PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

JewelZee said:
I've thought about this quite a bit. The utter disregard for the mental health of some supporters caused by a relentless public display of slander and hatred in the media towards an entity that they genuinely love and have so much emotion invested in. It's like having a family member being slagged in the media all day every day with no actual event having been settled or proven. It's preposterous that they can get away with this unceasing policy of slander and IMO it's not a stretch to say that it's causing personal damage to some and that those doing this should be held accountable...
Click to expand...
whilst i tend to agree i'd be wary about being associated with the "victims" label. the dippers might sue us over it.
 
Do we have a timescale ? Hearing in autumn ? Then how long ? If found guilty appeal seems certain again how long ? Appeal to outside court after that ? Perhaps hard to do but perhaps more likely than people realize given the allegations and burden of proof the commission seems the wrong setting. If we are found guilty don’t think we will be dragging it out will make the whole thing more and more ridiculous.

I always have confidence in the club to progress on and off the pitch so the more time that passes more silly it looks especially when it was claimed to protect clubs from financial problems

I wonder what will be won before this is resolved and what will have been announced financially and for the campus by then
 
WRicko said:
Why would we need to report stuff that’s outside the club ? Unless it’s not a related party company within the company it would be like Nike reporting to PL UEFA payments to players
Click to expand...
Because we're supposed to report all payments to players as part of their remuneration. But your point is also valid and I suspect that would have been our argument to UEFA.

Image rights are personal payments and paid differently to wages. We'd sold those rights to an unconnected third party. It's be the same as reporting any commerical revenue earned by players for adverts and promotions.
 
Eric Hitchmough said:
Unfortunately he gets to say and do whatever he wants because he’s mentally unwell.

He operates with absolutely no fear of litigation, and blocks anyone who tries to engage him in rational debate on his beloved Twitter.

He’s obsessed with us and the bile he spews about both the club and fanbase is relentless.

He hates City and he hates City fans.
Click to expand...
The word **** comes to mind.
 
petrusha said:
There's an express provision in the PL's Rules (Rule A.7., IIRC) that the PL's Rules are "governed by and construed in accordance with English law". So, yes, we know.
Click to expand...
Would this also apply to time barring notwithstanding that if fraud is proven then TB can be overridden?
 
Cityfan said:
We were pretty big in those years as well, though by the mid 80's Everton were having more success.
Click to expand...
Then Swales fucked it up , but it’s never talked about , Swales fucked this club big time , we were up there in the later sixties and the most of the seventies , for our detractors to say we we nothing more than a third division club who made “good” is a fucking disgrace tbh , there is one club , and one club only with their grip on the press that are to blame , and they don’t reside down the other end of the M62.
 
MCFC84000 said:
Nor murdered anyone. Heysel has almost been airbrushed from history. The club should have been dismantled the day afterwards. If the FA acted correctly, all those teams who missed out on Europe may well have had entirely different trajectories and become elite clubs. As it is, no compensation has ever been paid to those clubs and with 40 years interest the likes of Coventry, Oxford, Wimbledon etc etc could do with that money. Plus tthose that missed out because the coefficients had reduced the opportunity for that tailing off period during the ban.
Click to expand...
It was Everton who suffered the most from the ban and the perpetrators only got one more season than the innocent
 
Lord Blue said:
Maybe they should have less.

Maybe any team that has been in the premier league within the last 3 years should have an equal vote.

Would that stop fat cats getting fatter? Obviously we're fat cats these days.
Click to expand...
Lord Blue said:
Maybe they should have less.

Maybe any team that has been in the premier league within the last 3 years should have an equal vote.

Would that stop fat cats getting fatter? Obviously we're fat cats these
Click to expand...

eastmanc said:
Twat.
Click to expand...
Of course Trafford Rangers should have more votes then the most indebted, worst run club in the premier league can dictate to the rest how their clubs should be run
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Because we're supposed to report all payments to players as part of their remuneration. But your point is also valid and I suspect that would have been our argument to UEFA.

Image rights are personal payments and paid differently to wages. We'd sold those rights to an unconnected third party. It's be the same as reporting any commerical revenue earned by players for adverts and promotions.
Click to expand...

If I can just sidetrack the thread for a minute, PB, do we know what the substance of the Fordham deal was?

Afaik, the club sold the image rights of some players to Fordham in 2012 (was it?) to accelerate income because the club was short for FFP. So the club received an amount of money which must have represented the net value of the future income and costs of those image rights over the length of the contract.

So from 2012, for around 5 years, Fordham must have made a return on those image rights by exploiting them and paying a % to the player. Is that right? Is that how it worked?
 
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