PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Just to complete the analogy: like being heard saying you might steal a bag of Maltesers and then being charged for each single Malteser in every single bag that had ever gone missing .....
Click to expand...
An analogy I've used is someone who's burgled a few houses being charged separately, and therefore facing a separate court case, for each item they nicked.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
An analogy I've used is someone who's burgled a few houses being charged separately, and therefore facing a separate court case, for each item they nicked.
Click to expand...
Is the fact that they are linking 3 consecutive years as a rolling date spread similar to our date spread for same charges?
 
SilverFox2 said:
Is the fact that they are linking 3 consecutive years as a rolling date spread similar to our date spread for same charges?
Click to expand...
Not quite. The PSR/FFP assessment takes in 3 rolling years of data, and comes up with a single figure of aggregate losses.

So a loss of £150m in one year will impact three separate assessments. One of the good outcomes from our 2014 settlement with UEFA was that our previous losses were ignored in subsequent years, and we had to meet a different single-year threshold over each of the following two years. The PL, as has become apparent, hadn't thought through any of this coherently. Had it done, they might have adopted a similar approach to UEFA's.

The '115 charges' as I've said, is complete smoke and mirrors. There are 5 charges in total but only two of those, 1 & 2, relate to substantive accounting issues. If the PL can't land those, then charges 3 & 4 automatically fail, as they're totally dependent on 1 & 2. That leaves charge 5, of non-cooperation.

As I said earlier, I really can't imagine a believable scenario where they find against us on the sponsorship charge in 2014 but not 2016. Or where they find against us under one or two rules in one year but not the others we're accused of breaking under that heading in any specific year.
 
Last edited:
Just watched the uplifting Netflix treble documentary. Loved it. But made me think about these charges again. We cannot let the vested interests pressing for these “115“ charges sully that treble or the Sergio moment, or the centurions, or three/four in a row and so on. Have had enough of this hanging over us. Watching the tears of the players last year and reliving the emotion of the trip to Istanbul highlighted how much I just do not want any of that tainted.

Not sure that adds to the thread, gives any solutions at all but I just had to get it off my chest. Sorry!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Not quite. The PSR/FFP assessment takes in 3 rolling years of data, and comes up with a single figure of aggregate losses.

So a loss of £150m will impact three separate assessments. One of the good outcomes from our 2014 settlement with UEFA was that our previous losses were ignored in subsequent years, and we had to meet a different single-year threshold over each of the following two years. The PL, as has become apparent, hadn't thought through any of this coherently. Had it done, they might have adopted a similar approach to UEFA's.

The '115 charges' as I've said, is complete smoke and mirrors. There are 5 charges in total but only two of those, 1 & 2, relate to substantive accounting issues. If the PL can't land those, then charges 3 & 4 automatically fail, as they're totally dependent on 1 & 2. That leaves charge 5, of non-cooperation.

As I said earlier, I really can't imagine a believable scenario where they find against us on the sponsorship charge in 2014 but not 2016. Or where they find against us under one or two rules in one year but not the others we're accused of breaking under that heading in any specific year.
Click to expand...
3 year rolling period why does that matter if it’s say 16 17 and 18 and the next three are 19 20 21 why does it cross over
 
Centurions said:
I had to go back to refresh my memory on what we're alleged to have done.

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

So, if I've got this right:-

1. Cooked the books in regards to sponsorship and perhaps Fordham?
2. Mancini
3. Failing UEFA FFP? Obviously(?) can't be right?
4. Failing P&S
5. Failure to cooperate

Am I well wide of the mark on any of that?
Click to expand...
So that's 132 charges listed, now we could logically reduce the 9 Accurate financial info ones to 5 due to the handbook changing mid season (How fucking daft is that as an aside?) So that would make 128, so how the fuck did some cockwomble in the media get 115 and why did no twunt correct the cockwomble that cant count?
There's no sensible way of grouping the charges by season or period to get 115 that I can see.
 
hello said:
So that's 132 charges listed, now we could logically reduce the 9 Accurate financial info ones to 5 due to the handbook changing mid season (How fucking daft is that as an aside?) So that would make 128, so how the fuck did some cockwomble in the media get 115 and why did no twunt correct the cockwomble that cant count?
There's no sensible way of grouping the charges by season or period to get 115 that I can see.
Click to expand...
MCFC... Ruining counting since 2008 ;)
 
I quite like that we were charged after a 4 year investigation, why 4 years?

Surely if they believed they had anyting on us after 2 years they would have just charged us then.

i suspect a lot of smoke and mirrors.
 
Quite fond of the comments made about playets being paid off the books, we must have signed over 50 players over this timeframe, most left on good terms some maybe not so. Multiple agents involved as well. Not a single whistleblower has ever come forward.

What about the players own accountants, have any of them questioned where the alleged £150k a week being recieved has come from?

What about the Tax office, anyone think they would just ignore any tax fraud that may be taking place?

Its all just a comfort blanket for opposition fans to hide behind.
 
abu13 said:
I quite like that we were charged after a 4 year investigation, why 4 years?

Surely if they believed they had anyting on us after 2 years they would have just charged us then.

i suspect a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...
A charge was made against us by UEFA, it failed but the PL had an obligation to follow it up a SOP, under a SOP only the PL can be blamed and that blame would be fobbed off, but i say it stopped being a SOP when they started using procedures beyond any other investigation, just over a year ago with the investigation going nowhere the FA brought in Forensic Data experts, within 6 months they had charged us, but it is no longer a standard operating procedure the PL need a lot of things now, including solid evidence of wrong doing that UEFA did not have.
 
abu13 said:
I quite like that we were charged after a 4 year investigation, why 4 years?

Surely if they believed they had anyting on us after 2 years they would have just charged us then.

i suspect a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they’ve sat on them and got to the point where the limitations act kicks in on some of the evidence they want to charge City with so have had to get something out their sanction wise. They couldn’t even get the charge sheet right on the press release, they are probably that incompetent at the Premier League they looked at a calendar one day and panicked realising what they had to do within a certain time frame.
 
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