PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
City’s defence at UEFA and CAS was paid for by CFG. I don’t know whether the club accounted for that, but I would be wary of pointing fingers at others re legal costs.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.
Click to expand...
I think the bigger concern is if this is what has come out and is available to everyone to see and still ignored imagine what has been buried that we cant see, i can see this coming to a head and quickly.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.
Click to expand...
Agreed. CFG are entitled to defend their asset, but that wouldn’t stop the PL trying to make something of it.
Of course the rags and dippers get preferential treatment from the PL CEO that they appointed.
 
KS55 said:
Agreed. CFG are entitled to defend their asset, but that wouldn’t stop the PL trying to make something of it.
Of course the rags and dippers get preferential treatment from the PL CEO that they appointed.
Click to expand...
I think the pl are just backing themselves further and further into a corner with this, it will be almost impossible for the pl to argue that they are impartial with the likes of this hanging over them, even if you wrongly accept that the rags are the biggest british club it is absolutely impossible to accept that their acceptable losses amount to three times more than all the other teams put together without accepting that the pl is bias towards them and its even further impossible to argue that this was the case while they were spending over 100m on transfers in these seasons where they were claiming these losses.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You may be right, but don't you think legal fees would be included in the shared cost service agreement between CFG and the club, and I don't really see a problem with owners paying protection costs for owned assets, tbh. Analogous to IP owners paying protection costs irrespective of the company incurring the costs, in my view.

Anyway, the United situation is the opposite, it's pushing down owner-specific costs to the subsidiary, which is on much shakier ground, at least if I was a United fan and cared at all. Which I'm not and don't. I doubt they are tax allowable which is a pretty good company-related expense test.

Anyway. whatever, don't care much other then the hypocrisy in the flexibility given to United on things like this (and Liverpool - 50 million stadium costs? Illegal hacking activity?) when City are charged for every small breach, like a minute late for a kick-off.
Click to expand...
There was a reason those two particular clubs chose Richard Masters. His past experience really didn’t include anything to indicate he’d be a candidate for CEO of the wealthiest league in the world, which is at least worthy of a question. Unfortunately what passes for journalistic curiosity in football these days isn’t exactly from the Woodward & Bernstein school…..
 
ancoats said:
Now Utd are Fudging PSR by a country mile and nobody says or blinks an eye, £40million for season 2022 and £30 million the season after, Everton and Notts Forest should going to town with the Premier league. Failed FFP under Uefa got a small fine and Now PSR is letting them off with Fudging the books.

Let's ask UNITED to hand over all the books dating back to 2013,
Click to expand...
Half an Anthony.....let that sink in.
 
I do hope that clubs such as Forest and Everton raise this. It seems clear that, specifically, different interpretations of COVID losses have been used for different clubs despite the core reason being the same for everyone.

We all lost out on money due to the pandemic, why exactly is United's loss around forty times greater than anyone else's? Is that demonstrable? Was it even checked or did they just come up with the sum required to avoid action, and work back from there?

It may well be that United's loss of income is justified, but then isn't every other clubs to some amount? Loss of income, gate receipts, tour turnover, was there an allowance for everyone? No there was not. So why United? Given that fines, point deductions, loss or gaining of prize money have all resulted directly from that interpretation of the data by the same body, it needs clarification and I do suspect that the answer is as dark as we fear.

The whole process is very murky and, some may say, cloak and dagger. It certainly doesn't help the image of the premier league in that it does appear certain clubs have the ear of the rule makers. Independent regulation anyone?
 
bluetonium said:
I do hope that clubs such as Forest and Everton raise this. It seems clear that, specifically, different interpretations of COVID losses have been used for different clubs despite the core reason being the same for everyone.

We all lost out on money due to the pandemic, why exactly is United's loss around forty times greater than anyone else's? Is that demonstrable? Was it even checked or did they just come up with the sum required to avoid action, and work back from there?

It may well be that United's loss of income is justified, but then isn't every other clubs to some amount? Loss of income, gate receipts, tour turnover, was there an allowance for everyone? No there was not. So why United? Given that fines, point deductions, loss or gaining of prize money have all resulted directly from that interpretation of the data by the same body, it needs clarification and I do suspect that the answer is as dark as we fear.

The whole process is very murky and, some may say, cloak and dagger. It certainly doesn't help the image of the premier league in that it does appear certain clubs have the ear of the rule makers. Independent regulation anyone?
Click to expand...

These cunts thought no one would have the balls to question/challenge any of this bollocks.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
Well. At least the independent regulator will have something meaty to get their teeth into when they start :-)
Click to expand...
When they start they will be allowed to look at the 15 filing cabinets, 1 for each club. The other "Special" 4 clubs will be locked away and kept private due to security clearance. If they even manage to get a high court order allowing them access to these 4 then they will find the redaction pen has been worked overtime.
Then of course they will be eagerly directed towards the new building they have just built for us that houses all of the 6 million documents they have collected over the last 12 years or so!
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
There was a reason those two particular clubs chose Richard Masters. His past experience really didn’t include anything to indicate he’d be a candidate for CEO of the wealthiest league in the world, which is at least worthy of a question. Unfortunately what passes for journalistic curiosity in football these days isn’t exactly from the Woodward & Bernstein school…..
Click to expand...
Would still like to know why the woman resigned after a couple of weeks, before Masters appointment.
 
So the rags’ excuse were Summer tour being cancelled and their sponsors failing to meet payments due to how the world economy was during Covid. The sponsorship one is interesting as Team Viewer would have been booming with employers wanting to monitor employees working remotely, surely that’s a perfect environment for that business model to make money.

Team Viewer at the time agreed to pay United a sponsorship figure which was a high percentage of what the company was actually worth. Who at the Premier League signed that deal off as fair market value when in the end they didn’t have the means to pay the contract for its duration?

They are coming after City for the Etisalat deal which was worth £30 million over two season way back in 2012. Etisalat received a loan to honour the sponsorship which was paid back. How can the Premier League throw the book at City who managed to make sure through other parties the sponsorship was honoured as apposed to United who hawk themselves to the highest bidder and don’t do the due diligence as to whether a company can honour a sponsorship? Their bad business practice seems to get a free pass.
 
So the rags have gotten away with losses again. Well that’s a surprise.

I don’t give a shit about their reasoning as to why. They are cheating bastards and that’s my new line with any rag I see.

Don’t want to hear any arguments that make sense. You are cheating cunts the end.

I want a full investigation and I want the media to request united books dating back to when’s they last won the league, you know that one pity title stripped from GPC’s horse spunked grubby hands.

Every achievement since the cheating started is void and should be handed over to city. So that’s what… 1 league and 1 cup?

Nah in second thoughts keep it, sloppy seconds is all you get now.

Actually, better punishment would be to make them sign Anthony for ten seasons and buy back pogba again -:)

Cheating cunts.
 
Last edited:
wolviedinho said:
So the rags have gotten away with losses again. Well that’s a surprise.

I don’t give a shit about their reasoning as to why. They are cheating bastards and that’s my new line with any rag I see.

Don’t want to hear any arguments that make sense. You are cheating cunts the end.

I want a full investigation and I want the media to request united books dating back since they last won the league, you know that one pity title stripped from GPC’s horse spunked grubby hands.

Every achievement since the cheating started is void and should be handed over to city. So that what… 1 league and 1 cup?

Nah in second thoughts keep it, sloppy seconds is all you get now.

Actually, better punishment would be to make them sign Anthony for ten seasons and buy back pogba again -:)

Cheating cunts.
Click to expand...

definitely like the idea that we respond to 115 from reds with how big are your covid allowances this year? what about last year?
 
Have Skysports News done a 1 hour special about how this is cheating by United and should be kicked out of the league, £75 million of fudging the books so they don't fall under the new PSR rules

Its so funny how they are ones who set up all these FFP PSR rules bollocks, Now they have to break them to spend
 
ancoats said:
Now Utd are Fudging PSR by a country mile and nobody says or blinks an eye, £40million for season 2022 and £30 million the season after, Everton and Notts Forest should going to town with the Premier league. Failed FFP under Uefa got a small fine and Now PSR is letting them off with Fudging the books.

Let's ask UNITED to hand over all the books dating back to 2013,
Click to expand...
The PL have repeatedly sent strongly worded letters via carrier pigeons to the Cayman Isles with zero response
 
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