PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
I get that. I have welcomed it, certaunly found it both interesting and informative.

Don't think you have understood what I was trying to say, but I'll leave it, it is jot that important.

I think too many people say things way too freely with this. But I guess with nothing there to discourage it, it is inevitable.
Click to expand...
If both parties have agreed to conduct the investigation in secret all you are left with is speculation. Everyone likes a mystery and has to fill the vacuum with something. We are lucky we at least have Stefan to provide context. Our rivals just have an endless stream of City must be guilty so hurry up.

The British people hate winners. The clamour to find us guilty is just a way to stop us from winning more. They don’t care if we are wrongly found guilty.

Ironically Americans just like winners no matter what, which is why we are now the most popular PL club there.

115 was the motivation for the treble even more ironically.
 
I don’t believe the charges motivated the players. I don’t think, once Pep spoke to them, they gave them a second thought. As for Pep, he needs no extra motivation, he has always been driven by the unending search for perfection.
I do think, however, that it has motivated the exec body and the immediate effect is in transfer policy. Khaldoon has very strong views which he will reveal when it is all over. The redshirts had better duck! Will we go legally for those who undoubtedly will say any exoneration is fixed? We should but I’m not going to hold my breath.
 
Tolmie scores said:
I know its been said a million times but it struck me this morning reading your comment (as good as it is) that its so far away from conversations ive had since junior blue days ('74) up until '08. You would have no clue that we were talking about sport let alone a football club. It's sad its come to this, it's like reading contracts and docs at work but no consuming our free time as well I miss the Asa Hartford days!!
Click to expand...
Indeed.The sad thing for me is when I was sat on the bog reading that post, I knew it was an error. I didn't even have to look at the regs to confirm it before posting the response!
This 'City chose the panel' myth was started immediately after CAS by (incompetent/malicious) journalists. It has mainly died a death because it is easy to source the correct regs to demonstrate they didn't and refer to the correct application of the regs in para 34-37 of CAS 2020/A/6785.





*I am NOT Nick Harris
 
Clearly, I am not an auditor, but I am intrigued by the level of scrutiny they applied to City's accounts. So for example, on dd/mm/yyyy City's bank account received a payment in for £40M. Presumably the auditors query this either via email or in person, whatever. And the City accounts person replies "Oh that was a sponsorship payment from Ethihad Airways". Is that the end of the conversation ? the BDO person just says "thanks for that, moving on, next item..."
FFS there must be more scrutiny than that ?. We have never seen ANY leaked emails between City and BDO. Why might that be ?.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
BDO and our Charterd Accounts can't be excluded from the IC submissions, witness statements etc. They are integral to these charges. The questions for them are not quantum mechanics. Who paid the sponsorship fees ? , when where they paid ? why and how were they paid ?. They cant just state "we dont know, we didnt check'. If their evidence supports our case and its corroborated by transactional evidence from banks then the Ethihad and Etisalat sponsorships were valid. End of.
Click to expand...

And that’s the issue the PL will have if it’s the same allegation as at CAS. It’s not our auditors that can show that, it’s the sponsors.
 
Coatigan said:
I've asked this a couple of times already.

At what point does all this public speculation and side analysis become unhelpful or counterproductive? To the actual process itself.

I think we have crossed that line myself, but still it snowballs on.
Click to expand...

I agree City are called guilty or implied guilty on a daily basis. I do wonder how City will get a fair hearing.
I know people says it's KC and they won't let this effect them but still part of me thinks it will.
Plus I don't see how it's legal for the press/media to call us guilty
 
In all my years of dealing with auditors, financial or government, quality or safety the audits would often centre around something that’s come to light. Not only would you imagine all audits for City to answer questions around this you’d imagine every auditor at every sporting organisation would be on the alert.
 
give it to gordon said:
I agree City are called guilty or implied guilty on a daily basis. I do wonder how City will get a fair hearing.
I know people says it's KC and they won't let this effect them but still part of me thinks it will.
Plus I don't see how it's legal for the press/media to call us guilty
Click to expand...
The press will carry on regardless. There have been many occasions where they have been in the dock themselves and they will have weighed up the cost of a story like this, you can be sure.
 
Cobwebcat said:
If both parties have agreed to conduct the investigation in secret all you are left with is speculation. Everyone likes a mystery and has to fill the vacuum with something. We are lucky we at least have Stefan to provide context. Our rivals just have an endless stream of City must be guilty so hurry up.

The British people hate winners. The clamour to find us guilty is just a way to stop us from winning more. They don’t care if we are wrongly found guilty.

Ironically Americans just like winners no matter what, which is why we are now the most popular PL club there.

115 was the motivation for the treble even more ironically.
Click to expand...
Although I agree with the state of the UK towards winners, I refuse to align my moral compass with America regarding winners.
There should be accountability for anyone contravening the rules.
Seems society, in general, admire the successful, not fully realising the abhorrent things they've done to get there.
Anyway, back to the thread....
 
give it to gordon said:
I agree City are called guilty or implied guilty on a daily basis. I do wonder how City will get a fair hearing.
I know people says it's KC and they won't let this effect them but still part of me thinks it will.
Plus I don't see how it's legal for the press/media to call us guilty
Click to expand...
Said this a million times, IF city are found guilty of anything there has to be a documented reason available as to why and i dont think because miguel delooney and some nut jobs from twitter think they are will stand up to scrutiny.
 
burning blue soul said:
Although I agree with the state of the UK towards winners, I refuse to align my moral compass with America regarding winners.
There should be accountability for anyone contravening the rules.
Seems society, in general, admire the successful, not fully realising the abhorrent things they've done to get there.
Anyway, back to the thread....
Click to expand...
I think the abhorrent things that certain clubs have done 2 get there have been largely and repeatedly swept under the carpet, whereas we are being presented as all things evil to football whereas what we are accused of doing is breaking rules expressly put in place to stop us, i mean investing in ur own business what a horrific thought anyone would think we got teams banned from europe or supported a racist or sent nazi emails or glorified players who assault fans or celebrate ending other players careers
 
Coatigan said:
I wasn't being specific to that one. I meant all of it. Including yours (and the reaction to it). And Tolmie's. And of course all the multiple opposing takes and (often unfounded) claims.

It all creates backdrops that I just don't see how they can be completely ignored. If nothing else, it all creates distractions.
Click to expand...

You’re making a big assumption here - the backdrop to this case very much depends on the individual.

I doubt members of the tribunal will be following this issue in the court of public opinion (Twitter and football forums). I’d hazard a guess they don’t have talksport on every day in chambers.

True, they will see some coverage in mainstream press but that is no different to other cases/inquiries they will have been involved in previously.

You could extend this to City’s legal team. I’m sure Pannick wants to win this case, but he would want to win the case equally as much if he was representing the PL.

They are professional people doing their job. That’s all there is to it.
 
projectriver said:
The related party enquiries are bound to have led to relevant questions in terms of ultimate funding. Clearly a bunch of specific allegations and emails post 2018 will have heightened the concern.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suppose we can agree to disagree. No problem.
 
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