PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

skillman said:


Apologies if already posted - thought Stephen (@twosips) did well here. I couldn't be in a room with a load of fans who have already decided we're guilty (because they want to believe this recent domination on the pitch has been doped by some marketing deals off it?!) and smirking their way into debates with snide digs (specifically that Paul Machin wanting to be everybody's mate while coming across as a snide prick). Carragher included. And especially that Spurs fan who, for some reason, thinks they've been held back by City over the past 15 years when they've challenged for the league once and beaten by fucking Leicester. Bottlejobs.

Fair play to Neville too (I know) who calls out FFP for what it is. A scheme to keep certain clubs at the top of the pile while the rest have to sit and watch playing happy families.

Again, as I said yesterday, it boils down to a man being told he isn't allowed to spend his money how he wants to and because of that supposedly breaking these made-up, self-protective rules to be able to compete. Let that sink in. A load of horseshit.
Click to expand...

Yes well done to Stephen for speaking well in that bearpit. Comes to something when Gary Neville is the next most sensible person in the room. That Arsenal muppet is embarressing - just came over as thick and entitled. He should be thanking us for nuturing Arteta to become the manager he is today.
 
twosips said:
Thank you! And nope! I was expecting a grilling so I did my homework and stuck to my guns :)
Click to expand...
Brilliant mate - an example to other City fans on how to handle this situation. I have enjoyed your posts over the years and thought you would be older!
 
Father Paul said:
The so called expenditure on the proposed new stadium has always puzzled me. I wonder was that ever properly investigated if not it should be or reinvestigated if it was glossed over in the past. This is the sort of issue Parker should have been making to the BBC.
We are a wide and varied group us fans and may I suggest that, within legal limited obviously we start to dig for information on this and other dodgy deals by PL members. We have proof now that any irregularities at least as far back as 2009 are open to charges.
Click to expand...
Quick Google search brought up this: I wonder who owns the lease now.

In 2000 Liverpool announced plans to build a new 60,000 seat stadium on Stanley Park. Estimated costs were £150m with the possibility to expand to 70,000. In 2006 the club secured a 999-year, £300,000 a-year lease on part of the park for their ground. Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool in 2007 and promised 'a spade in the ground within 60 days', pledging £210m to build the 'new' Anfield. Their plans, which they commissioned out to American architects HKS, would have cost £300m to follow through on, resulting in a 71,000 seater stadium.

Another article states the loss was £35m on the plans, seems an awful lot to be charged for no work.

Liverpool Football Club made a loss of almost £50m in the year to 31 July 2011, according to the club's managing director, Ian Ayre. Talking about the accounts before they became publicly available at Companies House, Ayre said the club's commercial income had increased, but did not say what it or Liverpool's total income for the year amounted to.

Ayre said that much of the loss of £49.4m was accounted for by writing off £35m incurred by the previous American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, in plans for a redesigned new stadium on neighbouring Stanley Park. Ayre said that plan had now been scrapped and the club is still investigating redeveloping Anfield itself, which previous regimes found was practically impossible because of planning issues.
 
East Level 2 said:
I think the problem is that private clubs can make rules that might be a bit strange but are accepted if they don't break the law of the land. So you can't have a private club with a rule saying new members have to kill someone to be a member. I'm not sure a rule stating "Member clubs are not allowed to make the cartel of cry-baby clubs cry" is contrary to the law of the land.
However I doubt the PL would get away with having people linked to the rags, dippers and arse acting as prosecution, judge and jury.
Click to expand...
Yeah but restraint of trade comes in on this one.
 
LongsightM13 said:
Plausible deniability when it goes tits up? They can go back to their redshirt puppetmasters and say ‘we tried our best but it was that independent commission who let them off?’….
Click to expand...

Just like uefa didn't really want to kick us out, they just played along knowing cas would save their day. Letreme still in character playing his part, just in case.
 
Peaceful Terrier said:
Hudds fan in peace.

Now the dust has settled a little bit I just wanted to pop on and say that not everyone is against you. I have been non-stop fighting your corner to all and sundry since the news broke as, at least as far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but a shady attempt at a monumental stitch up, and it's pretty clear who the accusers are, even if it is being disguised under the Premier League banner...all the other bits of news that have broken since do nothing but underline that belief. At least it helped them get that little rat Greenwood out of the headlines for a bit...

Beggars belief to me that a club with a £500million deficit on the bottom line of their bank statement can throw shade at a club with zero debt whatsoever. Stinks in all honesty.

I would normally end something like this by wishing you luck, but you'll fight this and you'll win this. You'll never lose the particular tags in the eyes of certain people, but fuck 'em. I'll come back when all this is done and drink a pint of their salty tears with you all. Get into them City.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I'm feeling guilty about the 10-1 now!
Seriously though I would far rather have a pint with a fan from a team like Huddersfield than one of the Sky favourites any day of the week as the talk would be about genuine football rather than financial nonsense.
Good luck for the season - do you think that you will be able escape relegation? - big game against Wigan tomorrow.
 
Peaceful Terrier said:
Hudds fan in peace.

Now the dust has settled a little bit I just wanted to pop on and say that not everyone is against you. I have been non-stop fighting your corner to all and sundry since the news broke as, at least as far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but a shady attempt at a monumental stitch up, and it's pretty clear who the accusers are, even if it is being disguised under the Premier League banner...all the other bits of news that have broken since do nothing but underline that belief. At least it helped them get that little rat Greenwood out of the headlines for a bit...

Beggars belief to me that a club with a £500million deficit on the bottom line of their bank statement can throw shade at a club with zero debt whatsoever. Stinks in all honesty.

I would normally end something like this by wishing you luck, but you'll fight this and you'll win this. You'll never lose the particular tags in the eyes of certain people, but fuck 'em. I'll come back when all this is done and drink a pint of their salty tears with you all. Get into them City.
Click to expand...
What a fucking post!
 
John Wayne said:
Yeah, no worries at all mate. I, too, get irritated by the '115 charges' narrative but it is something that everyone outside of City has seized upon to condemn us to hell. My own view is that this really only essentially comes down to the Der Spiegel hack with a bit of image rights/Fordham and Mancini/Al Jazira thrown in for good measure. The ignorant mob see it as a four-year investigation that took as long as it did because we committed 115 wholly separate offences.
Click to expand...

It is and it isn't. Depending on which way it goes. If they wanted to charge with just 4 broader grouped offenses, they would have. The 115 is deliberate, and yes it does very much signify magnitude.

All depends on how it goes. If the main charges fall, big numbers may well fall with them. If they stick, then they all stick in big numbers and it makes it much easier to push for a bigher punishment. Regardless, in the meantime it does what it is intended to do, blow the proportion of it up publicly.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Not quite. He was manager in 2011/12 and the following season, the first two under FFP.

But this isn't about FFP. It's about 'hiding' some of his remuneration using this Al Jazira consultancy contract. I suspect they're saying that we should have paid him that £1.5m through our accounts, so have understated our expenses.

But that amount makes sod all difference. If it had been £10m then that's probably something to worry about but not £1.5m. It's just not material.
Click to expand...

Whilst £750k per year is of course immaterial in the grand scheme of things, I would imagine it’s above the audit threshold and thus could be used by the PL as ‘proof’ of fraudulent financials for the years in question.
 
Plays By Sense Of Smell said:
Whereas, if they go through the whole shebang and it turns out we are indeed confirmed as clean, they could then point to the fact that...

...due process was followed and that there weren't 10 years worth of aberrations that they missed..,so no need for any further regulation thank-you, we are keeping a clean and fair house just fine by ourselves.

They move on safe we move on, status quo returns...
Click to expand...
But we may make a fuss by producing the emails between the redshirts which say: “let’s get those Arab bastards”.
Oh, I wish.
 
Well done to those guys who stood up for us , but honestly what a shower if shite that sort of presentation is .
A room full of rats baying for blood and the thickest of "experts" on show.
I was hesitant to watch it as I feared the worst and boy was I right.
 
Dribble said:
Click to expand...

Perfect, thanks. That confirms everything I've read from respected sources. So to me the fundamental question is whether the league has more evidence than UEFA did or whether they're just having a slightly mad punt in the hope they get full access to something or something sticks?

Edit: or that they're having to go big on the first charge in order to open up time barred elements where they think there are bigger smoking guns with Mancini and Yaya?? Which seems pretty bold? But then again it all seems quite bold. I can see why Stefan and other people who know what they're talking about were so flabbergasted. I don't think rival fans and the Talksport crew have fully appreciated this yet?
 
Last edited:
Peaceful Terrier said:
Hudds fan in peace.

Now the dust has settled a little bit I just wanted to pop on and say that not everyone is against you. I have been non-stop fighting your corner to all and sundry since the news broke as, at least as far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but a shady attempt at a monumental stitch up, and it's pretty clear who the accusers are, even if it is being disguised under the Premier League banner...all the other bits of news that have broken since do nothing but underline that belief. At least it helped them get that little rat Greenwood out of the headlines for a bit...

Beggars belief to me that a club with a £500million deficit on the bottom line of their bank statement can throw shade at a club with zero debt whatsoever. Stinks in all honesty.

I would normally end something like this by wishing you luck, but you'll fight this and you'll win this. You'll never lose the particular tags in the eyes of certain people, but fuck 'em. I'll come back when all this is done and drink a pint of their salty tears with you all. Get into them City.
Click to expand...
Top guy
 
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