PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
A win for either City or the Premier League will have some cataclysmic fall out for English football and a knock on into European football. They try to deal with City with relegation it pushes the most successful club in the last ten years towards the Super League, if they don’t seem to be dealing with us the teams in red will be taking their bat and ball to the super league instead.

They opened up Pandora’s box when they implemented ffp and now with all the sanctions being laid out at Everton the rumblings of discontent at the people running the premier league will get bigger and bigger.
Click to expand...
Need a score draw and put it to bed and for all to save face.

115-115 should do it -:)
 
flb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Swales was a big problem. When Swales bought Steve Daley for £1.4m that was totally madness. Malcom Allison during his 2nd stint has a lot to answer for too. He sold some fantastic players and bought mostly garbage.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Do you mean like they did when they investigated Liverpool for criminal activity when they hacked into our scouting system? "“A spokesperson said: “The FA carefully considered the evidence received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns"
Click to expand...
The last sentence is interesting. What if the club and the league are both happy for this to drag out until the 6 years statue of limitations comes into effect. It had been posted here that we are not sure when this actually comes into play.

I would not be surprised if this is the get out for all parties. The league will say time barred and no evidence of disguised owner investment. Its going the same way as CAS imo.

It’s the price we will ultimately pay for putting the red cunts noses out of place. The cloud will still exist but do no real harm.
 
Blue_Lightsaber said:
It'd be absolutely hillarious if 114 charges are dismissed and the 1 charge that gets found true is the length of the grass.

Can just picture Melissa Reddy having a cow on the air:

View attachment 104518

P.S. Thank you for taking the instant litigation experts - just add water to town and showing them for what they are.

We're lucky to have you!
Click to expand...
Erm, dont we do fast passing so stitched ourselves up too ? Lol
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
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?
Click to expand...
We sold them in 2013, just about the time we sacked Mancini (although there's no connection between the two events). IIRC, we sold them for £24.5m but I've no idea if there was a specific term for the contract. Fordham paid the image rights and seem to have been reimbursed by ADUG but I really don't know how Fordham exploited those apart from that. They only filed small company accounts, so you could only see the balance sheet and not the P&L.

We would still have used those rights and accumulated the benefit from them and I'm guessing ADUG paid for the right to use them.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
We sold them in 2013, just about the time we sacked Mancini (although there's no connection between the two events). IIRC, we sold them for £24.5m but I've no idea if there was a specific term for the contract. Fordham paid the image rights and seem to have been reimbursed by ADUG but I really don't know how Foirdham exploited those apart from that. They only filed small company accounts, so you could only see the balance sheet and not the P&L.

We would still have used those rights and accumulated the benefit from them and I'm guessing ADUG paid for the right to use them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Thanks. Still some stuff on that that isn't clear, then. I had always assumed the funding from ADUG was some sort of loss underwriting. I suppose we will find out after the verdict.

No need to worry, everyone, it's not enough to change the true and fair opinion on the accounts, or to change the FFP position. Just an accountant trying to understand wtf is going on. :)
 
Lord Blue said:
Actually there might be something in that.

Should a team that is in the premier league for just 1 year in the last 10 have the same voting rights as an ever present like Everton? Maybe, maybe not.

Should Everton get relegated should they lose all voting rights immediately?

Maybe it should be proportional. Maybe you get 1 vote for each of the rolling last 10 years you were in the premier league. So City, Spurs, Chelsea, Everton, Newcastle, Palace would all currently get 10 votes each whereas Burnley would get 8 votes and Forest would get 2 votes.

Not sold on that idea, but it's still the case that no one team gets more than 1/20 of the total vote.
Click to expand...
PL teams are shareholders. As a shareholder you get the number of votes your holding warrants, nothing to do with how long you have had them. Each club has one share. Go figure.
 
projectriver said:
Correct.

Let's not be silly. A proven case of multi-year false accounting creating 10 years or more of sporting advantage with severe aggravating factors (deliberate concealment) would obviously end in relegation either by expulsion or by 100 point deduction. This is not an answer about City - it would apply to any club before or after Everton. And it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I am not sure many or any are suggesting otherwise. But let's acknowledge that it is a very black or white view based on an ultimate all or nothing verdict.

There could I would assume be greys or different extents there though, with outcomes reflective of that.
 
Bez said:
Totally agree. Swales was a big problem. When Swales bought Steve Daley for £1.4m that was totally madness. Malcom Allison during his 2nd stint has a lot to answer for too. He sold some fantastic players and bought mostly garbage.
Click to expand...
Two narcissists working together is never a good scene.
 
eastmanc said:
Twat.
Click to expand...
He seems to like publicity so will say anything to get it. A bit like Michael O Leary at Ryanair when he announced they were considering standing on flights or charging to use toilets on planes. Just as an aside what hs the PL got to do with Parry, I thought he had left.
 
Gordyola said:
Would this also apply to time barring notwithstanding that if fraud is proven then TB can be overridden?
Click to expand...

It means that the issue of time-barring is dealt with in accordance with the provisions applicable under English law. Accordingly, the rules relating to the limitation period apply as set out in the Limitation Act 1980.

Under those rules, the standard limitation period in a case like this is six years. However, if the PL wasn't aware that it had a cause of action owing to fraud or deliberate concealment on City's part, the limitation period starts when the PL became aware of the relevant circumstance (or when it could have done so with "reasonable diligence").

Obviously, a large number of the PL's accusations against us would appear to be outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act. One presumes, therefore, that the PL's intention is to prove deliberate concealment on the club's part in relation to those charges.

One further presumes that they'll say they became aware of the facts through the Der Spiegel revelations in November 2018. That would thus be the point at which the limitation period starts to run, so they'll be within it if their argument is accepted.
 
Bez said:
Totally agree. Swales was a big problem. When Swales bought Steve Daley for £1.4m that was totally madness. Malcom Allison during his 2nd stint has a lot to answer for too. He sold some fantastic players and bought mostly garbage.
Click to expand...
Totally Agree, Experienced players replaced with Players Ranging from The German Second Division to Stockport County
 
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