PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BeerIsTheBest said:
Centurions

we are charged but my understanding is that the panel to consider the evidence is yet to be selected.

There’s nothing for a panel to do until our recent challenge against the legitimacy of any charges against us, on rule breaches where the rules were not in force at the time is resolved.

This has been imaginatively described by posters on here as the fairness in ‘retrospectively being done for driving 10mph over the speed limit at 40mph on a road years before the speed limit was changed to 30mph.’

My understanding also is (may be wrong) that any decision on our challenge on this retrospective use of charges by the FA could be appealed upwards.

This is why the process currently has no defined timeline and could take years.
Click to expand...
Do we know why we have been charged with break rules before they existed seems a stupid thing to do even if you was out to get us is there some debate about when the rules existed or some technical issue
 
On reflection, perhaps it was rather naive of us to put an asterisk against the accounts from 08/09 to 17/18 and then at the end put *shhh don't ask.

Ah well, you live and learn.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I think there are all sorts of parts of that figure that can be excluded and covid regs allow more for the period in question.
"minor breakeven deficit" is the wording on the UEFA website.
The fine was about £260k - it was minor after all excluded items were considered. The figures you quote are before accounting for allowed exclusions.
Click to expand...
Minor or not. Breaking F F P is cheating!
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
View attachment 93052
Click to expand...
I'd like to thank my mum who paid for this! I finally paid her back in 2003 - I no l
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Yes, used to ring it on mum and dad’s phone to listen to some bloke keep me hanging on the line about some exciting news coming at the end of the bulletin that never failed to disappoint. I kept falling for it though!
Click to expand...
Every time I called it; the opening would be big transfer news only on clubcall. You would listen for 5 minutes only to find out we'd signed John Deehan for 50 pence.
 
bluenova said:
This argument is the one that makes me most nervous.

Obviously we're not talking about the kind of dodgy, small-time wheeler dealers that have messed up clubs like Bury in the past, but the argument that rich, powerful men who run huge, multi-national businesses always follow the rules, clearly doesn't hold up. The world is full of dodgy rich and powerful men who have bent the rules to make themselves even more rich and powerful.

Then I see another poster sharing pictures of Putin and Xi - would you trust either of them? The UAE has done business with Trump as well as Obama, and he's not exactly Mr Probity.

I honestly think that the PL case will fail, mainly because some of the more outlandish stories about us are almost certainly bullshit, but also because the rules just aren't capable of dealing with a complex situation like our ownership. However, to suggest it's because powerful men follow the rules, because they worry about their reputations, is where I start to worry!
Click to expand...
I take your point but this post should be concluded with the picture of the red top owners in the NY restaurant discussing the price of bread.
 
halfcenturyup said:
And not just on matters of law. Some pretty stupid mistakes on background too.

I don't know what it is with Sheffield University. They seem to spend a lot of time looking at Manchester these days. Trying to develop a reputation by pandering to the masses maybe? The doctoral equivalent of click-baiting. If they are, they shouldn't be making so many bloody mistakes.
Click to expand...
Their best was the research “Why do cats purr?” You‘ll never guess the answer.
 
halfcenturyup said:
While you are here, could you think about this for a moment?

"In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs".

I have been struggling with this a little. There is no requirement in the PL Handbook or the Companies Acts for an annual report to be accurate. They have to give a true and fair view which, as we know, is different. Accurate is absolute, true and fair introduces the question of materiality. So when they say "accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view", are they not mixing up two issues? I suppose they could be talking about supplementary information not in the annual report being accurate, but then they shouldn't have conflated the two concepts?
Click to expand...

I don’t know what you have quoted - I think it’s a summary of the charges - but to see if we are in breach of the regulations you have to look at the regulations themselves. The wording you quote may not reflect the regulations in place at various times. It may be a summary that reflects the fact that different wording has appeared in the regulations from time to time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and check.

Assuming the wording is precisely as per that quote, there is a principle that regulations should be construed in a way that does not produce absurd results. I would read that wording as requiring that the basic information must be accurate - so the raw data must be correct - but that clubs are (like companies) afforded a certain amount of leeway as to how they present that, subject to the overarching requirement that the accounts provide a true and fair view. So for instance if a club sells a player for £60m with the payment to come over three years, with a£10m bonus if they win the league, they could treat the whole £60m as a receivable in year one, or they could spread it over the three years that it will actually be paid, but they can’t treat the £10m as actually payable until the purchasing club wins the league.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
We already know our opponents have tried to make this a kangaroo court. Hence some of the charges pre-dating FFP.
Click to expand...
I get the emotion from all fellow citizens and it’s justified. However, I just can’t see our club taking this without clear evidence and the PL would be fools to try to prosecute without concrete evidence, not circumstantial. Monetary fines and penalties that effect business viability without true legal grounding will be fought in the courts by our club, regardless of what the PL and any in house panel wants to happen.

Can you really see us taking it on the chin if we feel it’s rigged?

We’ve got some of the smartest minds in football / business and they’ll take this all the way, and when / if it does go legal - only the law matters.
 
Moggzy said:
I get the emotion from all fellow citizens and it’s justified. However, I just can’t see our club taking this without clear evidence and the PL would be fools to try to prosecute without concrete evidence, not circumstantial. Monetary fines and penalties that effect business viability without true legal grounding will be fought in the courts by our club, regardless of what the PL and any in house panel wants to happen.

Can you really see us taking it on the chin if we feel it’s rigged?

We’ve got some of the smartest minds in football / business and they’ll take this all the way, and when / if it does go legal - only the law matters.
Click to expand...
We did take a “pinch” before! So it can’t be totally ruled out.

I would say apart from the bravado on show, the club just want this whole mess to go away and for them to be accepted. Before all this financial shit started I would hazard a guess that Khaldoon had no interest in taking on the cartel or breaking ffp. We seemingly have no choice now because they won’t play nicely with us.

What we are seeing is a power play to control football by keeping the status quo using any tactic necessary. It’s a dirty business fight to see who comes out on top for the next 30,40,50 years.

The not so impartial media have taken the side of the red teams due the aforementioned clubs popularity and ability to garner huge commercial gains. The premier league have also taken sides which is disappointing.

We are not wanted because it causes too much competition and loss of revenue for certain clubs.

Crucified before we even got the chance to put on our coat to answer the charges. Right & wrong doesn't come into it imo.

Now the fight is heading towards a hidden tribunal. Boats loads of legal texts that can be manipulated to suit whatever argument you want to convey.

City are up against a system designed to keep us as a second class football club. We have enough money tho to keep this case going around in circles for years. We may have no choice but to wait them out now.

Buckle up.
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
Centurions

we are charged but my understanding is that the panel to consider the evidence is yet to be selected.

There’s nothing for a panel to do until our recent challenge against the legitimacy of any charges against us, on rule breaches where the rules were not in force at the time is resolved.

This has been imaginatively described by posters on here as the fairness in ‘retrospectively being done for driving 10mph over the speed limit at 40mph on a road years before the speed limit was changed to 30mph.’

My understanding also is (may be wrong) that any decision on our challenge on this retrospective use of charges by the FA could be appealed upwards.

This is why the process currently has no defined timeline and could take years.
Click to expand...
Just for clarification - I thought the panel had been selected which is why we objected to the KC Rosin who’s an Arsenal fan?? Anyone know who is on the panel
 
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