PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

give it to gordon said:
That's the bit I dont understand, dippers money laundering gun running bank, why isnt that investigated ? Or Leicester sponsorship ?
Click to expand...

What exactly do you want them to investigate about Liverpool's Standard Chartered sponsorship?

Every large bank in the world has been slapped for breaching anti money laundering controls. No one thinks that makes them unacceptable to do business with. Not the government, not the millions of customers they have and not the Premier League.

HSBC, NatWest, Santander, TSB, Metro Bank, Credit Suisse, Lloyds, Bank of Scotland, UBS, Goldman Sachs....Even title sponsor of the league Barclays.
 
Last edited:
give it to gordon said:
I totally agree with Liam Gallagher and that's the point how is it legal to investigate only one club ?

That's the bit I dont understand, dippers money laundering gun running bank, why isnt that investigated ? Or Leicester sponsorship ?

I dont understand how the charges against City can be taken seriously when the pl ignore the hateful 8.

Time to sign off I think I'm going round in circles lol
Click to expand...

It’s interesting that potential new owners wanting to buy United can’t get a proper understanding of the club’s finances due to the accounts being hidden away in the Cayman Islands. Why is that and how can two governing bodies like Uefa and The Premier League form an understanding of what is going on with a club that is saddled with debt all the while whilst interest rates rise up.

It’s also of interest that their past two shirts sponsors in Team Viewer and Chevrolet payed more than what they should have. This is at the same time everyone is frothing at the mouth over City’s Etihad deal which is £10 million pound more a year than Arsenal’s deal with Emirates. This is City who have won 4 out of the last 5 premier leagues and have competed in the champions league for over a decade where Arsenal haven’t. There’s not a witch hunt going in though is there?
 
domalino said:
What exactly do you want them to investigate about Liverpool & Standard Chartered?
Click to expand...

Isnt having a money laundering gun running bank sponsor against PL rules ? I mean if a owner cant put as much as he wants into his business. How can money laundering gun running banks be allowed ?
 
dickie davies said:
If a criminal investigation had taken place about liverpool accessing City's database, City would have also been prosecuted for not adequately protecting sensitive personal data that had been trusted to it
Click to expand...
I don’t get that. I am not sure the data is that personal it’s data about players won’t it be in the public domain or subjective ? In any event if that’s true then why did no investigation happen the police can do what they want the information is in the public domain same with this lots of alligator s and the possibility of them amounting to false accounting fraud tax evasion or whatever.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
It’s interesting that potential new owners wanting to buy United can’t get a proper understanding of the club’s finances due to the accounts being hidden away in the Cayman Islands. Why is that and how can two governing bodies like Uefa and The Premier League form an understanding of what is going on with a club that is saddled with debt all the while whilst interest rates rise up.

It’s also of interest that their past two shirts sponsors in Team Viewer and Chevrolet payed more than what they should have. This is at the same time everyone is frothing at the mouth over City’s Etihad deal which is £10 million pound more a year than Arsenal’s deal with Emirates. This is City who have won 4 out of the last 5 premier leagues and have competed in the champions league for over a decade where Arsenal haven’t. There’s not a witch hunt going in though is there?
Click to expand...

100%

Didnt team viewer go bust ?
 
give it to gordon said:
Isnt having a money laundering gun running bank against PL rules ? I mean if a owner cant put as much as he wants into his business. How can money laundering gun running banks be allowed ?
Click to expand...

I expanded on my comment above, but if using a bank that money laundered was against the rules, every club in the world would be forced into keeping money under the mattress.
 
give it to gordon said:
I totally agree with Liam Gallagher and that's the point how is it legal to investigate only one club ?

That's the bit I dont understand, dippers money laundering gun running bank, why isnt that investigated ? Or Leicester sponsorship ?

I dont understand how the charges against City can be taken seriously when the pl ignore the hateful 8.

Time to sign off I think I'm going round in circles lol
Click to expand...
As @domalino said, I'm not sure Liverpool's sponsors come under the PL umbrella so probably not a great example to use. A better example regarding Liverpool would be tens of millions of pounds of costs associated with their non-existent new stadium being included in their accounts at a time when they were in serious danger of failing UEFA's FFP rules.

Leicester were actually found to be in breach of the Championship's FFP rules in 2013-14. They brought their losses down from £34m to £21m partly because they signed a deal that involved selling sponsorship of the club's shirt and stadium back to King Power. Leicester disputed the breach for years but eventually paid a settlement of £3.1m to the Football League.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
It was probably not an obvious cooperative at the time - Hicks & Gillette had just bought Liverpool, Arsenal had split ownership, and ENIC/Lewis/Levy hadn't got sole control of Spurs either (I think).
Click to expand...
Do you feel Sheikh Ms takeover actually catalysed the cartel formation then?
I know via this forum from early days FFP was proposed but was hastily modified in its original form to make investment the villain of the piece rather than debt.
I often thought Mr McCawber would have cringed at such a distortion of proper practice.
 
give it to gordon said:
I totally agree with Liam Gallagher and that's the point how is it legal to investigate only one club ?

That's the bit I dont understand, dippers money laundering gun running bank, why isnt that investigated ? Or Leicester sponsorship ?

I dont understand how the charges against City can be taken seriously when the pl ignore the hateful 8.

Time to sign off I think I'm going round in circles lol
Click to expand...
I honestly think that's the best bet mate. You will drive yourself mad for the next few years or however long it takes thinking about it, but the reality is there are no answers until something official. Lets get back to enjoying the football as all this negative stuff really does drag you down.
 
give it to gordon said:
Isnt having a money laundering gun running bank sponsor against PL rules ? I mean if an owner cant put as much as he wants into his business. How can money laundering gun running banks be allowed ?
Click to expand...
Cities main Bankers are Barclays.

Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC

As Barclays have reported in their Regulatory News Service announcement, the High Court has today ruled against the SFO’s application, seeking to reinstate the charges previously dismissed in the Crown Court.
www.sfo.gov.uk www.sfo.gov.uk

Just like Liverpool, indeed just like most clubs they deal with institutions, with sponsors that almost certainly aren’t squeaky clean I am far from sure that we really need to get into guilt by association
 
paska said:
Still nothing to do with those who remain on our payroll

They’re dippers now
Click to expand...
Three had already left, the one whose log in details they were using, was still there until at least 8 months later. This is presuming that City revoked the log in details of anyone who left the club. Whether he/she is still there I have no idea.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Do you feel Sheikh Ms takeover actually catalysed the cartel formation then?
I know via this forum from early days FFP was proposed but was hastily modified in its original form to make investment the villain of the piece rather than debt.
I often thought Mr McCawber would have cringed at such a distortion of proper practice.
Click to expand...

FFP is a strange one. I thought that the PL version was a follow-up to the UEFA version - that very definitely was neutered from the original proposal against debt (Platini's version, I think?), to the actual enforced one which is all based on income.

I don't think we catalysed the euroCartel, although we may have hastened it slightly - I think Abramovich was the original trigger and then PSG/City came along a few years later, threatening that others might do the same. The aim was to make it less attractive by protecting the establishment - PSG basically ignored it and took the lumps, we dived through the trapdoor before it slammed shut and got hit on the way through. But we got through.

As we'd got through, we took a seat at the CL cashpit, by which point more US owners had come in and those affected got together to form a pressure group. FSG didn't get the transfer price cap they'd been all but promised, and the US sports owners view their model as better for the owners. For a domestic cartel, I guess we did partly drive them together as the access to CL loot is essential to anyone whose owners won't fund stadium rebuilds.

The recent claims about Liverpool/MU having a secret interview with PL CEO candidates and the disastrous plan from those two clubs have lifted the curtain on the need for regulation, and the latter and the ESL fiasco have weakened their claims that football can regulate itself. Greed eating itself.
 
give it to gordon said:
So why hasnt someone gone though these millions of emails on other clubs ? Surely the dippers would emails about hacking our pc's.
Why just City that in itself is clearly wrong and makes the case weak in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Pinto (or whoever) hacked our email servers, not Liverpool's.

He also hacked Benfica's, Bayern Munich's(?), Doyen Sports (hence the Ronaldo alleged rape emails), a bank in the Cayman Isles, the Portuguese police team investigating him plus one of the judges in his case and many, many others.

That doesn't mean he's hacked the entire world.
 
I think from day 1 the group of powerful history clubs have always had their scapegoat people to purge should things get tough for them.
From FIFA to UEFA their hubris ruled and still does to some extent.
Is it possible the PL rules have been too smart in making themselves the only port of call for Appeal?

I think extreme hubris allowed them to exclude the possibility of UK Gov interference into a purely UK Organizational set of business rules.
 
Centurions said:
Pinto (or whoever) hacked our email servers, not Liverpool's.

He also hacked Benfica's, Bayern Munich's(?), Doyen Sports (hence the Ronaldo alleged rape emails), a bank in the Cayman Isles, the Portuguese police team investigating him plus one of the judges in his case and many, many others.

That doesn't mean he's hacked the entire world.
Click to expand...
It's a shame he didn't hack a certain football club registered in the Cayman Isles!
 
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