PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Why did the PL take 4 years to investigate this? Some people are assuming they have been very thorough. Maybe they have. If so, why were there errors in the initial statement? If they had been so meticulous, why fuck it up at this stage? Whilst I have no knowledge of what has actually happened, it feels like they have dragged their feet on this and then suddenly sprung into action because of the govt proposals to regulate. Probably the PL did not know what to do and sat on it. No doubt the CEOs from the true and fair clubs put pressure on the PL. Unless there is some damning new evidence, what have they been doing all this time? Surely, City will know where the PL have been digging around because we are alleged to have not co-operated again. So again, what in the blazes have the PL been doing for the last 4 years. I think they have sat on it for most of that time, but that is only a guess.
 
mrbelfry said:
Think you're wrong here boss. CAS said if we had disclosed to UEFA what we did go CAS then the investigation wouldn't have got past the first chamber. We stopped cooperation with UEFA cos there were lots of leaks particularly from Tariq Panja and Rory Smith (I think). We even asked for the case to be thrown out because of this. No doubt there is a mountain of paper work to work through but that doesn't imply guilt
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to the application by MCFC to be awarded costs.

CAS at 340 are in effect saying that had MCFC disclosed information earlier it’s possible ( CAS deliberately make the point that they aren’t in a position to say what UEFA would or wouldn’t conclude) that CAS may not have needed to be involved.
It’s quite a subtle difference but they are saying that full disclosure could possibly have dealt with the matter at appeal
As for the leaks the CAS commentary on that is all over the place and at one point I was wondering if they were inferring the leaks didn’t actually come from UEFA.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It is hard to believe. But the law, tax regulations and financial standards can be very widely interpreted, which is why we have things like tax tribunals.
Click to expand...
True. But there is a clear distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I would agree that the image rights is the least certain of the three issues you highlighted. Given the scope and nature of the allegations, it will be difficult for the PL to prove that we acted with malicious intent in sourcing things to Fordham. Last week I said we might be penalised for technical breaches and this is one such area where that might come into play - we can prove that we maintained a constant, honest dialogue with the authorities but may nevertheless be found to have been wrong.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Er - Peter Swales?
Click to expand...
True…..but most of that was self defeating bad decision making incompetence, he was to City what Solskjaer was to the rags (in management) and every club distorted attendances in those days (and the rest) what went on under that comb-over we will never know
 
M18CTID said:
I've just read it and to be honest, I don't see anything of real note that might've led to CAS to come to a different decision. There's reference in there to what constitutes a reasonable request for evidence and where that line is. I think what CAS are saying is that it's ambiguous. They also make the point that sponsors can't be expected by UEFA to tip up swathes of information. I also think it's important to note that City would've been worried about handing over certain bits of confidential information that may fall into the hands of our competitors. You only have to look at some of the people involved at UEFA's end to see that they have clear links to certain rival clubs.

For me, City provided plenty of evidence at the appeal to convincingly debunk what was being alleged. CAS also appears to infer that if City had offered up the witness evidence to UEFA in the first instance then it might never have got that far anyway and City may well have been cleared by UEFA, so I think it's a leap to suggest that if certain documents had been presented then that would've led to CAS coming to a different verdict.

And speaking of evidence, I still find it astonishing that of the time-barred evidence, UEFA were prepared to use one e-mail that pre-dated their own FFP rules - something which would've rendered that particular accusation irrelevant anyway.
Click to expand...

My take on that section is that CAS are basically saying that there can be significant consequences should someone not fully disclose when requested

Unless I have missed something in another section of the CAS narrative it seemed that UEFA made a request to have be given sight of an un redacted full run of the emails that request was never met but because UEFA didn’t in effect properly follow up no adverse conclusion could be taken from the non production.
 
Protein Junkie said:
Dropped a major bollock this morning. Scrolling Facebook with a pre work coffee and inevitably loads of articles on this subject.
And then the fuckers drag me in. Most of the anti City comments are beyond farcical and just can’t be left alone.
The Key is not to reply and that’s where I’ve fucked up.
Click to expand...
I just tell them : "innocent until proven guilty, but if you're that desperate for us to be guilty of SOMETHING, then that's a sad reflection on you and the club you support."

It's that desperation that warms my heart. You have to stoop very low to WISH another club HAD cheated. It's to ease their pain.
 
terraloon said:
I think you are referring to the application by MCFC to be awarded costs.

CAS at 340 are in effect saying that had MCFC disclosed information earlier it’s possible ( CAS deliberately make the point that they aren’t in a position to say what UEFA would or wouldn’t conclude) that CAS may not have needed to be involved.
It’s quite a subtle difference but they are saying that full disclosure could possibly have dealt with the matter at appeal
As for the leaks the CAS commentary on that is all over the place and at one point I was wondering if they were inferring the leaks didn’t actually come from UEFA.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I've read the document fully so I may have misremembered but my point still stands that your point was wrong ;)

I read the paragraphs you referred to earlier and I think you have also misrepresented those. The issue under discussion is what UEFA had reasonable expectation of receiving from City and then what inference could be drawn from City's non-compliance which in effect is little because UEFA stopped asking and said they were cool to proceed with the answers we had given.

This does not equate to the scenario you presented in the post I replied to. Of course I may also be reading stuff but the words "no evidence" should be easy enough to understand
 
terraloon said:
I think you are referring to the application by MCFC to be awarded costs.

CAS at 340 are in effect saying that had MCFC disclosed information earlier it’s possible ( CAS deliberately make the point that they aren’t in a position to say what UEFA would or wouldn’t conclude) that CAS may not have needed to be involved.
It’s quite a subtle difference but they are saying that full disclosure could possibly have dealt with the matter at appeal
As for the leaks the CAS commentary on that is all over the place and at one point I was wondering if they were inferring the leaks didn’t actually come from UEFA.
Click to expand...
You are right about 340 so perhaps I overstated how significant that was in the context. However it is not insignificant and still counters your claim ;)
 
Maly said:
This may help you bud

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/manchester-city-charged-by-the-premier
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I might have missed that report. Easy and clear to read and understand.

Blame the accountants. Bunch of rags tripped us up.

Why have city not presented the proof needed to stop the investigation? If we are stonewalling the opposition to this extent. We must have decided that (a) we wanted an independent tribunal to fully clear us and take the media character assassination. Or (b) something in those accounts can be interpreted to show guilt and give the premier league the chance to follow through with their claims.

Grandstanding by the league. Only loser is city, and the fans. I can understand city not wanting to open the books with the leaks out of Uefa. I can’t get my head around the irrefutable proof v brand defamation. The relationship is poisonous now anyway.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
If we were found to be uncooperative in the UEFA case, I don’t see how we wouldn’t be here too. I doubt our strategy has changed too much in that regard. I don’t even see it as much of an assumption, it seems almost certain.
Click to expand...
We refused to cooperate with the UEFA investigative chamber because Leterme was leaking information, we went to CAS to get them to rule which we lost this was before the big CAS trial the leaks were the reason the fine was reduced by CAS from £30m to 10 but we admitted non cooperation so we had to be fined
With the PL we felt that it was unfair to give them confidential information as it could be leaked to rivals. We went to the high court and they ruled against us, we then appealed the decision to make the verdict public which was supported by PL however, the judge ruled that it was in the public interest he even commented that City had won 3 PLs during the i and thought it was odd how long it was taking a major dig at PL We then cooperated with PL maybe not as much as they would like though
 
wolviedinho said:
Thanks for that. I might have missed that report. Easy and clear to read and understand.

Blame the accountants. Bunch of rags tripped us up.

Why have city not presented the proof needed to stop the investigation? If we are stonewalling the opposition to this extent. We must have decided that (a) we wanted an independent tribunal to fully clear us and take the media character assassination. Or (b) something in those accounts can be interpreted to show guilt and give the premier league the chance to follow through with their claims.

Grandstanding by the league. Only loser is city, and the fans. I can understand city not wanting to open the books with the leaks out of Uefa. I can’t get my head around the irrefutable proof v brand defamation. The relationship is poisonous now anyway.
Click to expand...
Out of all the reports I’ve seen, I think this is the easiest for a layman to understand mate
 
applecentral said:
Your putting a lot of pressure on the man. Perhaps he has another life and can’t be here taking questions constantly.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
You mean he he has a proper job with a contract, along with the under the table contract he has with Ric?

Shhhhhh, don’t tell the Premier League, they’ll be coming after Bluemoon next
 
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