PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Personally, I wouldn't forgive them for getting caught. Trust me, there are plenty of ways of getting around stupid rules like the PL has and our directors are smart enough to find a way to inflate revenues, for example, without any chance of getting caught out. That's one of the reasons nothing will come of these charges, imo. The alleged fraudulent activities would be just too stupid and nonsensical and our directors aren't stupid.

On the other hand, if they were overseeing a major fraud that could be uncovered by a few emails in an unprotected environment then that would be a major fuck up and THAT would be my problem.
Click to expand...

Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.
 
petrusha said:
Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Amen to all that. :)
 
Blueboy73 said:
If Scruffy Jim manages to scrounge some taxpayers money, it wouldn't be the first time or even the second time that this rancid club have been given a government handout to spend on their Non-Mancunian shit hole.
Click to expand...
Scruffy jim wont be getting anything, food banks all over the place,people on the street,homes reposesed,inflation out running wages, its a pipedream, the taxpayer and oposition would go ballistic
 
marco said:
Scruffy jim wont be getting anything, food banks all over the place,people on the street,homes reposesed,inflation out running wages, its a pipedream, the taxpayer and oposition would go ballistic
Click to expand...
I hope you're right and morally it's outrageous to think that an organisation turning over hundreds of millions of pounds a year should get a handout from the taxpayer.
Catweazle the tax dodger has form for scrounging though and both him and the rancid club from Trafford are morally bankrupt so I wouldn't rule anything out.
 
SWPISHOME said:
I find it really weird that people have "Rag Pals"...Not having a dig, Each to their own.

Maybe I'm just a proper grumpy ****, I couldn't have a "Rag Pal", If I seen someone walking down the street with a Rag on I'd think he's a **** straight away.
Click to expand...
When I see rag shirts I think the same, but I’ve a few decent rags in the *family (*wife’s side) and mates. None of them take the piss directly or go on about 115 etc but they’ve largely “gone off football because it’s all about money these days”. I just sit and grin at the fuckers,
 
petrusha said:
Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
Definitely, where I grew up in Gorton it was easily 80% blue.
Click to expand...
where i grew up was mainly rag but looking at back that was a good thing, the amount of crap i had to put up with growing up when we were shite and they were winning everything not only makes our current success all the sweeter but means people wittering on about 115 charges is water off a ducks back.
 
Can someone please remind me as it's been a while.

1. How many emails did that hacker get access to at City?
2. How many are being presented (albeit spliced together and taken out of context) as 'evidence' against us?
 
Rory Bluelow said:
Definitely, where I grew up in Gorton it was easily 80% blue.
Click to expand...

I started work in 1969.

In my year the were 2 blues, me and a lad called Ian Holden, we use to go to the match together, got on the bus at Irlam O’th Heights that went to town and got on the special from Aytown street. We ended up meeting a few more blues from Salford and use to go to the games together. We were out numbered by the scum then. There are more blues around now.
mancboy said:
where i grew up was mainly rag but looking at back that was a good thing, the amount of crap i had to put up with growing up when we were shite and they were winning everything not only makes our current success all the sweeter but means people wittering on about 115 charges is water off a ducks back.
Click to expand...
 
Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?
 
South Stand Balti said:
Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?
Click to expand...
I would have thought companies house because the PL would be able to cross check the accounts provided against that and prove guilt? I know nothing though.

But why?
 
If the statutory accounts are in question then that could be very serious. If it's just the adjustment as per PL requirements then that will remain as only a dispute between us and the PL.
 
South Stand Balti said:
If the statutory accounts are in question then that could be very serious. If it's just the adjustment as per PL requirements then that will remain as only a dispute between us and the PL.
Click to expand...
It would have to be the statutory accounts. There‘s unlikely to be an adjustment for “additional sponsorship income”. Which is why the PL are implicitly accusing City of fraud and false accounting. But the accounts have always been signed off by the auditors as true and fair and they didn’t resign shortly after these accusations first surfaced. Which they almost certainly would have done if City had been pulling the wool over their eyes
 
SWPISHOME said:
I find it really weird that people have "Rag Pals"...Not having a dig, Each to their own.

Maybe I'm just a proper grumpy ****, I couldn't have a "Rag Pal", If I seen someone walking down the street with a Rag on I'd think he's a **** straight away.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that anyone can live in Manchester and not be friends with a few United fans.

Do you have friends outside football? Or is that pretty much your social circle?
 
mattcity5 said:
Can someone please remind me as it's been a while.

1. How many emails did that hacker get access to at City?
2. How many are being presented (albeit spliced together and taken out of context) as 'evidence' against us?
Click to expand...
5,500,000 documents and emails in total.

The initial 'reveal' by der spielgel used (I think) 5 with 2 of them spliced together to generate more faux outrage. There was another (maybe) half a dozen revealed later regarding Mancini and Fordham(?)

We're still waiting for the other 5,499,990 emails and documents to be drip fed over the next 999 years.
 
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