PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

No. I'm the shadowy figure from the UAE who gave City 30 million.

So who’s the shadowy figure who made the YouTube video?

 

[SomeMightSay]

That’s the real bombshell if people choose to read between the lines…

Which of course the target audience won’t, because, just as the fish doesn’t have the capacity to recognise water, they simply can’t even read in this instance.

Like the amoeba they are only equipped to process the sh*t that’s in front of them.

Eat and excrete. The more the trough gets filled, the more they excrete…and so on, and so forth…

‘Amoeba-pigs’

Fuck off Cantona

 

[donkinho]

I thought der Spiegel had stolen 100 of thousands of emails from clubs all around Europe, yet the only choose to cut and paste the City ones. Why ?

Its clearly a witchhunt

They did - apparently about 50 million emails from clubs all around Europe including 1.5 million from City. Yet they published errrr…. Six - 2 of which were cut and spliced in an attempt to show they’d said something which they hadn’t. Anyone with a fraction of objectivity can see that “the attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear” to quote a certain individual

 

[lancs blue]

Let's hope it continues we seem to win things when we have our backs to the wall.

This whole mess has been so counter-productive for the red-shirts it's hilarious. They set out to stop us and we just get bigger and better. Not only that but the "PL brand" wouldn't be half as attractive in terms of TV revenue without Aguerooooo and now of course the proper treble plus our increased worldwide popularity could give the TV deal another boost at the next round. Killing the goose that laid the golden egg springs to mind.

 

[give it to gordon]

They did - apparently about 50 million emails from clubs all around Europe including 1.5 million from City. Yet they published errrr…. Six - 2 of which were cut and spliced in an attempt to show they’d said something which they hadn’t. Anyone with a fraction of objectivity can see that “the attempt to damage the club’s reputation is organised and clear” to quote a certain individual

So why didnt UEFA and the pl just ignore it ?

It really doesnt make sence does it. Unless it's a pure witchhunt which it is.

But this is football, the pl chairman can say we have a plan for a different winner every 6 years. No one calls him out.

 

[halfcenturyup]

All the articles, talks on talk segments etc, are pointing back to segments of that, and trying to use as something 'new' to relate to the PL process. Then they are all echoing each other, writing about what the previous claimed, with a little bit of individual embellishment and a bit less detail each round. Imo.

Well yes, that would be the coordinated part.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

I think your taking it to an extreme there, I would say in this hypothetical case that if somehow it got through the enquiry period with no evidence (and who would sign that off) that an application would be made to strike out the charge due to insufficient evidence that would be upheld and the verdict would be damning to the other side (even if you went down wild conspiracy everyone was against us, it would get out to the courts that one due to the unfair nature).

You may find this has been done in our case since the charges and on the day of the independent panel that we will face far less then the 115 charges. However, dependent on what the accusation is at that point we where be the ones with burden of proof (that doesn’t mean we have to do it beyond doubt).

We then have my issues with the links between the independent panel and PL (which is not an accusation of conspiracy or corruption, just the slight marginal gains the PL will have).

I know exactly where’s you’re coming from Fuzzy.

And while we should (and will) leave no stone unturned to ensure as independent as possible a panel, I am also reassured by the fact that regardless of the integrity of the charges themselves, in our pocket, we are toting, in the words of our Chairman, in whom I place inexorable trust, ‘irrefutable evidence’.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

It’s good for the media to regurgitate and make the public believe they have a new angle on what’s going to happen. The Daily Mail survives on its traffic and the comments section on each article shows where people are reading. I stupidly looked out of curiosity yesterday and the so called new revelations that came about Thursday article had comments in the thousands. You looked at other stories the comments were in the hundreds.

Getting their readers angry over a £30 million Etisalat payment over decade ago and not explaining the context of it is good for business.

Exactly right, and not just The Mail, although it is the most repulsive. It knows its target audience and how to rile them up. The front pages are full of spite about Prince Harry, ’lefties’, the Unions, ’remoaners’ etc, and the back pages casually target City as a natural born enemy of United and Liverpool, the clubs with the most fans. Get them clicking away and you’re quids in.

I have to say though that the reactions of many of those fans, whilst unquestionably having their strings pulled by elements of the media, isn’t hard to understand. If it were say Arsenal who had had their emails hacked and who had been the ones apparently fronting up the cash on behalf of a sponsor, I too would be jumping up and down wanting answers. It looks like disguised equity funding and tbh I’m still not sure how it isn’t. I thought I had a semblance of a grasp on it on here a couple of weeks ago when someone said we got the Abu Dhabi Executive Authority (central funds) to pony up the shortfall, but now the suggestion is that ADUG paid it themselves. The matter was time barred at CAS, so we didn’t actually get a verdict on City’s explanation, but it may not be time barred this time (cos I’m pretty sure that 6 year English law limitation will not apply) around.

Piers Moron and those backing that You Tube non-shock revelation, may be utter cnuts with an agenda, but I think casually dismissing the issue, as many on here seem to be doing, on the grounds that CAS looked at it previously, is not a mistake that City will make in front of the Tribunal

 

[Norman kneejerk]

I thought der Spiegel had stolen 100 of thousands of emails from clubs all around Europe, yet the only choose to cut and paste the City ones. Why ?

Its clearly a witchhunt

Would be interesting to know what the steps were from the emails being stolen, to the cut and paste , publication by der speigel I.e who was pulling the strings , might make an interesting story.

 

[halfcenturyup]

5 Groups. Not 5 charges.

There is a big difference, and it is still 115 charges.

Why is this even important? The consensus is that there are 5 or 6 underlying issues that have led to the 115 alleged breaches. What they are called isn't important, although I note the PL itself doesn't refer to the 115 breaches as charges.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

A quality venue. When I was at uni and living in Fallowfield I can still remember going there to the late night screening of Brannigan, a poor mans Dirty Harry-style cop film with John Wayne. Half way into the film there appeared this small black blob on the screen, which eventually got bigger and bigger and then turned red. The film had gone up in flames and melted before our eyes! Never did see the end of it.....

On first scan, I read the words ‘late night screaming of Brannigan, a poor man’s Dirty Debbie Harry’.
Time for a cold shower I think…

 

[Gordyola]

Are we talking Parry?

No Yves Leterme former Chief Investigator of the UEFA Club Financial Control Body he was the man that City accused of leaking confidential information during his investigation. He also accidentally cocked-up the investigation into PSG leaving it too late to charge them. He's also got a dodgy history as a disgraced Belgian PM. City went to CAS before the main case to get the investigation thrown out as it breached UEFA rules however, CAS couldn't rule. It was seen though as a tactic to highlight the issue later, in fact CAS agreed that their had been breaches and sided with City's reasons for non-cooperation and reduced the e30M fine to e10M couldnt throw it out as City had clearly not cooperated

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Exactly right, and not just The Mail, although it is the most repulsive. It knows its target audience and how to rile them up. The front pages are full of spite about Prince Harry, ’lefties’, the Unions, ’remoaners’ etc, and the back pages casually target City as a natural born enemy of United and Liverpool, the clubs with the most fans. Get them clicking away and you’re quids in.

I have to say though that the reactions of many of those fans, whilst unquestionably having their strings pulled by elements of the media, isn’t hard to understand. If it were say Arsenal who had had their emails hacked and who had been the ones apparently fronting up the cash on behalf of a sponsor, I too would be jumping up and down wanting answers. It looks like disguised equity funding and tbh I’m still not sure how it isn’t. I thought I had a semblance of a grasp on it on here a couple of weeks ago when someone said we got the Abu Dhabi Executive Authority (central funds) to pony up the shortfall, but now the suggestion is that ADUG paid it themselves. The matter was time barred at CAS, so we didn’t actually get a verdict on City’s explanation, but it may not be time barred this time (cos I’m pretty sure that 6 year English law limitation will not apply) around.

Piers Moron and those backing that You Tube non-shock revelation, may be utter cnuts with an agenda, but I think casually dismissing the issue, as many on here seem to be doing, on the grounds that CAS looked at it previously, is not a mistake that City will make in front of the Tribunal

I’ve got a horrible feeling we are going to be fucked over on opinion and assumption rather than what evidence they have. The whole hearing is lesser than a criminal court so the bar won’t be as high to prove it. Our sponsors don’t have any obligation to open their books to the Premier League and they have access to City’s accounts. It’s daft the total sum is £30 million over two years when the club reported £118 million losses and were punished by Uefa. That £30 million hardly gave us an advantage in the wider scheme of things.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Exactly right, and not just The Mail, although it is the most repulsive. It knows its target audience and how to rile them up. The front pages are full of spite about Prince Harry, ’lefties’, the Unions, ’remoaners’ etc, and the back pages casually target City as a natural born enemy of United and Liverpool, the clubs with the most fans. Get them clicking away and you’re quids in.

I have to say though that the reactions of many of those fans, whilst unquestionably having their strings pulled by elements of the media, isn’t hard to understand. If it were say Arsenal who had had their emails hacked and who had been the ones apparently fronting up the cash on behalf of a sponsor, I too would be jumping up and down wanting answers. It looks like disguised equity funding and tbh I’m still not sure how it isn’t. I thought I had a semblance of a grasp on it on here a couple of weeks ago when someone said we got the Abu Dhabi Executive Authority (central funds) to pony up the shortfall, but now the suggestion is that ADUG paid it themselves. The matter was time barred at CAS, so we didn’t actually get a verdict on City’s explanation, but it may not be time barred this time (cos I’m pretty sure that 6 year English law limitation will not apply) around.

Piers Moron and those backing that You Tube non-shock revelation, may be utter cnuts with an agenda, but I think casually dismissing the issue, as many on here seem to be doing, on the grounds that CAS looked at it previously, is not a mistake that City will make in front of the Tribunal

You are getting confused between Etisalat and Etihad. Etisalat was apparently advanced by ADUG for two years then recovered the money from Etisalat. Etihad was paid for a number of years from two sources - Etihad marketing funds and a central fund. Etisalat was time-barred. Etihad wasn't.

 

[SilverFox2]

The poison is coming from our commercial rivals and some dishonest people in the media are happy to play along. It’s a deflection tactic from United to take attention away from their shambolic sell off.

To be fair they have very little left.

They were afraid of our AD owner for commercial reasons and everything stemmed from that.

The treble coupled with the very high predicted financial results show just how right they were to fear Sheikh M..

As an edit may I say we are about 27 percent owned by a more enlightened American Company / Group.

 

[M18CTID]

Absolutely this
I notice that the WhatsApp wankers Delooney, Harris and McGeehan have been unusually silent about it all as well
Especially as they are usually all over anything slagging us like a tramp on chips
Wasn’t the latter even featured in the video?
If he’s involved then doubt it would be Qatar. That was a deliberate attempt at deflection/distraction imo by the Times, to try and hide the true identities of the culprits
Strange indeed the WhatsApp group silence. Almost like they are all collectively trying not to draw attention to themselves all of a sudden….

That’s telling that all those 3 aren’t going on about it. Harris in particular would be all over it like a rash and trying to make as much of it as he possibly could.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Piers Moron and those backing that You Tube non-shock revelation, may be utter cnuts with an agenda, but I think casually dismissing the issue, as many on here seem to be doing, on the grounds that CAS looked at it previously, is not a mistake that City will make in front of the Tribunal

If it ever meets.

We're getting on for six months now and yet we still have no panel, no idea what its remit is, or its powers.

I remember something or other about City taking legal action over the legitimacy of this Star Chamber, Kangaroo Court, Ducking Stool thingamajig.

It's all gone very quiet on that front.

 

[Silva2021]

you can give the length of deal you want, but what will change is the length of time you can spread payment over

I do understand it is how they account for it for FFP and everything else is fine.

However, it is done as a way of protecting teams with higher revenues.

If team x wanted to really invest and go for top 4 and they had room in the accounts for £60,000,000, they could spend £480,000,000 now £300,000,000.

In a lot of ways it benefits us now a long with others, but they would change the rules if it didn’t benefit the elite and disadvantage the other teams.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

You are getting confused between Etisalat and Etihad. Etisalat was apparently advanced by ADUG for two years then recovered the money from Etisalat. Etihad was paid for a number of years from two sources - Etihad marketing funds and a central fund. Etisalat was time-barred. Etihad wasn't.

Apologies, I conflated the two. Etisalat is the one I’m talking about currently. Leaving the time barring issue to one side, how is ADUG effectively paying their sponsorship money for them for 2 years, not disguised equity funding?

 

[johnevans]

Would be interesting to know what the steps were from the emails being stolen, to the cut and paste , publication by der speigel I.e who was pulling the strings , might make an interesting story.

Exactly.

Been saying this for years, that there's a story (or even two or three..) to be uncovered and told about who's been driving this vendetta against City for the past decade and a half.

All it would take is for one of the lard-arse UK sports journalists, helped by an expert finance journalist or other, to either get off that lard-arse or else to grow the cojones (..or even both..) to do the hard yards and investigate it all, then bring into public discussion and awareness.

I hasten to add, I won't be holding my breath while they decide to do so..