PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...


He's paving the way for explaining how they can still call us cheats after being acquitted, giving the reasons why we we are being "Let off" so that the abuse of our club can continue.

This time IMHO the club needs more than an acquittal we need blood.
 
wolviedinho said:
“Get away with it?” The club has done fuck all wrong and now he is using Stefans own words to keep the pressure on the league. Now it’s not about how dishonest we are by disguising owner investment but about the politics behind the scenes. He is a fucking cretin.

A new narrative is being set now just incase the cheats one doesn't work.
Click to expand...
In fairness, none of us on here know that for sure.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
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).
Click to expand...
I don't believe I've said anything like that regarding the sponsorship deals. CAS showed comprehensively that they're completely above board, which I've always maintained. Yet the PL have chosen to base their case around these, which beggars belief given the CAS outcome.

What I might have said relates to the image rights payments to the players. My initial reaction to these was that these could be problematic, but since then I discovered that UEFA had brought these up in 2015, and the arrangement ended in 2018. UEFA obviously didn't charge us with anything relating to these so we must assume there was no significant issue with them.

What I've said is that these payments (to Mancini and the image rights) aren't significant. The Mancini ones had a contract to support them and came at a time when we were reporting hundreds of millions in losses. £1.75m is barely a drop in the ocean and couldn't possibly involve an attempt to get round FFP, as has been claimed.

The image rights payments from Fordham started about the time we sacked Mancini and are probably less than £15m a year. But we didn't try to hide these away in an unconnected company. We sold the IP to them, declared it our accounts and Fordham was linked to us on the Companies House website. You'd hardly need to be MI6 to work out there was a relationship, and it would have been done on expert legal and financial advice.
 
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...
Probably coincides with the batteries for his anal love eggs running out.
 
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...
The media climbdown begins...
 
PPT said:
The media climbdown begins...
Click to expand...


Not so much a climb down more a....

tumblr_inline_mt5jqhJMps1rxd4uk.gif
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.