PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Greenblue92 said:
Hmm..
https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-...-agree-multi-year-front-of-shirt-partnership/
Click to expand...
I find it bizarre is that ANYONE should think it remotely odd that when a club has ties with a certain country, that significant organizations in that country or connected to that country, should find it appealing to sponsor that club.

Of course Newcastle will want to leverage this, just as we have done and there's nowt wrong with it, much though the PL and our antagonists would like to think.

No different from Elton John wanting to put money into Watford or ditto Delia Smith and Norwich. People and organizations want to support clubs they feel a connection with.
 
Last edited:
Newman Noggs said:
Forget any idea of any criminal sanctions even if they do manage to stitch us up. I've been involved in fraud investigation and litigation, civil and criminal, on behalf of government for 40 years and there's not a prosecuting authority that would touch this with a barge-pole.
Click to expand...
Do you think that you'll make a career out of it then?
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Apologies if already covered.

I’ve been following the reports from Sky (May) and others, (including Delooney) in June, that the Prem Lge authorities will need to make a decision soon on the application from Newcastle to replace their gambling industry shirt sponsors with an entity (Sela) that is based in Saudi.

Why this is potentially interesting is that some speculate that Sela can be viewed as a comparator deal against our Etihad arrangement.
Newcastle will need an answer soon in order to organise merchandise for 2023/4.

If any of the charges against us stray into the old chestnut of ‘related parties’ …and the Prem sign off on the Newcastle deal then it’s another self inflicted shotgun blast to the EPL feet.

As many posters on here have already said the istry clubs will be shitting themselves at the prospect of the barcodes fully integrating themselves into the top four. Maybe this sponsorship arrangement is the first acid test for Newcastles new arrangements.

You can only imagine the corridor discussions with the Prem Lge led by the duplicitous ferrets from the hateful 8.
Click to expand...
Re Newcastle shirt sponsor announcement… I didn’t expect my post earlier to be answered today. Related party / associated party, let’s party. I know it doesnt touch the fair value (but CAS did) or the EPL suspicions of scurrilous accounting and hidden costs but this EPL decision on Newcastles shirt sponsor seems to scupperthe chances of the related/associated angle being relevant going forward. Their new sponsor appears to exist as a Saudi state funded entity.
 
KS55 said:
Have the PL given us details yet? They are supposed to disclose exactly what we are charged with and the evidence therefor.
Click to expand...

They have. There was a whole list published. We have been charged, the alleged breaches have been made available.

The extent of punishment comes next, once the panel review it, against the evidence or arguements we provide to counter the charges.

I believe the club and the confidence, but it is not to be trivialised
 
Coatigan said:
They have. There was a whole list published. We have been charged, the alleged breaches have been made available.

The extent of punishment comes next, once the panel review it, against the evidence or arguements we provide to counter the charges.

I believe the club and the confidence, but it is not to be trivialised
Click to expand...
Where was the evidence or the specifics? A list of rules that we are alleged to have broken does not suffice. We are entitled to disclosure.
 
KS55 said:
Where was the evidence or the specifics? A list of rules that we are alleged to have broken does not suffice. We are entitled to disclosure.
Click to expand...

The evidence is, according go the PL, our own books and all the documents we have provided them with, that they have spent 4 years examining.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I find it bizarre is that ANYONE should think it remotely odd that when a club has ties with a certain country, that significant organizations in that country or connected to that country, should find it appealing to sponsor that club.

Of course Newcastle will want to leverage this, just as we have done and there's nowt wrong with it, much though the PL and our antagonists would like to think.

No different from Elton John wanting to put money into Watford of ditto Delia Smith and Norwich. People and organizations want to support clubs they feel a connection with.
Click to expand...
Indeed. If wanting Sponsorship, you go to your contacts, counterparties, friends, shareholders etc first. Cold calling is not the way.
The ignorance of the press was shown up by their attacking the deal with the hotel, assuming it was an AbuDhabi company. AD do indeed own the building but it is the tenants who operate the hotel and they are a HK/UK company. City stay there when training in AD.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I find it bizarre is that ANYONE should think it remotely odd that when a club has ties with a certain country, that significant organizations in that country or connected to that country, should find it appealing to sponsor that club.

Of course Newcastle will want to leverage this, just as we have done and there's nowt wrong with it, much though the PL and our antagonists would like to think.

No different from Elton John wanting to put money into Watford of ditto Delia Smith and Norwich. People and organizations want to support clubs they feel a connection with.
Click to expand...

Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....
 
KS55 said:
UEFA had the same tale: “The evidence is in a document provided by City” They failed to produce this mythical document! The PL need to be specific.
Click to expand...
There's never been a PUBLIC statement on exactly what in our books they believe has been mis-stated, when, and, for clarity, how much money we're talking about. As an example, they could in theory decide we've understated cost by £1m in 2004. Therefore the brought forward numbers in 2005 onwards are also mis-stated and therefore we're guilty of multiple charges.

Obviously the media and commentators of all sorts assume these are large amounts that affect the ability of the club to compete in the way we did, but we don't actually know what's involved as no-one has said publically. FWIW, I think thats the right way to do it, it's not an inquiry to be decided in public, but Delaney and Co have already reached their verdict without any facts, so not sure its had the desired effect.
 
KS55 said:
UEFA had the same tale: “The evidence is in a document provided by City” They failed to produce this mythical document! The PL need to be specific.
Click to expand...

Who for?

You would hope the club know the specifics and that is what the lawyers will be arguing to the panel.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Whilst I agree no-one on here has a scooby, it's not really true to say that if our audited accounts are OK, then we haven't broken PL rules.

First, the PL were quite sneaky in NOT adopting the usual IAS24 accounting standards on Related Parties, instead defining "Associated Parties", with subtly different definitions and the ability for the PL to interpret (misinterpret) things differently.

Also, we could very possibly be guilty of not complying with all the requests for info, which would be a breach, albeit one they would have difficulty in sanctioning us with more than a slap on the wrist and minor fine, IMO.
Click to expand...
I didn't actually say that our accounts must be OK because they were signed off. My point is that CAS found that UEFA had not produced any evidence to prove that our accounts misrepresented the club's financial position, and so it is hard to see how the PL can bring forward evidence compelling enough to convince an independent commission that City have falsified those accounts. It also seems likely that an independent commission would be rather alarmed that the accounts of any limited company were to be audited according to standards which are not accepted internationally and that any "misinterpretations" would be pointed out and the conclusion would most likely be that there had been no INTENTIONAL breaking of PL rules. I am making the same point that I made about the penalty award in the fA cup final; the rules exist to set out as clearly as possible what must and must not be done - they do not exist to trick clubs into breaking them. The question of non-cooperation is harder to decide since the PL seems to give itself the power to decide what must be handed over. The question to be decided is whether all the evidence they requested exists and whether the PL were simply going on a fishing expedition. As some have pointed out City's decision was based on legal advice and was not a simple, spiteful refusal to cooperate. City never refused to cooperate with CAS and so the PL's requests will have to be examined, as will our response(s).
 
Coatigan said:
Who for?

You would hope the club know the specifics and that is what the lawyers will be arguing to the panel.
Click to expand...
That’s all I’m asking, have the PL made disclosure? I wouldn’t put it past them to try to bring rabbits out of hats.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Whilst I agree no-one on here has a scooby, it's not really true to say that if our audited accounts are OK, then we haven't broken PL rules.

First, the PL were quite sneaky in NOT adopting the usual IAS24 accounting standards on Related Parties, instead defining "Associated Parties", with subtly different definitions and the ability for the PL to interpret (misinterpret) things differently.

Also, we could very possibly be guilty of not complying with all the requests for info, which would be a breach, albeit one they would have difficulty in sanctioning us with more than a slap on the wrist and minor fine, IMO.
Click to expand...
These allegations cover a period BEFORE the PL adopted “Associated“ as a definition. Up to then we worked under IAS24 and UEFA, with some reluctance, accepted that none of our sponsorships were from related parties.
 
Metal Biker said:
Reading this thread and the variety of opinions about our chances can make your brain go fuzzy.

Does anyone else (those not ITK about this shit) feel like this after reading everything everyone's said;

The PL charges are effectively the same as the UEFA charges, they're accusing us of deceiving the PL about where and who we get our sponsorship/funding from. They're calling our owners liars and that they've directly funded the club themselves, breaking PL's FFP.

We've said this is bullshit and can prove, but it's not going to criminal court, it's an independent adjudication in which we'll win because we've done nothing wrong, but it doesn't matter because we'll lose overall because the red clubs like Arse, Dippers and Scum will have influenced them to find us guilty and we can't appeal so even though we've done nothing wrong the result will be guilty and there's nothing we can do about it???

If anyone disagrees... this is how the thread reads, guys!
Click to expand...
I am hoping our brief asks this question:
”Did any officer of the PL discuss beforehand with another club or clubs the decision to charge City?”
 
jockblue said:
Such as AON and Chevrolet on a US owned club, King Power on a Thai owned shirt, and as announced today, an American airline on a Welsh club kidnapped by wealthy US film stars....
Click to expand...
Yeah but Wrexhams story is a fairytale.............I'd laugh my tits off if they got to the prem and started making the top 4 and taking trophies off the establishment. Then we'd see some different reporting :-)
 
Pokes28 said:
Unless they can somehow shake somebody down for another 160 million like they did with Courtinho, I just don't see Liverpool challenging the top again. Top 4, sure, making another push for the title, I don't see the talent or the intent to spend to get it. Though moving TAA from being a shite RB and being a decent midfielder was very smart of Klopp.
Getting Mac Allister for 35 million was a bargain IMO. But its just not enough.
Click to expand...
Kloppy-copy-cat.
Saw what Pep was doing with the 4-4-2 going to a 3-5-1
 
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