PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ProofMCFC said:
I guess that’s aimed at me. I’m as big a city fan as the next person on this forum, 20 minutes don’t pass by without city on my mind. I have 100% belief in the owners and the board, but even on this thread you have people who are 100% confident, some are doubtful and some believe a stitch up is on the cards, so even on this forum there’s a level of confusion.

I’m not worried but all I’m trying to do is find out whether I should be.
Click to expand...

I don't know who you are or what you are trying to get at but, if you are genuine, you must know from this thread that there are people who know what they are talking about and people who don't. Pay attention to the first group and ignore the ranting and venting. If you don't, you may as well listen to Talksport.

All the answers to your questions are in the replies in this thread from the right people if you spend the time to look at them.
 
daveoswald said:
The world has gone mad, We may or maybe not be found to be in breach of what? The owner investing to much money into his own Business
Click to expand...
You are spot on.What an absolute pile of shite.Nothing to stop any owner putting thier money in,how long before Wrexham are charged oh wait no threat at the moment to the red shirts.There is no succesful business in the world that does not invest money into it to make it more succesful.
 
domalino said:
I think Abu Dhabi would need them to, the allegations are so serious that Sheikh Mansour can’t be seen to be endorsing or even responsible for it by keeping in place the people who presided over it.

Khaldoon might survive because he’s Khaldoon, but Soriano, Pearce would go IMO.
Click to expand...
Most of the charges are pre Soriano so that would be harsh
 
Ric said:
Not sure that’s strictly true, tbh. As at CAS, I reckon we’d accept the non-cooperation charges if we were cleared of the more serious allegations. Not that we get to dictate these things, of course.
Click to expand...
City went to the High Court to challenge the PL right to documents and lost so, I find it hard to understand how the PL can charge us as post the verdict the club said they would accept it and cooperate
 
Ric said:
Not sure that’s strictly true, tbh. As at CAS, I reckon we’d accept the non-cooperation charges if we were cleared of the more serious allegations. Not that we get to dictate these things, of course.
Click to expand...
We couldn’t deny it, remember we refused to cooperate as UEFA chief investigator was leaking from a supposedly confidential investigation, we even went to CAS to get it thrown out before the appeal but, they wouldn’t consider it. CAS, in their judgement, said that they somewhat agreed with City’s position but, had to find them guilty. the €30 fine was reduced to €10, a fine that was due to the club’s considerable resources
 
daveoswald said:
The world has gone mad, We may or maybe not be found to be in breach of what? The owner investing to much money into his own Business
Click to expand...
You are of course are absolutely correct and it's a position I often take with people that claim we are "cheats".
But we cannot use that as a defence. Having not challenged the premise of FFP at its inception we agreed to abide by it. We can't be a member of the premier league and arbitrary decide which rules we will and won't follow.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
I don't know who you are or what you are trying to get at but, if you are genuine, you must know from this thread that there are people who know what they are talking about and people who don't. Pay attention to the first group and ignore the ranting and venting. If you don't, you may as well listen to Talksport.

All the answers to your questions are in the replies in this thread from the right people if you spend the time to look at them.
Click to expand...
It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

Steady.jpg
 
blueste41 said:
It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

View attachment 100504
Click to expand...
Personally speaking, for the reputational damage we've received, as the phrase "115 charges" is basically now synonymous with our name, its pretty terrible that the actual specific charges are not publicly available.
 
Gordyola said:
the €30 fine was reduced to €10, a fine that was due to the club’s considerable resources
Click to expand...
I thought the original 30m fine imposed by UEFA was thrown out completely by CAS.
Ie City were completely exhonerated on all charges brought by UEFA and considered by CAS, and this includes the oft spouted ‘time barred’ bollox - CAS specifically mentioned it was ‘time-barred’ BUT would have exhonerated City on it, in any case.

CAS gave out a new 10m fine for city’s lack of cooperation. (Caused by City not trusting the sieve like biased leaking of confidential proceedings).

It is an important nuance, uefa charges completely thrown out, and CAS imposed a different fine.

Unless I’ve misremembered stuff over the past 3 years… it’s easy to be mislead/misremember with the constant spouting of bollox by media/talking heads/rival fans drowning out actual facts with their half arsed hopes and wishes what it really was.

We’re seeing the same thing play out with the 100 112 ‘115’ spouted out all the time, no other club had their PL charges numbered , it was all ‘xyz was charged with…’, it’s become a lazy trope repeating ‘115’, when hardly anyone of the people saying it knows they are basically 5 specific things x how many years for each of them, and as for the 5 things… geez it’s utter bollox the crap spouted about ‘financial doping on an industrial scale’ - they are hardly earth shattering alledged by amounts compared to the very real facts of being 1b in debt (united) , or having 1b+ in soft loans (Chelsea) wiped out.

Edit: Pointed out that the fine wasn't completely thrown out, it WAS reduced. As mentioned, things get muddied after so many years of bollox
 
Last edited:
JASR said:
I thought the original 30m fine imposed by UEFA was thrown out completely by CAS.
Ie City were completely exhonerated on all charges brought by UEFA and considered by CAS, and this includes the oft spouted ‘time barred’ bollox - CAS specifically mentioned it was ‘time-barred’ BUT would have exhonerated City on it, in any case.

CAS gave out a new 10m fine for city’s lack of cooperation. (Caused by City not trusting the sieve like biased leaking of confidential proceedings).

It is an important nuance, uefa charges completely thrown out, and CAS imposed a different fine.

Unless I’ve misremembered stuff over the past 3 years… it’s easy to be mislead/misremember with the constant spouting of bollox by media/talking heads/rival fans drowning out actual facts with their half arsed hopes and wishes what it really was.

We’re seeing the same thing play out with the 100 112 ‘115’ spouted out all the time, no other club had their PL charges numbered , it was all ‘xyz was charged with…’, it’s become a lazy trope repeating ‘115’, when hardly anyone of the people saying it knows they are basically 5 specific things x how many years for each of them, and as for the 5 things… geez it’s utter bollox the crap spouted about ‘financial doping on an industrial scale’ - they are hardly earth shattering alledged by amounts compared to the very real facts of being 1b in debt (united) , or having 1b+ in soft loans (Chelsea) wiped out.
Click to expand...

Point 335, page 89

Reduced it

 
blueste41 said:
It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

View attachment 100504
Click to expand...
Look at @Prestwich_Blue post history on this thread and @projectriver
 
blueste41 said:
It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

View attachment 100504
Click to expand...

I can only tell you who I pay attention to. On the legal side: @projectriver, @petrusha, @Chris in London. I have annoyed each of these with my questions over the last ten months and they have been as gracious as you can expect any lawyer to be :). On the financial side: @Prestwich_Blue, of course.

I feel I have added occasionally to the debate on the financial side and others have also contributed useful information, of course. Apologies to anyone if they feel they have been left out. And feel free to add anyone else you think has been useful.

If you would like, I could try to summarise the breaches from each of the handbooks. Sometimes it is obvious which breaches in each year are, effectively, the same. Sometimes less so, of course.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I can only tell you who I pay attention to. On the legal side: @projectriver, @petrusha, @Chris in London. I have annoyed each of these with my questions over the last ten months and they have been as gracious as you can expect any lawyer to be :). On the financial side: @Prestwich_Blue, of course.

I feel I have added occasionally to the debate on the financial side and others have also contributed useful information, of course. Apologies to anyone if they feel they have been left out. And feel free to add anyone else you think has been useful.

If you would like, I could try to summarise the breaches from each of the handbooks. Sometimes it is obvious which breaches in each year are, effectively, the same. Sometimes less so, of course.
Click to expand...
@Pablo ZZZ Peroni
 
halfcenturyup said:
Why would they have to? This isn't a criminal court. There is no criminal conviction at the end of the PL process. They may choose to, but I would doubt it.
Click to expand...
If we are guilt of all of the most serious charges then we are guilt of cooking the books and it would also be criminal. Not that I believe any of it in fact I am not even sure the Premier League believe we have done what they are alleging if they did they would have referred it to the NCA and HMRC
 
blueste41 said:
You are of course are absolutely correct and it's a position I often take with people that claim we are "cheats".
But we cannot use that as a defence. Having not challenged the premise of FFP at its inception we agreed to abide by it. We can't be a member of the premier league and arbitrary decide which rules we will and won't follow.
Click to expand...
most of charges before FFP was dreamt up by Gill their just trying to back date them
 
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