PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
Agree 100 per cent. Perhaps Masters is even more stupid than anyone thought was possible. He and the PL board started off with the intention of trying to avoid an independent regulator but the way they have handled the City allegations, and now Everton and Forest, is the biggest possible advert for independent regulation. English football is a multi billion pund industry and the PL leaders are not qualified for the role they have been given.
Click to expand...
It’s no wonder that previous successful candidates turned down their job offers for Masters’ role; although if you step back it’s actually pretty astonishing that people go to the trouble of applying for a job like that, with all the prep involved, all the emotional energy that’s required to be part of that process, with all the opportunities the role could present, and after being offered the role they turn it down like it’s working a few weekend shifts part time at the local.

Presumably they sought assurances that were not forthcoming.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That has always been my issue with Roan. Of course he is politically biased but the main problem is he is totally incompetent. He gets a huge salary but never gets any stories. He misses everything that happens in his patch (Manchester). He has been behind the pace on the rise of Manchester City and never reveals anything we don't already know about the United takeover. HIs reporting on City's battle with UEFA was riddled with mistakes.
Click to expand...
He’s beyond wank.
 
Sky obviously hold a lot of power with the premier league.
I bet they are pissed off from a sky bet perspective as they don't know who will be deducted points so will likely lose money on people betting on relegation.
 
Eric Hitchmough said:
I knew itView attachment 104167
Click to expand...
We haven't been "charged with 100 offences." City have been accused of presenting misleading accounts on multiple occasions. It is the same group of allegations spread over a long period. As many have pointed out on here. Essentially five alleged offences repeated over a decade.
The words used are important. The way the case has been reported has been distorted by the BBC (and others) from day one. The briefing to the media from the PL has consistently stressed the "115 charges" narrative. The Times apparently got the information even before City were told. It is dishonest and so are most the so-called journalists who are covering this story. They have just repeated the narrative they have been supplied with.
 
117 M34 said:
Sky obviously hold a lot of power with the premier league.
I bet they are pissed off from a sky bet perspective as they don't know who will be deducted points so will likely lose money on people betting on relegation.
Click to expand...
Sky and Sky Bet are not the same company anymore
Sky Bet is owned by the Flutter Entertainment previously Paddy Power group Sky originally sold 80% then when Comcast bought Sky they sold the remaining 20%
 
domalino said:
In retrospect that’s a very odd list of clubs.

City
Villa
Southampton
Swansea
Fulham
West Brom

And Reading abstained.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to accept that Reading’s abstention was entirely unilateral. Seems such an unusual step for such a fundamental subject that would have been driven by selfish, financial motives.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
We haven't been "charged with 100 offences." City have been accused of presenting misleading accounts on multiple occasions. It is the same group of allegations spread over a long period. As many have pointed out on here. Essentially five alleged offences repeated over a decade.
The words used are important. The way the case has been reported has been distorted by the BBC (and others) from day one. The briefing to the media from the PL has consistently stressed the "115 charges" narrative. The Times apparently got the information even before City were told. It is dishonest and so are most the so-called journalists who are covering this story. They have just repeated the narrative they have been supplied with.
Click to expand...
It's actually two offences when you break it all down.
  1. We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.
  2. We didn't declare payments made to Mancini, via the Al Jazira contract, and to players, via the Fordham image rights arrangements.
That's it. The rest is just window dressing.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's actually two offences when you break it all down.

  1. We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.
Click to expand...
Happy to stand corrected. It makes the media coverage even more distorted than I thought. Words mean everything. The constant repetition of "115 charges" as if it is a criminal trial are designed to damage our club and I think it is important they are rebutted as much as possible. Let's hope our enemies have to eat their words like UEFA did after Ceferin's "we have a concrete case" briefing against City!
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Another absolutely clueless report from Dan Roan so called leading bbc football pundit on the news just now. No explanation of the charges City face, no explanation of the difference between City's charges and the situation with Everton and Forrest. And no explanation of why FFP is loathed by a large % of football fans and the restrictions it wrongly places on clubs and the unfair benefit it gives to others. What on earth has this fella ever done to get into the position that he is. An utterly useless reporter.
Click to expand...

Remember him outside the Leicester City ground when the owners helicopter went down.

The heat of the helicopter engine hadn’t even cooled before twaty Dan Roan was accusing the dead owner of having an affair with another victim of the plane crash.

What a used tampon the fucker Roan is.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I find it hard to accept that Reading’s abstention was entirely unilateral. Seems such an unusual step for such a fundamental subject that would have been driven by selfish, financial motives.
Click to expand...

I think it’s probably legit. Remember If they’d lost the vote the matter isn’t settled, they’d just have redrawn the rules slightly and put it to another vote 6 months later.

Villa, Southampton, Fulham and Reading were all very close to getting relegated at the time so they’d know they’ll likely get different clubs involved at a second vote.
 
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