PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, and he’s made it clear, that’s he’s commented in a private capacity, but the notion he can divorce that from his political standing and influence, is utterly preposterous.
Click to expand...
When you have a job like his he can’t play the private capacity card. He takes the money that goes with the job so should keep his fucking trap shut if it doesn’t directly relate to his job
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not sure saying someone has displaced poor judgement is akin to being ‘upset’.
Click to expand...

Not saying it was you, just some of the comments on the thread felt like people where upset (and I appreciate it is a frustrating subject for us fans, especially at the moment).

FWIW I think his judgment has been fine, but respect others views.

However, I would imagine if he mentioned City there would be some people complaining why he is lumping us in with Everton when the cases are so different.
 
meltonblue said:
I’ve seen this a few times, just to be clear on CAS, it wasn’t because there was no evidence as such, as the emails were evidence. They judged that Uefa hadn’t satisfied the burden of proof as there was no evidence that any of the arrangements discussed in the emails were actually fulfilled.

I’ve always assumed the PL must have something else though and are going after the related party issue more, which wasn’t part of the CAS judgment. If they’re still only reliant on emails though, I don’t get how they can reach a different conclusion to what CAS did though.
Click to expand...

When CAS considered the emails there was no evidence of wrong doing ;)
 
Sad that the majority of clubs up and down the land and there supporters simply couldnt give a shite but sadly the PL pander down to few clubs whose only way of beating City is off the pitch.

Honestly i really hope you win now because it would be a fooking tragedy to all them clubs who are praying you lose so they can become relevant again
 
KS55 said:
If they are majoring on related parties, they have a huge obstacle to overcome. It is City’s view that we do not have any related party transactions and our accounts do not record any. Related party transactions are defined in IAS24. We had some toing and froing with UEFA on the interpretation of the provision but, in the end, UEFA have treated our view as acceptable. British authorities have never raised the issue with us or our auditors as far as I know.
Indeed the PL has introduced the doubtful concept of ‘associated’ transactions specifically aimed at City. Are they trying to retrospectively apply their new rule?
Click to expand...

I don’t think so, I’m assuming they’re challenging our view on who we consider related parties. I agree with what you’re saying about the challenges they’ll have with that.
 
KS55 said:
If they are majoring on related parties, they have a huge obstacle to overcome. It is City’s view that we do not have any related party transactions and our accounts do not record any. Related party transactions are defined in IAS24. We had some toing and froing with UEFA on the interpretation of the provision but, in the end, UEFA have treated our view as acceptable. British authorities have never raised the issue with us or our auditors as far as I know.
Indeed the PL has introduced the doubtful concept of ‘associated’ transactions specifically aimed at City. Are they trying to retrospectively apply their new rule?
Click to expand...
And the irony of us telling UEFA that we don't believe Etihad are a related party is that if they were then it wouldn't have mattered IF Mansour had funded part of the sponsorship deal! Not that he did of course
 
halfcenturyup said:
Breaking PL rules by not providing them with accounts which show a true and fair view. That can only happen for two reasons. One, the PL disagrees with the management and the auditors on some accounting treatments. Goid luck with that one. Or two, management didn't fulfill their responsibility to disclose everything to the auditors that they needed to determine a true and fair view. Sounds pretty "fraudy" to me.
Click to expand...

I think it was terrible that City didn’t reveal how to manage a football club fantastically well to all the clubs that hate us and run their business like a corner shop.
 
Last edited:
A huge difference between our case and Everton's is that the PL actively engaged with Everton and worked with them to try to ensure that they didn't fail P&S regs. In some ways it appears they bent over backwards for them. According to this from @projectriver they were given a 40 mill dispensation on stadium costs on condition they passed P&S but as they didn't it should be added to the 19.5 mill they were reported to have failed by.

 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Maybe you’re right, but it doesn’t change the point I was advancing, namely he shouldn’t have commented on Everton, even in a personal capacity, given where his political duties lie, and the charges against City.
Click to expand...
He's a career politician. It's a Scouser (and Everton fan) trying to gain favour with fellow Scousers.

He's hoping that further down the line when he's in the running for a higher position and votes are required nationally, people in Liverpool will remember this and vote for him.

He doesn't give a shit about Manchester or City's charges. His current position is nothing but a stepping stone.
 

the Martin Samuel piece in yesterdays Times is excellent.

Of course us City fans would say that, the bit that stuck out was the investigation into the Defoe sale from Spurs to Portsmouth through an unregistered agent in 2008. Something Luton got a points deduction for. The original FA investigation took place in 2009-2010, the season Spurs finished three points ahead of City to get the last champions league spot. Can City sue Spurs if it’s now deemed by the EPL they should have received a points deduction? The EPL changed the rules so nothing is time barred so they could go after City, what’s good for them should surely be good for us.
 
Gordyola said:
The commission is made up of at least 2 KCs the Everton panel included a financial expert as well Like I said I don’t believe the KCs will risk repretation for a kangaroo PL court, why should they?
Click to expand...
Simon Jordan ?
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
A huge difference between our case and Everton's is that the PL actively engaged with Everton and worked with them to try to ensure that they didn't fail P&S regs. In some ways it appears they bent over backwards for them. According to this from @projectriver they were given a 40 mill dispensation on stadium costs on condition they passed P&S but as they didn't it should be added to the 19.5 mill they were reported to have failed by.

Click to expand...

Wow tbh I always thought the £20m breach was bullshit as they had posted mega losses, they also seemed to get away with a COVID write off far in excess of similar sized clubs like Villa and Newcastle. The original figures I see to recall were akin to a £200m breach.

the notion they would spend £40m on a stadium before planning permission had even been granted seems like bullshit as well.

looks like the ten point deduction was lenient after all. Also shows the Everton only got one charge compared with City’s 115 is bollox, I would guess they could easily have had more charges than us if the cartel stooges wanted to go after them.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
The verdict has been reached. It can be discussed without prejudicing the case.

Similar to someone being convicted of murder. The press can now comment on the case, even if their might be an appeal.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect.
As soon as an appeal is lodged (or even a stated intention to appeal) proceedings become active again and the usual restrictions apply.

(But this isn’t a criminal/murder trial so largely irrelevant)
 
Jam Tomorrow said:

the Martin Samuel piece in yesterdays Times is excellent.

Of course us City fans would say that, the bit that stuck out was the investigation into the Defoe sale from Spurs to Portsmouth through an unregistered agent in 2008. Something Luton got a points deduction for. The original FA investigation took place in 2009-2010, the season Spurs finished three points ahead of City to get the last champions league spot. Can City sue Spurs if it’s now deemed by the EPL they should have received a points deduction? The EPL changed the rules so nothing is time barred so they could go after City, what’s good for them should surely be good for us.
Click to expand...
Maybe best to clear our name first. If we do that then why not? Let's go after them and it would be hilarious to see Levy's reaction!
 
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