PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Manchester_lalala]

One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.

Starting to think your name is a piss take seeing as every post I see from you makes me depressed.

 

[paska]

He/she wasn't hacked as far as I'm aware. The three employees who had already left, knew their log in details, either through familiarity with the remaining person or they were given them at one time for whatever reason. It did cross my mind that he/she was left in place on purpose as an undercover spy, but I suspect that the club would have pressed for a prosecution if they had any inkling of that.

The entire system was accessed, so that wouldn’t add up.

 

[paska]

The judicial panel is appointed as per the attachments as per rules W.20, W.21 and W.26.

The appointed panel members have to sign an impartiality agreement and I believe as the Respondent to the charges we have 48 hours to raise any objections to the proposed panel members.

Assuming the appointed panel members abide by the impartiality conditions then this should not be an issue.

Why are you assuming that?

It’s not like anyone has never signed something and done something else before? Especially when there’s no way of pinning that on them

 

[I'm Blue]

So what have I missed?
There seems to be a sudden negative outlook in this thread.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It would be great to get clarification of that.

I’m sick of hearing other fans say that the whole case was 2 1. And that it’s only because we picked 2 of the panel.

I wouldn't get your hopes up. Speaking of recollections only, I seem to remember that the major issues, that were all found in favour of City, or at least, were not found in favour of UEFA, were majority decisions, but of all the preliminary decisions over procedure that were unanimous, most went against City. Which seems to imply that "their" arbitrator voted with UEFA pretty much every time, but "our" arbitrator voted on merit. I also seem to remember that at some point in the document, when the meatier issues were discussed, the award even said something like, "from now on we will just refer to "the panel finds" as all the decisions from now on were majority".

Or did I dream all that?

Sorry for being a bit vague, but I really don't want to read it all again to find the references.

Either way, I wouldn't worry what know-nothing football fans say about legal procedure.

 

[Keeper!]

Quite a lot of our admin back room staff are leaving, another one today off to Celtic. Is it linked in anyway I wonder?

LOL a big career jump going from us to Celtic FFS

 

[Super-Barwuah]

Mostly ! Everyr fan who has voiced their vitriol about us will have no idea what we're are illedged to have done wrong !!!

Maybe that's because Simon Jordan on talksport is allowed to spew lies and hate and mention city with its "manufactured club with no history" claim and the ordinary fans takes it as gospel I know I know I'm guilty of listening to ts but he can't help himself he has to drag city into any argument ...I really hope he slips up one day with his words but he's there for a reason and is getting away with it

 

[Bez]

Why are you assuming that?

It’s not like anyone has never signed something and done something else before? Especially when there’s no way of pinning that on them

Depends which lens you choose to look through. I have no idea what level of integrity the panel will have nor does anyone else on this forum. We can only guess. However, it is a known fact that when someone looks someone in the eye, which the tribunal will have to do to Man City and our representatives, human beings are more likely to be honest. Plus, the tribunal members will have personal reputations to maintain.

The impartiality agreement if breached by a tribunal member would no doubt have legal ramifications for that individual if proven. Do you want to be sued by Man City?

 

[Newman Noggs]

The impartiality agreement if breached by a tribunal member would no doubt have legal ramifications for that individual if proven. Do you want to be sued by Man City?

And how would you prove that someone's opinion lacked impartiality ?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Indeed, as is the idea that City intend to ‘finally clear their name’……

If an immaterial punishment were offered in exchange for a guilty finding on all charges, City would snap your cock off for it.

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

 

[Ric]

So what have I missed?
There seems to be a sudden negative outlook in this thread.

Literally nothing has changed, as far as I’m aware. The club remain confident they’ll be cleared of the most serious charges, so that’ll do for me. Some people are convinced it’ll be a stitch-up, but I’d like to believe the panel will be impartial. Little point in stressing about hypotheticals at this stage, especially as this is still likely to run for some time.

 

[Keeper!]

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

100% this, as you rightly said, we fell for that nonsense with UEFA and see where that go us!

This time we 100% have to be cleared of any sort of accountancy fraud/sponsorship doctoring to stop the rumours.

I can see them finding us guilty on the non-compliance but in the big picture that is absolutely nothing.

 

[Keeper!]

Maybe that's because Simon Jordan on talksport is allowed to spew lies and hate and mention city with its "manufactured club with no history" claim and the ordinary fans takes it as gospel I know I know I'm guilty of listening to ts but he can't help himself he has to drag city into any argument ...I really hope he slips up one day with his words but he's there for a reason and is getting away with it

Anyone and I mean anyone who gets upset with comments like"manufactured club with no history", need to grow a pair.

If our "irrefutable evidence" is just that, all those type of statements from the media will have to end, or I would think the people/organisations behind them will end up in the courts, and that would be long overdue.

 

[Keeper!]

And how would you prove that someone's opinion lacked impartiality ?

 

[willipp]

You don't think City have already been offered that plea bargain?

We have accused them of grand scale phishing, which is why we continue to assert the narrative "clear and obvious"

We brokered a pinch with Platini and Uefa, because we didn't want to harm the business at that time.

These Premier League accusations/charges threaten the very existence of the Club and are so much more serious, possibly threaten jail time for some individuals.

We have spent four years playing legal footsie when all we had to do was take another pinch?

The Premier League wanted to keep this all in-house and yet we preferred to have our day before an independent panel.

That should tell us this isn't a zero sum game, the Club want to clear our name once and for all.

I have to trust you don't gamble a £4bn asset on the premise we bet it all on black.

It’s almost as if some people would rather we were found guilty so they can carry on the doom and gloom. Your last sentence is what gives me the confidence we will be ok.

 

[Bandofblues]

Literally nothing has changed, as far as I’m aware. The club remain confident they’ll be cleared of the most serious charges, so that’ll do for me. Some people are convinced it’ll be a stitch-up, but I’d like to believe the panel will be impartial. Little point in stressing about hypotheticals at this stage, especially as this is still likely to run for some time.

LOL 1700 pages summarised in just 4 sentences :-)

 

[PistonBlue]

Maybe that's because Simon Jordan on talksport is allowed to spew lies and hate and mention city with its "manufactured club with no history" claim and the ordinary fans takes it as gospel I know I know I'm guilty of listening to ts but he can't help himself he has to drag city into any argument ...I really hope he slips up one day with his words but he's there for a reason and is getting away with it

Manufactured posh bloke, likes others to think he's intelligent, but actually has a very poor history in football finance. I genuinely don't know why anyone listens to him let alone pays any attention to him.

 

[terraloon]

Just a question about the player's remuneration.
How is their individual sponsorship (e.g. boots) get paid? To them directly or through the club?

Individual boot deals with say Nike are separate in that they are between the players and the sponsor and have an agreed value.

Image rights are in effect an agreement between the club who agree to pay a sum ( it used to be a set % but it’s now a quantified and independently validated number on a player by player basis) of a player’s overall pay in effect by way of compensation allowing the club to use the players image for instance in club commercial activities.

The principal of these payments are completely legit .

HMRC wanted to stop them in the day ( or Inland Revenue as it was then )but the lost a trial case against Arsenal and certain players but football being football the clubs, the player, the agents pushed it too far and the % of players wages that clubs were paying into companies was stupid some times 90% hence why The FA became involved and they and HMRC agreed a framework which remains in place to this day but….

When a player signs a contract all the financial details have to be listed on the contract and that is lodged with the PL and the FA and that includes the image rights payment

The rules in this country are clear that all of player’s remuneration per the contract have to be be made by the club.They can not be made by any other entity

It gets even more complex and something that’s a live topic in that HMRC are actively looking at payments in respect of image rights.They, HMRC , have no issue if they are paid in line with the terms of that Arsenal ruling because that tribunal gave the green light because these payments were paid into UK based companies who in turn will pay CT , if appropriate VAT , etc

The problem now is that if the payment goes to an off shore company, which many players have set up then it’s deemed by HMRC to be tax evasion. Most if not all PL and indeed Championship clubs are or were under investigation. My club , Chelsea, it seems have settled with HMRC the issue was disclosed during Bohleys due diligence and a vast sum ( tens of millions) was diverted from the sale proceeds to clear this matter up.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Individual boot deals with say Nike are separate in that they are between the players and the sponsor and have an agreed value.

Image rights are in effect an agreement between the club who agree to pay a sum ( it used to be a set % but it’s now a quantified and independently validated number on a player by player basis) of a player’s overall pay in effect by way of compensation allowing the club to use the players image for instance in club commercial activities.

The principal of these payments are completely legit .

HMRC wanted to stop them in the day ( or Inland Revenue as it was then )but the lost a trial case against Arsenal and certain players but football being football the clubs, the player, the agents pushed it too far and the % of players wages that clubs were paying into companies was stupid some times 90% hence why The FA became involved and they and HMRC agreed a framework which remains in place to this day but….

When a player signs a contract all the financial details have to be listed on the contract and that is lodged with the PL and the FA and that includes the image rights payment

The rules in this country are clear that all of player’s remuneration per the contract have to be be made by the club.

It gets even more complex and something that’s a live topic in that HMRC are actively looking at payments in respect of image rights.They, HMRC , have no issue if they are paid in line with the terms of that Arsenal ruling because that tribunal gave the green light because these payments were paid into UK based companies who in turn will pay CT , if appropriate VAT , etc

The problem now is that if the payment goes to an off shore company, which many players have set up then it’s deemed by HMRC to be tax evasion. Most if not all PL and indeed Championship clubs are or were under investigation. My club , Chelsea, it seems have settled with HMRC the issue was disclosed during Bohleys due diligence and a vast sum ( tens of millions) was diverted from the sale proceeds to clear this matter up.

Isn't tax evasion a criminal offence?

 

[Blumooniac]

Manufactured posh bloke, likes others to think he's intelligent, but actually has a very poor history in football finance. I genuinely don't know why anyone listens to him let alone pays any attention to him.

He reminds me of Stanley Unwin, just not as funny or intelligent.