PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
The process goes ‘alleged breach’ to verdict after tribunal with nothing in between, to say they’re not charges is just window dressing which of course is your right if it makes you feel better.

And as replied, the PL charge sheet overtly suggests a long term, established fraudulent conspiracy within the club. They haven’t said anything publicly full stop, bar the statement with the charge sheet, but you don’t allege a decade of fake accounts, fake employment contracts and fake sponsorships without openly accusing fraud.

Can you show me anywhere where the PL have said they've charged us with anything? And for that matter where the police have arrested anyone for breaches?

This is Incorrect. City already tried to get a commercial court to take it out of the PLs hands due to the overt nature of the investigation being that of fraud and lost resoundingly with the court ruling that the PL had jurisdiction.

Now if City were truly guilty of criminal illegality which we deny, why would we want the law courts involved? It's not like the PL can jail any of us, BUT the law courts can.

The SFO aren’t going to come kicking the office doors in based upon innuendo. *If* City were found guilty and the PL have managed to find and produce such evidence as to *incontrovertibly* prove fraud, I have zero doubt that the clubs senior executives will be getting their collars felt in due course. That’s of course a pretty enormous *if*.

Because as above, they aren’t going to come wading in with their size 10s over simple innuendo, especially when the PL will ultimately present the case such as it may be for them publicly with the tribunal verdict sometime in 2025.

I suggest you look at the current police investigation into Angela Rayner. The Tories can't even say what they're accusing her of, but she's being investigated by the police all the same. Also, have you forgotten about "Currygate" already?

A tax expert mused at most they're talking about a possible undeclared £1500 from 9 years ago. City are essentially being accused of repeated cases of multi-million pound fraud over the last 15 years, so again where are the authorities booting down our doors?

As to your last point, *if* City are undeniably proven guilty on the most serious charges, which would take something absolutely explosive to be presented by the PL that I struggle to believe they could ever have, it most certainly will end up stretching far beyond simply a commercial private members club

*If* can move mountains. Neither Starmer nor Rayner, & now Rayner on her own were found "guilty" by a tribunal hearing before the police were called.

If the PL have the evidence, why aren't they alerting the correct authorities? Explain?

I suggest you're over-complicating the whole matter for whatever ends. It's this simple, if City have committed fraud, why don't the PL stop fannying around & call it what it is, & just like the examples above, why aren't HMRC, the SFO & the police raiding The Etihad?
Click to expand...
Premier league ffp in action:
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
CAS applied the principle that the 5 years applied to the date that the case was passed to the Adjudicatory Chamber, which is the date the investigation finished and that the Investigatory Chamber had decided there was a case to answer. They then set that date as Feb 14th 2014, meaning any transactions from the 2013/14 financial year onwards should be in scrutiny.

Applying the same principle to the PL charges, but with a 6 year limitation, implies that the charges were brought on Feb 6th 2023, when the case was passed to the Independent commission, therefore anything in and after the 2016/17 financial year will be in scope, with anything in 2015/16 or earlier time-barred.

That means:
  • Etihad may be in scope, but the controversial parts of the Etisalat sponsorship (where ADUG laid out the money prior to being reimbursed) is unlikely to be.
  • Mancini will definitely be out of scope.
  • Fordham will probably be out of scope (as I think that effectively ended in 2015 and had definitely ended by 2017).
Click to expand...
This is very good news then.
 
Dribble said:
The process goes ‘alleged breach’ to verdict after tribunal with nothing in between, to say they’re not charges is just window dressing which of course is your right if it makes you feel better.

And as replied, the PL charge sheet overtly suggests a long term, established fraudulent conspiracy within the club. They haven’t said anything publicly full stop, bar the statement with the charge sheet, but you don’t allege a decade of fake accounts, fake employment contracts and fake sponsorships without openly accusing fraud.

Can you show me anywhere where the PL have said they've charged us with anything? And for that matter where the police have arrested anyone for breaches?

This is Incorrect. City already tried to get a commercial court to take it out of the PLs hands due to the overt nature of the investigation being that of fraud and lost resoundingly with the court ruling that the PL had jurisdiction.

Now if City were truly guilty of criminal illegality which we deny, why would we want the law courts involved? It's not like the PL can jail any of us, BUT the law courts can.

The SFO aren’t going to come kicking the office doors in based upon innuendo. *If* City were found guilty and the PL have managed to find and produce such evidence as to *incontrovertibly* prove fraud, I have zero doubt that the clubs senior executives will be getting their collars felt in due course. That’s of course a pretty enormous *if*.

Because as above, they aren’t going to come wading in with their size 10s over simple innuendo, especially when the PL will ultimately present the case such as it may be for them publicly with the tribunal verdict sometime in 2025.

I suggest you look at the current police investigation into Angela Rayner. The Tories can't even say what they're accusing her of, but she's being investigated by the police all the same. Also, have you forgotten about "Currygate" already?

A tax expert mused at most they're talking about a possible undeclared £1500 from 9 years ago. City are essentially being accused of repeated cases of multi-million pound fraud over the last 15 years, so again where are the authorities booting down our doors?

As to your last point, *if* City are undeniably proven guilty on the most serious charges, which would take something absolutely explosive to be presented by the PL that I struggle to believe they could ever have, it most certainly will end up stretching far beyond simply a commercial private members club

*If* can move mountains. Neither Starmer nor Rayner, & now Rayner on her own were found "guilty" by a tribunal hearing before the police were called.

If the PL have the evidence, why aren't they alerting the correct authorities? Explain?

I suggest you're over-complicating the whole matter for whatever ends. It's this simple, if City have committed fraud, why don't the PL stop fannying around & call it what it is, & just like the examples above, why aren't HMRC, the SFO & the police raiding The Etihad?
Click to expand...
Popcorn cat is considering coming out of retirement.
 
Screenshot_20240419_003310_Chrome.jpgScreenshot_20240419_003711_Gallery.jpg

The Greater Manchester Mayor has addressed the accusations hanging over the club after being a vocal critic of the Premier League's handling of cases against Everton.

Andy Burnham has said he will support Manchester City in receiving 'fair and consistent treatment' amid the club's ongoing case with the Premier League.

Asked if he would support City in a similar manner if he thought the Blues were harshly treated, he told the Manchester Evening News: "So obviously it's not all in the public domain. But absolutely I will support Manchester City in securing fair and consistent treatment, and transparent treatment.

"I think that's the issue, that the Premier League need to reassure everybody on, that it's going to be done in a fair way, in a consistent way.

"And as I say, we don't know yet because there's not much in the public domain, but obviously I will absolutely represent both Manchester clubs, both Premier League clubs, as best I can, when they need my support. Obviously on the basis of, you know, challenging where things have been done unfairly or wrongly, that's what I will do."

Mr Burnham said in February that the Premier League had 'proved, in my view, that they can't properly regulate football through the way it's treated Everton Football Club.'

"We need a strong, independent statutory regulator for football, learning from all of the wrong things that have been done over recent weeks."

In a separate interview last month he said: "“I don’t think that the promoter of a product can also be the regulator of a product, particularly given the amount of money that is circulating in the game." Adding: "The regulator should be the regulator and nothing else."

The Premier League said it was unable to comment on ongoing disciplinary proceedings. In responses to two letters from Mr Burnham regarding Everton’s treatment, the organisation strongly refuted any suggestion cases had been mishandled.

The league also pointed out that the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Lucy Frazer had suggested that cases such as Everton’s would remain a matter for leagues and would not fall into the realm of an independent regulator.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ws/andy-burnhams-vow-over-manchester-29022074
 
Iassel said:
The PL quite literally have accused the club of fraud. What you say as ‘darent say the word’ actually = charged as written in the competition rules.

You can’t say with a straight face that charging with failing to file correct and up to date financial statements and failing to declare correct compensation figures for 9 years is anything but a direct accusation of fraud.


My suspicion all along has been that the PL ‘must’ believe they have something over and above what was argued at CAS as I struggle to believe that Adam Lewis would have advised the PL to move forward simply to rehash the same brief, albeit I concede that as those more knowledgable than me have said, ego can ultimately play an important role too.
Click to expand...

I’m the opposite. I believe if they thought they had something they’d have charged us for 1 year & then gone back with the extra years etc

The 115 was the punishment, brand damaging with them kicking it down the lane & then accusing us of that.
 
Dribble said:
View attachment 114931View attachment 114932

The Greater Manchester Mayor has addressed the accusations hanging over the club after being a vocal critic of the Premier League's handling of cases against Everton.

Andy Burnham has said he will support Manchester City in receiving 'fair and consistent treatment' amid the club's ongoing case with the Premier League.

Asked if he would support City in a similar manner if he thought the Blues were harshly treated, he told the Manchester Evening News: "So obviously it's not all in the public domain. But absolutely I will support Manchester City in securing fair and consistent treatment, and transparent treatment.

"I think that's the issue, that the Premier League need to reassure everybody on, that it's going to be done in a fair way, in a consistent way.

"And as I say, we don't know yet because there's not much in the public domain, but obviously I will absolutely represent both Manchester clubs, both Premier League clubs, as best I can, when they need my support. Obviously on the basis of, you know, challenging where things have been done unfairly or wrongly, that's what I will do."

Mr Burnham said in February that the Premier League had 'proved, in my view, that they can't properly regulate football through the way it's treated Everton Football Club.'

"We need a strong, independent statutory regulator for football, learning from all of the wrong things that have been done over recent weeks."

In a separate interview last month he said: "“I don’t think that the promoter of a product can also be the regulator of a product, particularly given the amount of money that is circulating in the game." Adding: "The regulator should be the regulator and nothing else."

The Premier League said it was unable to comment on ongoing disciplinary proceedings. In responses to two letters from Mr Burnham regarding Everton’s treatment, the organisation strongly refuted any suggestion cases had been mishandled.

The league also pointed out that the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Lucy Frazer had suggested that cases such as Everton’s would remain a matter for leagues and would not fall into the realm of an independent regulator.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ws/andy-burnhams-vow-over-manchester-29022074
Click to expand...

He’s not really defending us there is he….. cock!
 
cheekybids said:
He’s not really defending us there is he….. cock!
Click to expand...
He can hardly preempt the IC findings & say City are innocent regardless. He said little information is in the public domain, but he'd support both Manchester clubs to the best of his ability & just wants City to be treated fairly.

TBH, I don't see what else a politician can say without being labelled biased.
 
Dribble said:
He can hardly preempt the IC findings & say City are innocent regardless. He said little information is in the public domain, but he'd support both Manchester clubs to the best of his ability & just wants City to be treated fairly.

TBH, I don't see what else a politician can say without being labelled biased.
Click to expand...

The noise coming out of Everton has been that they aren’t being treated fairly & it’s not consistent because whatabout City. The only point he makes the point is about consistency.

There’s enough out there for a savvy Manchester politician to launch if he so wants, he doesn’t. What’s the problem with appearing biased.
 
Last edited:
cheekybids said:
The noise coming out of Everton has been that they aren’t being treated fairly & it’s consistent because whatabout City. The only point he makes the point is about consistency.

There’s enough out there for a savvy Manchester politician to launch if he so wants, he doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Much of the world are hung up on whatabout City, which is understandable. Most City fans don't understand the 115 alleged breaches, let alone opposition fans being fed a daily diet of bile induced bollocks from the likes of Delooney & Jordan.

If City were in Everton's position of failing FFP/PSR by £10m-£15m, & they were seemingly untouched after being accused of "charges" running into hundreds of millions over a 15 year period, I'm pretty sure most of us would be squeaking whatabout Everton.

My Spud supporting family were calling us cheats a few months ago, but the conversation ended abruptly when I asked them to outline what the 115 breaches were.

They didn't have a scooby & why would they? Like most fans they're only interested in their club. If I was asked details about most PL clubs, I wouldn't have a clue either.

I've heard our fans complaining about the Dippers £50m stadium deal which helped them circumnavigate FFP/PSR. I've also heard about ManUre's breaches & the modest fine they received, but I've no detailed idea what either accusation is really about.

The key thing from Burnham is him saying:

"We need a strong, independent statutory regulator for football, learning from all of the wrong things that have been done over recent weeks."

In a separate interview last month he said: "“I don’t think that the promoter of a product can also be the regulator of a product, particularly given the amount of money that is circulating in the game." Adding: "The regulator should be the regulator and nothing else."

On this substantive point, I think we can all agree. )(
 
Dribble said:
Much of the world are hung up on whatabout City, which is understandable. Most City fans don't understand the 115 alleged breaches, let alone opposition fans being fed a daily diet of bile induced bollocks from the likes of Delooney & Jordan.

If City were in Everton's position of failing FFP/PSR by £10m-£15m, & they were seemingly untouched after being accused of "charges" running into hundreds of millions over a 15 year period, I'm pretty sure most of us would be squeaking whatabout Everton.

My Spud supporting family were calling us cheats a few months ago, but the conversation ended abruptly when I asked them to outline what the 115 breaches were.

They didn't have a scooby & why would they? Like most fans they're only interested in their club. If I was asked details about most PL clubs, I wouldn't have a clue either.

I've heard our fans complaining about the Dippers £50m stadium deal which helped them circumnavigate FFP/PSR. I've also heard about ManUre's breaches & the modest fine they received, but I've no detailed idea what either accusation is really about.

The key thing from Burnham is him saying:

"We need a strong, independent statutory regulator for football, learning from all of the wrong things that have been done over recent weeks."

In a separate interview last month he said: "“I don’t think that the promoter of a product can also be the regulator of a product, particularly given the amount of money that is circulating in the game." Adding: "The regulator should be the regulator and nothing else."

On this substantive point, I think we can all agree. )(
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but by your example you’ve allowed Burnham to play dumb about our charges & the evidence. He’s using his platform as Mayor of Greater Manchester to defend Everton by being both informed & biased whilst playing both ignorant & neutral witb regards to City. I would expect him to become informed, vocal & outraged about City when there is no evidence of wrongdoing compared to his own club that pleaded guilty.

What he’s done as a politician is show that his opinions & policies will match self interest & not the constituents.
 
Dribble said:
Much of the world are hung up on whatabout City, which is understandable. Most City fans don't understand the 115 alleged breaches, let alone opposition fans being fed a daily diet of bile induced bollocks from the likes of Delooney & Jordan.

If City were in Everton's position of failing FFP/PSR by £10m-£15m, & they were seemingly untouched after being accused of "charges" running into hundreds of millions over a 15 year period, I'm pretty sure most of us would be squeaking whatabout Everton.

My Spud supporting family were calling us cheats a few months ago, but the conversation ended abruptly when I asked them to outline what the 115 breaches were.

They didn't have a scooby & why would they? Like most fans they're only interested in their club. If I was asked details about most PL clubs, I wouldn't have a clue either.

I've heard our fans complaining about the Dippers £50m stadium deal which helped them circumnavigate FFP/PSR. I've also heard about ManUre's breaches & the modest fine they received, but I've no detailed idea what either accusation is really about.

The key thing from Burnham is him saying:

"We need a strong, independent statutory regulator for football, learning from all of the wrong things that have been done over recent weeks."

In a separate interview last month he said: "“I don’t think that the promoter of a product can also be the regulator of a product, particularly given the amount of money that is circulating in the game." Adding: "The regulator should be the regulator and nothing else."

On this substantive point, I think we can all agree. )(
Click to expand...
There was a European parliament report a few years ago that supported FFP, despite the challenge to EU law on unfair restraint on trade. What didn't get as much publicity was that the report also said that the regulatory body should not be run by directors of the clubs who might set and enforce rules to their clubs' advantage.
 
cheekybids said:
I’m the opposite. I believe if they thought they had something they’d have charged us for 1 year & then gone back with the extra years etc

The 115 was the punishment, brand damaging with them kicking it down the lane & then accusing us of that.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s theoretically possible that this is simply a rehash of the UEFA case with exactly the same evidence, however the fact that the PL went to court, won and City were forced to hand over more than they wanted to suggests that it wont be.

As I’ve said before, my only basis point for speculating that the PL must have something they believe to be a golden bullet is that Adam Lewis has driven the process on their side and the guy quite literally wrote the playbook for how to litigate sporting cases, City obviously have a fantastically knowledgable and competent team also but Lewis is the go-to guy for this sort of case.

It’s important to acknowledge also that he won’t have taken the case for financial reasons, he picks and chooses his cases and will easily net £1m+ per year without taking this on, the hope is that as others have speculated it’s an ego thing for him in ‘succeeding’ where UEFA failed, which i can also accept is very possible.

Ultimately I’m not suggesting that I believe the PL will ‘win’, as with Stefan I think they’ve made a rod for their own back by clearly overcharging the club and with the overt allegation of fraud they’ll need to present something totally explosive to land those charges and I cant believe they have that, even if such a thing exists - my position that I’ve stated previously is that I suspect it will be a ‘guilty’ on Mancini, Fordham & Non-Cooperation, a decent (10+) points deduction and a fine, reduced on appeal to a large fine and maybe 1-3 points which I’m sure the clubs executives would be clearing out Manchester’s Cubana and Dom P reserves for if offered right now.

The underlying thing that I don’t think most have sufficiently acknowledged yet though is that it’s demonstrably *not* going to be a like-for-like tribunal as CAS, simply because it’s public record that the PL have gotten more from City via Commercial Court, now of course it’s phenomenally unlikely City have willingly provided them a golden bullet so I’m not exactly panicking about that, but we should all be clear that they do have a bit more than just the Der Speigel emails.
 
cheekybids said:
I’m sorry but by your example you’ve allowed Burnham to play dumb about our charges & the evidence. He’s using his platform as Mayor of Greater Manchester to defend Everton by being both informed & biased whilst playing both ignorant & neutral witb regards to City. I would expect him to become informed, vocal & outraged about City when there is no evidence of wrongdoing compared to his own club that pleaded guilty.

What he’s done as a politician is show that his opinions & policies will match self interest & not the constituents.
Click to expand...
Personally, I only heard from Burnham after Everton were docked points.

For Burnham to show outrage about our breaches after seeing our evidence, when the whole process is supposed to be confidential, is about as presumptuous as those screaming we're guilty & who want us hung, drawn & quartered before the hearings taken place & the evidence heard.

Both are opposite sides of the same presumptuous coin imo. If Burnham was to announce he'd seen the evidence of both sides, how could the hearings be a confidential & unbiased process?

I think you're being a littld bit harsh on Burnham...
 
cheekybids said:
I’m sorry but by your example you’ve allowed Burnham to play dumb about our charges & the evidence. He’s using his platform as Mayor of Greater Manchester to defend Everton by being both informed & biased whilst playing both ignorant & neutral witb regards to City. I would expect him to become informed, vocal & outraged about City when there is no evidence of wrongdoing compared to his own club that pleaded guilty.

What he’s done as a politician is show that his opinions & policies will match self interest & not the constituents.
Click to expand...
You're doing exactly what other fans say when talking about Everton or Forest, "what about City".

Everton & Forest admitted breaches, been evaluated and then punished. There is no relation to City's case whatsoever, judge Burnham on what he says when our case is finally over (if ever).
 
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