City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

cheekybids said:
The Post Office inquiry has exposed the corruption of Post Office & Lawyers from their emails but wouldn’t be getting looked at if the Post Masters had their hand in their til.

I’m hoping City can prove they are innocent with the irrefutable evidence. If this has been ignored & the relationship is corrupt then that should lead to being implicated.
Click to expand...
Just as an aside with the Post Office. I still do the books for my mate who I passed my business to when I retired in 2022.

He's changed a van 4 months into the insurance policy we bought from the Post Office. The original premium was nearly £1400. The new van is worth about £4k more than the old one. I rang yesterday to update the policy and its £449 extra, so on 8 months that's an increase of over £670 on an annual policy, nearly 50%. I know they're only the broker but THE FUCKING ROBBING BASTARDS.

When are the government going to act against these charlatans, it's disgraceful.

Apologies for going off topic.
 
nmc said:
I’m speculating but, maybe City have disclosed some emails that are damning against the PL and or our rivals and the panel want a more comprehensive picture to join up some of the dots or to put the said emails into some sort of context.
Click to expand...

Dear Premier league we’d like an investigation into the £50m for a new stadium to replace Anfield….

Dear Premier league that’s the 2nd time that the Rags have had a game called off down to security failures & no penalties…..
 
halfcenturyup said:
Good points, but what does an improper relationship with some clubs have to do with the allegations? If you get charged with breaking a law, you can't just expect to get a policeman's emails, or the judge's emails, to make sure they aren't biased, surely. There has to be a reason that is relevant to the case? Or maybe not, what do I know?

But I am still struggling with that. The justification in the APT case is clear, the 115 not so much. To me, anyway.
Click to expand...
Try this for size: email PL to Liverpool fc:
Hi twats,
Thanks for the details of how clubs sold players’ rights to third parties. As you suggested we have charged City with failure to declare players earnings in full.
Who is deciding to charge City but nobody else? And why?
 
Dear premier league, thank you for your prompt response to decide that there was no need to investigate Liverpool fc as it happened years ago. It was only illegally hacking our database & therefore profiting from buying Coutinho & selling him at a huge profit passing FFP & being able to buy players that would win them a premier league title.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose. Thanks for your reply. I was just thinking there must be a very good reason for a disclosure request to be enforced by the panel / tribunal. Does there maybe being a witch-hunt against the club (or not) have enough relevance (in the eyes of the panel) to the 115 case to warrant such a stringent disclosure requirement? That is what is going on in my head ....

I bow, however, to the superior knowledge of people who know what they are talking about, and will shut up :)
Click to expand...
Other way round. Would have to be very good reason not to demand 2 way disclosure. Only the case where those emails sought by City to be considered irrelevant
 
cheekybids said:
Dear premier league, thank you for your prompt response to decide that there was no need to investigate Liverpool fc as it happened years ago. It was only illegally hacking our database & therefore profiting from buying Coutinho & selling him at a huge profit passing FFP & being able to buy players that would win them a premier league title.
Click to expand...
I think unfortunately City settled the case financially with the scousers, hence that was the end of the matter.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
I think unfortunately City settled the case financially with the scousers, hence that was the end of the matter.
Click to expand...
I'm always uneasy with clubs doing 'deals' like this.

Imagine if the dips had done something to a minor club which could have a major effect on other clubs and they took a couple of million pay-off.

Illegalities should be looked at by the Prem no matter if the clubs agree to settle.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
You don't understand why we're challenging a rule brought in by the PL in Feb 24 that will likely substantially affect our current and future income generation through sponsorship so that we cannot spend any money on transfers that doesn't affect any of our direct Competitors?
What exactly don't you understand?
Click to expand...
Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs
 
blue b4 the moon said:
I'm always uneasy with clubs doing 'deals' like this.

Imagine if the dips had done something to a minor club which could have a major effect on other clubs and they took a couple of million pay-off.

Illegalities should be looked at by the Prem no matter if the clubs agree to settle.
Click to expand...

Liverpool financially benefited which disadvantaged other clubs which is their argument against us. The premier league should have still investigated.
 
Blueeye said:
Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs
Click to expand...
Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original RPT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?
 
Last edited:
Blueeye said:
Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs
Click to expand...
But will disproportionately impact City the way its being applied.

In effect every deal that is struck with a gulf state is open to scrutiny and review as the majority owner happens to be from the Gulf and deemed to be in a position of influence. Every US owner (or owner from practically any other nation) can strike a deal with a company from there own nation state without the same level of scrutiny.
Given the constant attacks on Arab ownership I think its reasonable as an owner to be concerned at the way this rule would be applied, with a level of bias against deals from those countries as the benchmark for FMV is going to be what ? and decided by who ?

If you take the Chevrolet deal as an example , it was a really poor deal for Chevrolet to such an extent they dismissed the guy who did the deal. An amercian company agreeing a deal that was in reality deemed by the company themselves as well above the market value but that would never be a deal that was assessed under these rules - so generous deals between american companies and american owners would pass but not Arab owners and arab states in the same way.

We have a mad set of rules that were always going to blow up in the faces of the PL.

If the PL were looking to bring in a set of financial rules to a) ensure a certain level of competition and b) safeguard clubs future then a universal cap on squad spend I think is the only workable fair rule (although likely to be challenged as may be detrimental to the league in the long run if not set high enough). Would require any spending above a certain level to be made through equity investment and should also ban leveraged buyouts.

Every rule brought in so far seems to be to stop investment and maintain the ability for club owners to profiteer without any effort or skill but by limiting competition.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original APT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?
Click to expand...
He can see it but on wind up
Ignore him
 
projectriver said:
Other way round. Would have to be very good reason not to demand 2 way disclosure. Only the case where those emails sought by City to be considered irrelevant
Click to expand...

:) Appreciate everybody's efforts in trying to educate me. I get most of it, but I am still not seeing how this large disclosure is relevant to the 115 case, other than very obliquely. In fact, i would say it is irrelevant. It must just be me. Probably why accountants are always being screwed by lawyers :)
 
citizen_maine said:
Seem to remember that he PL rules specify that clubs in dispute should agree a settlement themselves as the first option
Click to expand...

& we did but once it became common knowledge that a club illegally hacked & profited then surely it’s a far bigger concern than Mancini being paid by another club.
 
cheekybids said:
& we did but once it became common knowledge that a club illegally hacked & profited then surely it’s a far bigger concern than Mancini being paid by another club.
Click to expand...

Not as far as the PL were concerned, especially as the dippers were the offenders.

Better swept under the carpet and filed as as matter resolved !
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original APT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?
Click to expand...
Agree with everything you wrote but want to make a point about when you say he is not 'City oriented'.

I know a couple of older blues who completely buy the MSM bullshit and are of the opinion that City are guilty because there's no smoke without fire.

I spent a frustrating couple of hours before the cup final trying to explain to one of them why there's a good chance we are innocent. I patiently explained the UEFA case and CAS judgement and the circumstances around the PL charges, all to no avail.

I fear the media has done such a good job demonising us, that innocent as I believe us to be, much of the muck thrown at us will stick.
 
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