PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
Needs a whistleblower at this late stage……desperate needy weird ****!
Click to expand...
Like someone with any level of seniority is gonna see that email (that proves nothing anyway) and think to themselves
I won’t go to the police, premier league, uefa etc with all this knowledge I have of wrongdoing….
I’m gonna reach out to a head case on twitter
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
Jordan can spend the rest of his life telling blues with thick Manc accents "you weren't found innocent" and feeling very clever for doing so as long as we are cleared of the charges and continue to fill our trophy cabinet.
Click to expand...

Quite right. That's exactly the same with the CAS verdict, which he was also shown up on yesterday. He felt that was clear evidence of our guilt whereas Stefan said you take the cooperation charge as a separate entity and that it's standard practice to withhold information (on both sides) when it comes to litigation - something Jordan knows full well and accepted yesterday.

He can say what he wants, he's playing to the gallery. His fundamental issue with City is that regardless of the rules on related parties our owner is drawing on related parties to seek substantial investment in the club over market value. He's not done any actual research into that, but it's his stance. Who the fuck cares what he thinks, he's a moron.

As others have said, it's common in business to seek early investment on the basis of future growth - it's how the stock market works for starters. Etihad's deal looked mental at the time, it doesn't anymore. We set out our growth plan, they were willing to invest to support it and if we hit our targets then they'd be getting much more exposure. And it's fair to say we've smashed the targets we probably had back then.
 
ballbag said:
They're thick, though.

Liverpool fans won't/can't accept that their club was languishing in Div 2 for a decade before a sugar daddy got them promoted and laid the foundations of all their success for the decades to come.

United fans can't accept that the class of 92 was added to a spending spree from 89 onwards for Wallaces, Pallister, Webb, etc. Again, the foundations of their success for the decades to come.

But they'll tell you its not the same as City. It is though.
Click to expand...
Whenever a scouser moans about City I start my response by asking "What's wrong with a wealthy benefactor coming into a second division club, outspending the opposition and turning a struggling club into a top English and European team?".

This is usually met with "it's just wrong" and a plethora of "no history" and City bingo phrases.

I then explain that I was actually talking about their club and if it was okay for them, what's wrong with someone doing the same thing with a club that had finished in the top half of the Premier League the season before. Usually don't have much to say after.
 
Sheriff Fatman said:
Whenever a scouser moans about City I start my response by asking "What's wrong with a wealthy benefactor coming into a second division club, outspending the opposition and turning a struggling club into a top English and European team?".

This is usually met with "it's just wrong" and a plethora of "no history" and City bingo phrases.

I then explain that I was actually talking about their club and if it was okay for them, what's wrong with someone doing the same thing with a club that had finished in the top half of the Premier League the season before. Usually don't have much to say after.
Click to expand...
I've had that conversation and the response I got was:

"But Liverpool had won the league and the FA Cup before they were relegated. Its not the same as City."

They've not got a clue.
 
Jacko1956 said:
Pricks like Harris and his Associated Press clowns are a pain in the neck but don't understand how many blues get their knickers in a twist by him and the likes of Simon Jordon ! The way they try to discredit us is shameful but in reality there just click bate for justifying their existence! Look if Harris had any factual proof about anything he wouldn't be posting it on.his meaningless Web site he'd be contacting much higher authorities, as for Jordon, he now suggests I guy who is employed in football litigation cases doesn't know what he's talking about ! This font of all football finance knowledge has had one job in football as owner and chairman of Crystal Palace! He almost made them and himself bankrupt he was that capable, he then had his pants taken down by Palace's current owner who bought the club of him at a fraction of it's value as Jordon was desperate for any money ! He's never had employment in football since he's that valuable to it. He now works on a daily football show spouting his flowery wisdom ! He is of no relevance what so ever and doesn't have scubby about anything relating to City or our charges by the Premier League, don't bother replying to arse holes like that that's what they thrive on ! It's annoying and even when we're cleared of these charges they will still try to tarnish our reputation but me for one couldn't give a toss about their likes!
Click to expand...
This.
 
Looby_Blue said:
Jordan on talksport now saying 'I believe there is a case to answer' but that City will probably get away with it as there are to many 'powerfull entities, and 'vested interests' for us to be found guilty.

He's changed hus tune since yesterday.
Click to expand...
So in effect accusing us and others of wrong doing all the same - you'd think a man so in love with his pseudo intelligent personna would be more careful. We get exonerated and there's going to be quite a few gobshites reviewing their silly statements.
 
jaiguruKun said:
If this is the worst Harris has got on us, we've clearly nothing to fear from him.
Click to expand...
We’ve nothing to fear from him anyway. He exists ONLY on Twitter and apart from the brainless and sycophants, no one takes him seriously.

Talking bollocks about City is his only job and once it’s over he’ll disappear.
 
Last edited:
The mood music on the charges and how daft they are must be starting to sink in if someone is trying to drag up Brahim Diaz and put out a drag net for disgruntled City employees. Isn’t there shit loads of pissed off people at old Trafford, much easier to get a story there.
 
I listened with interest (and no little admiration) to Stefan yesterday and do accept that the charges brought against us are very serious and that the penalties could be extremely severe should the club be found "guilty". The club could find itself facing serious criminal charges and executives possibly looking at custodial sentences. This seems unlikely and is very much the absolutely worst case scenario. Indeed it appears that the PL will be hard pressed to make any of the charges stick, even though there are 115 of them.

My problem is that my understanding of accountancy is limited (to say the least). In common with other posters I rely on PB to provide us with a professional analysis of the issues involved. Yesterday PB described some of the PL's understanding and conclusions of aspects of our accounts as "pretty desperate" but I believe that he has said on others that some of our sponsorship deals may be open to some question, though I believe his conclusion is that the sums involved are "immaterial". I understand this to mean that City admitted spending so much more than UEFA allowed that the sums involved in "owner investment" were so small as to be insignificant. For me this raises several questions. How many of the charges and what nature of charges would have to stick before the sanctions threatened real damage to our club? I suppose I am raising the question of proportionality. If City had claimed 5% of the overspend as sponsorship income which was disallowed now by the PL I would conclude that this was a minor technical breach and a very minor penalty incurred.

Comments please (PB).
 
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