PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
I agree with a lot of what you say, and in a sense what I'm about to say is not aimed at you in particular, it is just a thought that I have been having more and more recently.

I have been working on the assumption that we will be cleared of the most serious charges for reasons discussed at length in this thread.

However the thought that if/when that happens the red-tops and their client journalists will just accept it and go away seems to me to be completely pie in the sky. For as long as the rags, dippers and (to a much lesser extent) Arse and Spuds have friends in the media, we will continue to be hounded, our club belittled, our achievements denigrated.

The cloud, as you put it, that is currently hanging over us will, in other words, be replaced by another one, as sure as eggs are eggs. I don't know what the next cloud will be. If the PL case goes our way, as many of us expect, we might well see a rehash of the 'they got off on a technicality' stance that belittles/ignores the number of times CAS said 'no evidence.' We might see innuendo that we have bought the result. It might be something else completely. But the red-tops will not go away. They know that every small boy who starts supporting City is a future supporter of theirs - and therefore a potential source of income - that they have lost, and so they will keep on going in their attempt to make us the most unpopular club in the league. They can't make us unsuccessful on the pitch. But they can try and make us unpopular off it.

So the way this ends is not that the PL panel acquit us of everything and the anti-City narrative stops. The way this ends is that the media begins to be populated more and more by those who don't remember the glory days of the class of 92 and that magical night in Barcelona, whose formative years featured the Agueroooo goal, the formidables, the real treble winners, the centurions and so forth. (I remember a time when we complained we had no voices in punditland. These days we do. We regularly see Micah Richards, Joleon Lescott and Shay Given in the media, not to mention Steph Houghton, Jill Scott and izzy Christiansen. That progression will keep going.)

Alternatively, at some point Pep leaves, his replacement is markedly less successful than he is and normal service, as the red tops would have it, is resumed. We stop being a target, in other words, when we stop being such a threat.

Either way, the dirty tricks campaign is likely to continue for many years to come. And make no mistake, the red tops are behind it.

So my advice, and I repeat that this is a reply to you without being aimed at you necessarily, is to buckle down, and get used to that cloud hanging over your head. It's not going away any time soon, and when it does it will just be replaced by another.

And reflect on the fact that as dark as that cloud may seem, that is simply a reflection of the beautiful winning football we see week in week out on the pitch, and the extent to which our success hurts the red-tops to their very core.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of that but I think there will be a sea change with Ratcliffe at United. He is a global operator who has done plenty of business with Middle East firms. I think he will keep out of the poisonous smear campaign run by the previous regime at United. I think a lot of the hate and bile was being driven by Ferguson but his power is finished now. Not sure about LFC, though the game could also change there when Klopp leaves. Our rivals are starting to modernise their own business models. They have got plenty enough on their plates to sort out instead of waging war on City. The media will follow the money, and as City get bigger, it will be in their commercial interest to change their coverage of City.
 
I’ve been wondering how our sponsors will react if the IC find in the PL’s favour thus suggesting they are complicit in fraud, be interesting to see if they challenge the PL if they suffer any damage to their reputations. Apologies in advance if this has already been covered but I haven’t got the patience to scroll through 4000 plus posts.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I'm puzzled over the charges related to non-cooperation. CAS concluded that we had cooperated fully with CAS after lodging our appeal but that, had we cooperated fully with UEFA before and after the alleged leaks UEFA would have dropped the charges. In the present proceedings City claim to have provided them with a large body of irrefutable evidence - presumably the evidence put before CAS which proved that the charges laid by UEFA were false. Now, the PL charges seem to go over the same ground as UEFA's and therefore City's evidence would appear to be truly irrefutable UNLESS the PL have compelling NEW evidence. We'll never know, but if the charges are to collapse the PL may defend itself by arguing - in an attempt to fend off an independent regulator - that it was City's awkwardness that made it such a "difficult" and "complicated" case. Whether that would satisfy H M government seems unlikely. What Khaldoon would make of it.... Or whether Masters will just say, "I'm off. Get your independent regulator in and let him sort those red bastards out."
Click to expand...
City's statement was that it had provided a "vast amount" of evidence to the PL and welcomes the review by the independent commission of the "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position". To me, this says two things: i) the club has given the PL everything it is obliged so to do by the rules (as you would expect given the HC ruling) and ii) the club has held back other evidence for the commission (I am guessing evidence from third parties). If that is so, this case is different from the CAS case where the club refused to comply with valid UEFA requests. And it suggests to me that the acceptance of a charge even for non-cooperation is much less likely unless it's part of a settlement including other, intangible benefits to the club.

If you like, UEFA had City bang to rights on non-cooperation. I don't think the PL does.

May all be bollocks, of course.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
I am not on Facebook but it was mentioned on here a few weeks back. It was a random isolated comment saying words along the lines of: "nothing to worry about. Perhaps someone good at searching on this forum can find it.

Edit:Thanks Ric for finding it.
Click to expand...
After seeing Cheesy's post where he says " we have got nothing to worry about " I messaged him and asked why he was so confident, he replied saying We will be fined not guilty. Make of that what you will.
 
halfcenturyup said:
City's statement was that it had provided a "vast amount" of evidence to the PL and welcomes the review by the independent commission of the "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position". To me, this says two things: i) the club has given the PL everything it is obliged so to do by the rules (as you would expect given the HC ruling) and ii) the club has held back other evidence for the commission (I am guessing evidence from third parties). If that is so, this case is different from the CAS case where the club refused to comply with valid UEFA requests. And it suggests to me, the acceptance of a charge even for non-cooperation to be much less likely unless its part of a settlement including other, intangible benefits to the club.

May all be bollocks, of course.
Click to expand...
I’m happy to be corrected but didn’t the PL request sponsorship info that was after 2018 so City didn’t provide it as it wasn’t relevant to the time period in question? It makes sense that our board wouldn’t submit sponsorship info that no doubt the red tops and their Spurs poodle would have access to that gives them an insight into City’s deals.
 
Scaley said:
I’m happy to be corrected but didn’t the PL request sponsorship info that was after 2018 so City didn’t provide it as it wasn’t relevant to the time period in question? It makes sense that our board wouldn’t submit sponsorship info that no doubt the red tops and their Spurs poodle would have access to that gives them an insight into City’s deals.
Click to expand...

May be right, but I hadn't heard that. Can you remember a source?

The alleged rule breaches stopped in 2018 didn't they? So I am not sure they would have looked at later periods?
 
I know i shouldnt … but every time i see other fans spouting on social media , its along the lines of “city are guilty, and if they arent, its corrupt and theyve bribed their way out”.

Its literally mission accomplished whatever happens isnt it. What i will say is, whatever the outcome, it wont take away any of the enjoyment of the last 15 years. We could be guilty as sin and ive still loved every fuckin minute .
 
M18CTID said:
Not true. City staff were told on the Friday afternoon before the Monday announcement that we'd won on all the main charges. One City fan who helps run a supporters club branch got hold of the info as he had a relative who worked at the club and blabbed to all and sundry down the pub on the Saturday night. I got a WhatsApp off a mate on the Sunday evening confirming this. It also explains how Ian Cheeseman might've got hold of it. He doesn't need to hear it directly from a contact within the club because he's got plenty of mates outside the club who have contacts within.
Click to expand...
Both parties were given a preview of the CAS report a few days before it was made public, I believe, so they could amend any obvious errors or other things.
 
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