league, because If this dude of our charges £80,000 an hour, and If this takes 4 years to complete, together with him and the rest of his team could run Into Billions In costs, If so could this bring down the Premier league.
Click to expand...
Was reported as up to £80k per day, wasn't it? About what the rags were paying Ronaldo?
Hopefully Pannick can provide a better return than cr37...
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Ric - how do you think I feel? Another four fucking years of trawling through handbooks, toolkits, legal judgements, working out what they all mean and trying to make sense of them for City fans.
Click to expand...

It’s tiresome, not only do we need to be fully understanding of what is interfering or not interfering in play, or what warrants handball and not handball. We now have to be legal experts and well read in accounting practices to know what is going to happen to City from one week to the next. Wonder what Swales would have made of it all? With his seat on the FA this would have vanished like Tony Coton’s England career cos our chairman at the time didn’t want to pay Watford any more money.
 
Gray said:
One post just to have a go at us. I suggest you do some research and read all the PL rules and regulations.

When you have done what I suggested come back and tell us hand on heart if you actually believe that every other Club has never contravened any of them.

In the meantime get stuffed.
Click to expand...
He's a Spurs fan. Even if it turns out that we're guilty, that's one set of fans who have no right to take the moral high ground over another club when it comes to financial breaches:

Football: Spurs are 'staggered' by punishment: Tottenham escape

ALAN SUGAR, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman, last night felt like the man who has avoided the death penalty only to be given life imprisonment. The Football Association's punishment for Spurs' financial irregularities included the deduction of 12 points from next season's Premiership campaign...
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
RACHACE said:
It's about time the South stand was layered in banners all about the shit we've had thrown at us since becoming a threat.

Highlight the hypocrisy of it all every time we're on Sly Sports.
Click to expand...
The stewards would move them on orders from the club
 
KS55 said:
I’ve tried dosing up Eccles. Nope, still knackered and immobile!
Click to expand...
Putting like would have been cruel there. I feel for you @KS55 . It’s the pits when the team need us!! ;-)
Sorry, being serious I really do feel for you. Trying to fight it seems to get us nowhere but we just keep on keeping on. :-)
I’m noticing it even more with all this sunshine as it is showing up the dust around the house! :-)
If I’m not invading your personal space I send you love and gentle hugs. :-)
 
moh said:
But that’s not right either

Laws need to change at some point to match the environment they apply in

We’d all be living by the Old Testament laws if that were the case
Click to expand...

Of course. But on the fly to suit accusers, there and then? This guy has been totally against owner investment labelling us a Frankenstein club. Now it’s Utd he wants a rule changed and that’s ok?
 
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