PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BlueAnorak said:
To damn us in the Court of public opinion.
To be fair they've been pretty good since the charges were laid, but since we won the PL they've been abysmal.
The question is why? Do they know they've lost?
Click to expand...

Look at headlines leading upto the Prince Harry phone tapping case then consider the headlines when we won at CAS. It’s no accident.
 
cheekybids said:
My CEO was a top bloke but would send emails to our leadership team disparaging the overseas owner. The sly fucker who wanted his job had no problem ensuring they were seen. The CEO wasn’t daft he just thought he had everyone’s loyalty, he had all but 1 & that’s all it takes.
Click to expand...
I worked with two senior Directors who were addicted to gambling and used company devices on work time and another who was an online sex addict! They all used texts and emails! This sort of thing is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Just because the club didn't make a claim until February doesn't mean they don't want the whole thing thrown out. Has anyone who has seen the complaint confirmed it's just about the February changes?
Click to expand...
The more of these rules that are binned the better IMO...
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I worked with two senior Directors who were addicted to gambling and used company devices on work time and another who was an online sex addict! They all used texts and emails! This sort of thing is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Click to expand...

Do you work for the premier league……. Please ;)
 
Toranaga sama said:
This leak can only come from 1 of the 3 parties involved in this legal dispute.

IC: I don't think they are the source of this leak. It's highly unlikely to me and I wonder what they would gain from this leaking.

City: We have seen previously that City doesn't have the habit of leaking something to the press when there is an investigation going on. We saw the same pattern from City with UEFA, CAS and PL. And if we were to leak something then surely we would hand our news material to someone else, sure not to Matt Lawton (the massive ****) from The Times who with his buddy Matthew Syed and Martyn Ziegler consistently slagging us. And if we decide to leak something with a high magnitude then the obvious choice would be Martin Samuel or Simon Mullock. That's why I just don't see City leaking this.

Premier League: The usual suspect. I am certain that they are the source. As we have already seen in the past week from Matt Lawton's reports on our legal action against PL. Either PL is a direct source or PL made the arrangement via 3rd party like Arsenal. Either way, they are the source.

Now the question is what PL can achieve from this leak and what was their motivation...? I don't have the answer for that. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Click to expand...
As the document (possibly redacted) was passed to all 19 clubs directly by the PL why do you think the PL would do that themselves?
 
Hopefully the club already has information & want to see if its produced to the ic,
Wonder if that's why Dick Masters wernt invited to the Etihad on the final day,
Because we know he's a slimy twat & we have the evidence
 
halfcenturyup said:
Yes. But the club abstained from the vote on the 2021 rules on the grounds they could be illegal. It would be strange to want the latest rules overturned but not ones the club previously thought could be illegal. The new rules were just the straw that broke the camel's back, I think.
Click to expand...
What if City started this procedure back in 2021 and it's taken this long to go through all of the proper channels and procedures? You could look at the PL's 115 charges as petty retaliation and perhaps why it was rushed through. The opposite of how the media are portraying our case being heard this week as?
 
eastmanc said:
I am right in thinking that City aren't against the APT as it was before the February ammendment, we just dont agree with this change and we are fighting this. Or am I wrong?
Click to expand...
When ‘associated’ was put forward City said they had legal advice that it was not lawful. They did however say that they would bide their time and see how it panned out. The PL in Feb changed the rule again, triggering City’s action.
Idiots.
 
tweety said:
A guy I used to work with many years ago was sacked because of the websites he was looking at on work's time. Don't go looking for dwarf porn sites!
Click to expand...
ha ha same thing this lad on nights shouted hey come n look at this as manager was stood behind him. how he explained sacking to his wife i dont know
 
:-)

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.

www.bbc.co.uk

Everton: Consortium with Saudi royal makes £400m takeover bid

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
citizen_maine said:
I suspect they are against the Associated party definition though, and want a return to the related party definition under IAS24
Click to expand...
Well yes.
But Etihad are NOT a Related party to City by IFFS IAS24.
The PL declaring it to be so targets MCFC. And restricting sponsorship based on country or a perceived connection stinks.
Let's look at PL American Owner Connections to Amercan Companies that sponsor PL clubs. Lets chose, say, New Balance from the US who had a relationship with other Fenway Sports brands before being chosen by Liverpool. That is a related party under the approach chosen by the PL for sponsorships but, unsurprisingly not covered by the Jan 2024 rules that only target City and Newcastle.
All sponsorships over a trigger value should be accessed under the same fair value rules. End of.
Alternatively scrap the lot and simply have a simple salary cap spplicable to all.

Edit: updated company - it was New Balance not Under Armour
 
Last edited:
jrb said:
:-)

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.

www.bbc.co.uk

Everton: Consortium with Saudi royal makes £400m takeover bid

A consortium of international investors, which involves a member of the Saudi royal family, has made a £400m offer to buy Premier League club Everton.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I wonder if they will still find a way to call it state funded
 
KS55 said:
When ‘associated’ was put forward City said they had legal advice that it was not lawful. They did however say that they would bide their time and see how it panned out. The PL in Feb changed the rule again, triggering City’s action.
Idiots.
Click to expand...
City have no objection to the legally defined status of 'related parties' - the objections is to the PL dreamt up status of 'associated parties' which has no legal status and can be implemented or ignored on a whim by the PL
 
BlueAnorak said:
Well yes.
But Etihad are NOT a Related party to City by IFFS IAS24.
The PL declaring it to be so Basically targets MCFC. And restricting sponsorship based on country or a perceived connection stinks.
Let's start with PL American Owner Connections to Amercan Companies that sponsor PL companies. Lets start with Under Armour from the US who have a relationship with other Fenway Sports brands.
All should be accessed under the same fair value rules. End of.
Click to expand...
Didn't Adidas or Nike question how New Balance's Liverpool kit deal was incredibly high and there was no way they could match it... and that FSG had links to somebody on NB's board?
 
dario2739 said:
Didn't Adidas or Nike question how New Balance's Liverpool kit deal was incredibly high and there was no way they could match it... and that FSG had links to somebody on NB's board?
Click to expand...
Yeah that was what I was referring to. I got the name wrong - but I keep well away from looking at Liverpool shite.
 
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