PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
The limitation act also says that if you are bringing a claim based on the fraud of the other party the limitation period does not start to run until you had knowledge of the fraud. So the six year period begins not with the date of the breaches, but the date those breaches became known to the PL - IF they were breaches brought about by fraud.
Click to expand...

Wait that might need a laymans term explanation..

Keypoint.. they implicated us on fraud now in 2023 right?

or the cutoff date is 2019?

Dodge said:
Make of this what you will, but I've just been privy to some startling information that would blow the lid off PGMOL and the power brokers at the Premier League, if it became public. It involves a recording of a conversation between the match day referee and VAR official at a recent away match, a recording that is now in the hands of City.

It's my firm belief that City have compiled a dossier so incendiary, that the Premier League will have no choice but to totally exonerate the Club of any wrongdoing. If they don't, this is going nuclear. Either way, we hold all the cards and this explains why we're so bullish about the eventual outcome. The Premier League are on the back foot, and in my opinion, are currently lobbying the membership as to how best to quietly end the process. I have also been advised that at least one of the "Nasty 9" has had board level discussions with City, distancing themselves from the others in the cabal.

Pep's press conference tells us all we need to know. Watch it again, look at the anger and barely controllable rage in the mans eyes. His attitude wasn't based upon him being reassured about some poxy finances & bullshit charges, it was because he KNOWS exactly what is coming.

Sit back and enjoy the ride Blues.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, I know you mean well but that's 1 too many conspiracy theories for me!
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
What made me suspicious was that virtually all the press ran a story saying the decision had been made by VAR which suggested they had been briefed. It was obvious in the ground that Attwell had overruled the linesman and there was not enough time for any proper VAR check. So Michael Oliver was stitched up. The worst thing is the broadcasters must be aware of this because they hear the taped conversation but they have not broadcast the story. I believe the broadcasters are complicit in the failure of VAR. It doesn't automatically mean it was a bent decision but it does mean it was a total cock-up which has been covered up. Let's see what happens.
Click to expand...

If it was working at all! We remember Neville at Anfield a few years back merrily claiming that VAR had checked an offside within about 10 seconds.

My understanding is that VAR cannot make that decision though - it's the rules.
They can recommend a review, as the question to be decided wasn't to do with the offside line itself, but the player action.

I agree it looked very strange that the TV studio people were unanimous that it was wrong.
 
I find it extremely odd that Prem FFP was brought in to protect clubs, yet if we’ve breached it & are found guilty, so many want us to be scrubbed from existence, when the whole essence of FFP is to ensure clubs don’t go out of existence

Weird eh? Wonder why that is when it was so terrible what happened to Bolton for instance?
 
chesterbells said:
Did they? Didn’t realise that. So did anyone else ‘withdraw’ their signature back then, or was it just Wolves?
Click to expand...

Just Wolves, I think. Within hours of it becoming known.
I think that's why it went from 9 signatories to 8.
Can't find proof of it offhand.

Obviously there are new owners now at Newcastle too, so I'm not too sure it's fair to rope their owners in too.
 
zandvoort blue said:
Conspiracy theory here - perhaps these dodgy decisions of late are deliberate, so as to create a smokescreen. They can then say, look it`s not just City that are the victim of poor refereeing/VAR decisions.
Click to expand...
Have to say, the same thing crossed my mind at the weekend.

I found myself wondering if they were all in squeaky bum territory. The PL PGMOL et al.

And this was before any dodgey info being thrown our way.
 
KS55 said:
The emails are not evidence of wrong doing. They are evidence of a conversation. They may ’point to’ wrong doing but the PL has to prove wrong doing not stupid gossip.
PS I posted this a million times on the CAS case and CAS agreed, counting the emails as
Click to expand...
Maly said:
I’m surprised you’re being questioned in this manner as it seems clear as day you have decent experience in this arena & really do know your stuff far more than the huge majority on here

Thanks for all your input
Click to expand...
People always question. It’s natural curiosity and not offensive at all.
 
WRicko said:
You say difference as if there is more of a connection between for example City and Etihad than for example Bayern and Audi. This actually proves my point is that City are owned by the sheik in a private capacity and others through CFG. City are sponsored by several Abu Dhabi state owned companies. Etihad, Etisalet, etc and companies in Abu Dhabi owned by private individuals. There is not even a single share owned by any city individuals and a sponsor. Yet for the media and rival fans and I believe UEFA for two of the companies (City wanted to fight but chose not to ) City are in some way heavily connected to these companies and they are over paying these companies are apparently effectively related part not sure people actually use those terms it’s a bit to technical for joe public.

Where as Bayern are beyond reproach despite common ownership and abnormally high commercial income and a very insular league and these companies not really needing the sponsorship. O and not to mention your history of dodgy ness with Rumminager.

We are looked into and looked into again and again and again and when nothing is wrong we are still assumed guilty if not by the bodies that matter at least rival fans and the media

I would add that none of the companies / sponsors are related parties in the accounts
Click to expand...
I do not have much knowledge of City and the sheikh. And I try not to judge.

But - when I look at Wikipedia - City is 100% owned by the city football group limited that is owned by 81% from Newton Investment and Development LLC that is 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour.
To get that easier - City is owned by atleast 81% by the Sheikh. We talk about a majority ownership from the Sheikh.

And at Bayern we talk about 7% that Audi has from FC Bayern - 93% are owned by others. A minority share without any real legal influence in what the club does apart from a seat in the supervisory board.

You see the difference? Else any discussion doesn't make any sense!

I think it is selfexplainable why clubs like City, Rasenball, Wolfsburg etc. are looked into as you have related parties - parties that are not independent from each other that own a majority share of the club and possible sponsorships.

If City is clean is not my thing to answer or judge! Or to proof the opposite. I guess even as a fan you cannot and have to believe what they tell you!



​

 
Maldeika said:
I do not have much knowledge of City and the sheikh. And I try not to judge.

But - when I look at Wikipedia - City is 100% owned by the city football group limited that is owned by 81% from Newton Investment and Development LLC that is 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour.
To get that easier - City is owned by atleast 81% by the Sheikh. We talk about a majority ownership from the Sheikh.

And at Bayern we talk about 7% that Audi has from FC Bayern - 93% are owned by others. A minority share without any real legal influence in what the club does apart from a seat in the supervisory board.

You see the difference? Else any discussion doesn't make any sense!

I think it is selfexplainable why clubs like City, Rasenball, Wolfsburg etc. are looked into as you have related parties - parties that are not independent from each other that own a majority share of the club and possible sponsorships.

If City is clean is not my thing to answer or judge! Or to proof the opposite. I guess even as a fan you cannot and have to believe what they tell you!



​

Click to expand...
You’ve been on here 12 years … you have claimed not to have much knowledge on city after nearly three thousand posts.
but this but that … it’s effing boring mate .
You might be genuine . But..,
 
Maldeika said:
I do not have much knowledge of City and the sheikh. And I try not to judge.

But - when I look at Wikipedia - City is 100% owned by the city football group limited that is owned by 81% from Newton Investment and Development LLC that is 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour.
To get that easier - City is owned by atleast 81% by the Sheikh. We talk about a majority ownership from the Sheikh.

And at Bayern we talk about 7% that Audi has from FC Bayern - 93% are owned by others. A minority share without any real legal influence in what the club does apart from a seat in the supervisory board.

You see the difference? Else any discussion doesn't make any sense!

I think it is selfexplainable why clubs like City, Rasenball, Wolfsburg etc. are looked into as you have related parties - parties that are not independent from each other that own a majority share of the club and possible sponsorships.

If City is clean is not my thing to answer or judge! Or to proof the opposite. I guess even as a fan you cannot and have to believe what they tell you!



​

Click to expand...
Your completely missing the point.

Forget how the ownership is set up, if these large Bavarian companies want your beloved German Rags to win the league every year then maybe just maybe they are plowing more money into Bayern than they need to!
 
Maldeika said:
I do not have much knowledge of City and the sheikh. And I try not to judge.

But - when I look at Wikipedia - City is 100% owned by the city football group limited that is owned by 81% from Newton Investment and Development LLC that is 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour.
To get that easier - City is owned by atleast 81% by the Sheikh. We talk about a majority ownership from the Sheikh.

And at Bayern we talk about 7% that Audi has from FC Bayern - 93% are owned by others. A minority share without any real legal influence in what the club does apart from a seat in the supervisory board.

You see the difference? Else any discussion doesn't make any sense!

I think it is selfexplainable why clubs like City, Rasenball, Wolfsburg etc. are looked into as you have related parties - parties that are not independent from each other that own a majority share of the club and possible sponsorships.

If City is clean is not my thing to answer or judge! Or to proof the opposite. I guess even as a fan you cannot and have to believe what they tell you!



​

Click to expand...
I want to let you off because my understanding is that English is your second language and your English in written form might be better than mine and it’s certainly better than my German.

However when you do so well in explaining yourself and your posts perhaps unintentionally support my own view yet you insists my club should somehow be treated unfairly and might have done something wrong then I get a little annoyed. I want to respond to your posts but I don’t want to keep going over old ground.

So I will say it one more time

There is no common ownership between city owners sheik or others and any sponsors Etihad etc etc

Yet I believe two companies are treated as related party by EUFA they had their value capped. Not related party in the accounts or according to international standards. The standards which the rules set out by UEFA are based on.

Other sponsors are in affect treated as related party either through claims they over pay or claims they are related party / connected to the owner sometimes just by the fact they come from the same country.

On the other hand Bayerns sponsor are not checked. Let alone having the club and sponsors accused when they have common ownership all be it small shareholding.

Thanks for your response and thanks for making my point for me.
 
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