PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

The History Boys don't want fair and reasonable, they want to be at the top of the pile forever. Something like fixed and equal spending, with owner investment only being investment, rather than debt, in facilities and academies, a salary cap, and merging the premier league with the rest of the football league would be fine with me tbqh. But all 20 clubs would vote against it and England would lose its competitive edge over the rest of Europe.

The suggestion would start a wider debate which would favour City & not the other 19.

If our alternative FFP suggestion is seen as fair, reasonable & workable, but the 19 PL teams said no, the obvious comeback is why?

It's at this point where the world will see the Hateful Eight, PL, & UEFA/14 for the self-serving cartel cabal that they evidently are...

 

[Allnightlong]

I have often wondered if Uefa have given the premier league the CAS files? Or to be more precise, the files they could not prove against us. Especially the issues either time barred or issues that Uefa did not deem sufficient enough to charge for what ever reason. Now the premier are zoning in on those issues. Thinking they can trip us up with no time limit.

Does that make sense?

Sneaky bastards.

didnt we want to use the time barred documents but wernt allowed?

 

[Dribble]

I don't think any form of FFP should hinder an owner from making investment into his/her business from their own pockets. Should the money be lost the only person losing out is that of the original investor. This seems to work perfectly well in all other business industries i can think of.

FFP should solely ensure that football club owners are not spending money and/ or borrowing money against a club which ultimately they will never have the ability to repay. The whole thing is anti-competitive dross and those who it both does and does not benefit can see this without their rose-tinted spectacles on.

Agreed. Now the question is, why haven't fair, workable alternatives been leaked to the press to start to highlight the folly of FFP?

If FFP is fair for football, we should campaign for FFP for EVERY sector of British business. We'd soon see how quickly it would be fucked off, which would then shine the spotlight back on "Why only football"?

 

[Bez]

Only thing I can think of is Rui Pinto gave the PL more info, or different information than EUFA got there hands on.

Surely the PL would not accept any stolen documents from Rui Pinto? An organisation with their level of integrity?

 

[flb]

Surely the PL would not accept any stolen documents from Rui Pinto? An organisation with their level of integrity?

Nothing would surprise me !

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Surely it was all confidential, which means only Liverpool has it all .....

Not just them. Madrid, Munich and the rags would have had bound copies as well..

 

[SilverFox2]

Ffp and false accounting (fraud) are separate issues. You can break ffp without committing accounting fraud.
BUT, the current charges against us imply that our accounts are false, as did the UEFA charges.

You are right of course but my understanding is that to stay within FFP regs we committed the fraud.

Normally fraud means taking money away from accounts ie stealing but in our case money claimed to be added.

Am I wrong?

 

[citizen_maine]

Nothing would surprise me !

He said an organisation with integrity

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Agreed. Now the question is, why haven't fair, workable alternatives been leaked to the press to start to highlight the folly of FFP?

If FFP is fair for football, we should campaign for FFP for EVERY sector of British business. We'd soon see how quickly it would fucked off, which would then shine the spotlight back on "Why only football"?

Would City want to open up less limited investment at the moment?
We have highest revenue, and currently all owners are limited to the same investment - while we're at the top of the tree, FFP helps keep City there.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

Surely the PL would not accept any stolen documents from Rui Pinto? An organisation with their level of integrity?

 

[M18CTID]

The issue, I think, wasn't whether Etihad paid MCFC, it was if ADUG had provided the funds to Etihad to pay MCFC.

IIRC, ADUG''s auditors analysed all company payments over a certain amount (USD 250K?) and reported that none were paid to Etihad or related companies. So that should have been that, really.

Is there reference to this in the CAS report? It seems to ring a bell

 

[KS55]

You are right of course but my understanding is that to stay within FFP regs we committed the fraud.

Normally fraud means taking money away from accounts ie stealing but in our case money claimed to be added.

Am I wrong?

If you post income or expenditure to an inapproprpriate account in order to increase available spending under ffp, that may be fraud.

 

[wolviedinho]

didnt we want to use the time barred documents but wernt allowed?

Yes and hopefully the evidence is overwhelming in our favour. The league doesn’t know what proof we have, hence no cooperation. For them to come out swinging like they have, they must have received encouragement from the CAS findings.

As I said, trying to go after city for issues that CAS did not rule on. Who on the CAS panel or Uefa is feeding the info to the league?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I just hope the "irrefutable evidence" we have is in fact statements from both the concerned banks, I believe MCFC use Barclays. As the PL process is not criminal I don't know if the Banks are obliged to produce evidence. However either the contentious £59 million was sent from Etihad Airway's to MCFC or is wasn't. Lets stop all this bull shit and this frenzy in the MSM. From my own puny experience of dealing with HMRC re Corporation Tax and VAT the Bank statements are gospel. This whole thing is about financial transactions, forget all the shit being sprayed around, so where are the frickin statements ?. Etihad Airways is a billion dollar company it must by LAW keep records of it bank transactions.

UEFA weren't disputing that Etihad paid MCFC, they were alleging that ADUG gave the money to Etihad to pay MCFC. This, apparently, would be part of a conspiracy to fraudulently increase sponsorship income at MCFC, presumably over and above what Etihad could have paid without the funds from ADUG.

Don't buy it myself, but I think that was the crux of it.

 

[Centurions]

Only thing I can think of is Rui Pinto gave the PL more info, or different information than EUFA got there hands on.

He hasn't. If he had, his lawyers would be screaming it from the rooftops to try and reinforce their defence that he's a whistleblower and not a thief and a blackmailer.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Is there reference to this in the CAS report? It seems to ring a bell

There's an extended section in the CAS report about Etihad payments. 57-78, with the Etihad stuff specifically 67-68.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

 

[halfcenturyup]

If you post income or expenditure to an inapproprpriate account in order to increase available spending under ffp, that may be fraud.

Yes, I am finally getting round to reconciling, in my mind at least, the conflict I had between fraudulent behaviour and "true and fair" accounts. Taken me a while to get there, and one or two maulings from our legal eagles, but I am happy with where I am now. :)

 

[Dribble]

Would City want to open up less limited investment at the moment?
We have highest revenue, and currently all owners are limited to the same investment - while we're at the top of the tree, FFP helps keep City there.

BUT if FFP suited City, surely they wouldn't be using it to keep coming after us?

 

[flb]

Its going to be evidence thrown on the table from both sides like the card game scene out of Casino Royale !

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is there reference to this in the CAS report? It seems to ring a bell

Yes. Can't remember the page number :) It's in the accounting evidence section of the Etihad considerations IIRC.