PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

He is supposed to be distant from the process.

If all he knows is the way how both sides presented their evidence before the Panel discusses the legal detail then it's as much as our team know but if he knows more it is being leaked.

As the prosecuting KC is acting on their behalf then he will have feedback from them but nothing from the arbitrator is my understanding.
 
That’s the biggest load of shit I’ve seen in this thread and that takes some doing. We won’t be relegated for non cooperation.
Non-cooperation is just a catch all to help them recover costs. You didn’t do EXACTLY what we asked. It’s bollux.
 
Even in the event of City being 'guilty" of some of this, I doubt the arbitration would be enough for clubs to use as eviidence and I'd imagine a court would have to consider their claim from scratch.
Arbitration could be as dodgy as hell.
Be interested if others agree it would be a fresh claim..
 
Last edited:
So nothing has changed and we still have to wait months for it to even start. And then we have to wait until next year for the decision, and that might be moved back too.

Nonetheless PL, you have given us the siege mentality that will take us to a fifth title. Perfect timing.
Last paragraph makes sense to me.
The madia just want clicks but the messages they send seem to stimulate the Club, the players and the fans.
 
Hopefully this will cheer you all up!


I have done some analysis of the PSR case based on the information provided by Rui Pinto and Der Speigel, here:


Der Spiegel released the above information two months after City were charged, with the aim of driving the nail in the coffin, but their evidence really sucks and their analysis of it is just naive.

Firstly from reading the PDFs of the documents they share to download (RM.pdf, ADUG,pdf and FFP.pdf), I am pretty certain City haven't actually done anything wrong and should be cleared of all charges.

Allegation 1 is complicated to understand, but the evidence doesn't match what they are claiming at all and it just doesn't add up. A more logical explanation is the one I put forward. I might be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me, you might need to be an accountant to follow the argument though.

The other points I make should be a lot easier to follow.

I've done a worst case PSR calculation (Allegation 4), by going through City's accounts and adding it all up, and concluded that the sums would be:

2013-2016: -£108,113,000
2014-2017: -£75,263,000
2015-2018: -£66,157,000

The limit is -£105,000,000

In other words a minor breach of PSR in the first period of £3million (c.f. Everton £19m & Forest £30m).

Remember, this is if we have done everything they have accused us of and our combined sponsorship deals are re-valued at the Thomas Cook rate (£2m) that we had way back before the Eithad deal. Valuing the deals at say £3.1m or higher means City don't break PSR at all.

How could the Premier League have got this so wrong? Well, we know they rushed it all through, and I don't think they considered that City can adjust their earnings (AEBT) by the depreciation on the building of the Etihad Campus. This completely destroys their case.


Summary: Overview of the Allegations

Allegation 1 Analysis : Inflated Sponsorship

Allegation 2 Analysis : Mancini and Toure

Allegation 3 Analysis : FFP - The Own Goal

Allegation 4 Analysis : It simply doesn't add up


I've also got a video that I have put together showing how the Premier League have altered their statement on 06 feb 2023 multple times since and a few other points about this. I need time to finish them off. I will rpeort back when they are live!
 
"Overturning" was in inverted commas, as the criminal courts can't actually overturn a civil court judgement, of course.

I am surprised, though, that you think there wouldn't be a criminal investigation if it was found in a civil court that the directors had knowingly and deliberately filed fraudulently incorrect accounts for a decade. The idea that breaching the legal requirements of the Companies Acts isn't serious enough unless HMRC has been undercut is odd to me. All the major players are directors of other UK companies. There is no public interest in making sure they can't do this again, or that they are suitable to be in charge of a company?

You may be right. Just seems strange to me. I would have thought a criminal investigation would be inevitable ....
Sorry I have not been on for a while.

This sort of thing is so rare, you really have to have done something really bad and cost someone (usually the government ie HMRC) a lot of money. As I say, prosecuting would mean accounts would have to be ammended and millions of pounds of VAT repaid to City, that's not a mess the government or any prosecutors would want to get themselves into.
 
Hopefully this will cheer you all up!


I have done some analysis of the PSR case based on the information provided by Rui Pinto and Der Speigel, here:


Der Spiegel released the above information two months after City were charged, with the aim of driving the nail in the coffin, but their evidence really sucks and their analysis of it is just naive.

Firstly from reading the PDFs of the documents they share to download (RM.pdf, ADUG,pdf and FFP.pdf), I am pretty certain City haven't actually done anything wrong and should be cleared of all charges.

Allegation 1 is complicated to understand, but the evidence doesn't match what they are claiming at all and it just doesn't add up. A more logical explanation is the one I put forward. I might be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me, you might need to be an accountant to follow the argument though.

The other points I make should be a lot easier to follow.

I've done a worst case PSR calculation (Allegation 4), by going through City's accounts and adding it all up, and concluded that the sums would be:

2013-2016: -£108,113,000
2014-2017: -£75,263,000
2015-2018: -£66,157,000

The limit is -£105,000,000

In other words a minor breach of PSR in the first period of £3million (c.f. Everton £19m & Forest £30m).

Remember, this is if we have done everything they have accused us of and our combined sponsorship deals are re-valued at the Thomas Cook rate (£2m) that we had way back before the Eithad deal. Valuing the deals at say £3.1m or higher means City don't break PSR at all.

How could the Premier League have got this so wrong? Well, we know they rushed it all through, and I don't think they considered that City can adjust their earnings (AEBT) by the depreciation on the building of the Etihad Campus. This completely destroys their case.


Summary: Overview of the Allegations

Allegation 1 Analysis : Inflated Sponsorship

Allegation 2 Analysis : Mancini and Toure

Allegation 3 Analysis : FFP - The Own Goal

Allegation 4 Analysis : It simply doesn't add up


I've also got a video that I have put together showing how the Premier League have altered their statement on 06 feb 2023 multple times since and a few other points about this. I need time to finish them off. I will rpeort back when they are live!

Fair fucks for putting your own time into this mate
 
Hopefully this will cheer you all up!


I have done some analysis of the PSR case based on the information provided by Rui Pinto and Der Speigel, here:


Der Spiegel released the above information two months after City were charged, with the aim of driving the nail in the coffin, but their evidence really sucks and their analysis of it is just naive.

Firstly from reading the PDFs of the documents they share to download (RM.pdf, ADUG,pdf and FFP.pdf), I am pretty certain City haven't actually done anything wrong and should be cleared of all charges.

Allegation 1 is complicated to understand, but the evidence doesn't match what they are claiming at all and it just doesn't add up. A more logical explanation is the one I put forward. I might be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me, you might need to be an accountant to follow the argument though.

The other points I make should be a lot easier to follow.

I've done a worst case PSR calculation (Allegation 4), by going through City's accounts and adding it all up, and concluded that the sums would be:

2013-2016: -£108,113,000
2014-2017: -£75,263,000
2015-2018: -£66,157,000

The limit is -£105,000,000

In other words a minor breach of PSR in the first period of £3million (c.f. Everton £19m & Forest £30m).

Remember, this is if we have done everything they have accused us of and our combined sponsorship deals are re-valued at the Thomas Cook rate (£2m) that we had way back before the Eithad deal. Valuing the deals at say £3.1m or higher means City don't break PSR at all.

How could the Premier League have got this so wrong? Well, we know they rushed it all through, and I don't think they considered that City can adjust their earnings (AEBT) by the depreciation on the building of the Etihad Campus. This completely destroys their case.


Summary: Overview of the Allegations

Allegation 1 Analysis : Inflated Sponsorship

Allegation 2 Analysis : Mancini and Toure

Allegation 3 Analysis : FFP - The Own Goal

Allegation 4 Analysis : It simply doesn't add up


I've also got a video that I have put together showing how the Premier League have altered their statement on 06 feb 2023 multple times since and a few other points about this. I need time to finish them off. I will rpeort back when they are live.

That's a lot of work. I will have a look when I have the time.

But are you sure your numbers are right? Aren't they claiming 60 million a year of equity investment disguised as Etihad sponsorship? In which case it would be an adjustment of 180 million for a three year period for Etihad alone?
 
Hopefully this will cheer you all up!


I have done some analysis of the PSR case based on the information provided by Rui Pinto and Der Speigel, here:


Der Spiegel released the above information two months after City were charged, with the aim of driving the nail in the coffin, but their evidence really sucks and their analysis of it is just naive.

Firstly from reading the PDFs of the documents they share to download (RM.pdf, ADUG,pdf and FFP.pdf), I am pretty certain City haven't actually done anything wrong and should be cleared of all charges.

Allegation 1 is complicated to understand, but the evidence doesn't match what they are claiming at all and it just doesn't add up. A more logical explanation is the one I put forward. I might be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me, you might need to be an accountant to follow the argument though.

The other points I make should be a lot easier to follow.

I've done a worst case PSR calculation (Allegation 4), by going through City's accounts and adding it all up, and concluded that the sums would be:

2013-2016: -£108,113,000
2014-2017: -£75,263,000
2015-2018: -£66,157,000

The limit is -£105,000,000

In other words a minor breach of PSR in the first period of £3million (c.f. Everton £19m & Forest £30m).

Remember, this is if we have done everything they have accused us of and our combined sponsorship deals are re-valued at the Thomas Cook rate (£2m) that we had way back before the Eithad deal. Valuing the deals at say £3.1m or higher means City don't break PSR at all.

How could the Premier League have got this so wrong? Well, we know they rushed it all through, and I don't think they considered that City can adjust their earnings (AEBT) by the depreciation on the building of the Etihad Campus. This completely destroys their case.


Summary: Overview of the Allegations

Allegation 1 Analysis : Inflated Sponsorship

Allegation 2 Analysis : Mancini and Toure

Allegation 3 Analysis : FFP - The Own Goal

Allegation 4 Analysis : It simply doesn't add up


I've also got a video that I have put together showing how the Premier League have altered their statement on 06 feb 2023 multple times since and a few other points about this. I need time to finish them off. I will rpeort back when they are live!
When are you going on talkSPORT to school Jordan and White?
 
Hopefully this will cheer you all up!


I have done some analysis of the PSR case based on the information provided by Rui Pinto and Der Speigel, here:


Der Spiegel released the above information two months after City were charged, with the aim of driving the nail in the coffin, but their evidence really sucks and their analysis of it is just naive.

Firstly from reading the PDFs of the documents they share to download (RM.pdf, ADUG,pdf and FFP.pdf), I am pretty certain City haven't actually done anything wrong and should be cleared of all charges.

Allegation 1 is complicated to understand, but the evidence doesn't match what they are claiming at all and it just doesn't add up. A more logical explanation is the one I put forward. I might be wrong about this, but it makes sense to me, you might need to be an accountant to follow the argument though.

The other points I make should be a lot easier to follow.

I've done a worst case PSR calculation (Allegation 4), by going through City's accounts and adding it all up, and concluded that the sums would be:

2013-2016: -£108,113,000
2014-2017: -£75,263,000
2015-2018: -£66,157,000

The limit is -£105,000,000

In other words a minor breach of PSR in the first period of £3million (c.f. Everton £19m & Forest £30m).

Remember, this is if we have done everything they have accused us of and our combined sponsorship deals are re-valued at the Thomas Cook rate (£2m) that we had way back before the Eithad deal. Valuing the deals at say £3.1m or higher means City don't break PSR at all.

How could the Premier League have got this so wrong? Well, we know they rushed it all through, and I don't think they considered that City can adjust their earnings (AEBT) by the depreciation on the building of the Etihad Campus. This completely destroys their case.


Summary: Overview of the Allegations

Allegation 1 Analysis : Inflated Sponsorship

Allegation 2 Analysis : Mancini and Toure

Allegation 3 Analysis : FFP - The Own Goal

Allegation 4 Analysis : It simply doesn't add up


I've also got a video that I have put together showing how the Premier League have altered their statement on 06 feb 2023 multple times since and a few other points about this. I need time to finish them off. I will rpeort back when they are live!
Brilliant mate. Very informative and cuts through the normally lengthy articles we see on city and 115.

I do hope you are correct.
 
Anyone thinking non cooperation will just be a fine will probably be disappointed. It obviously makes sense that such a minor offence is a fine, and it should be, but we can only go off past offences and judgments of the Premier League. There has only been one case that I know off thats been found guilty of non co-operation and that was the Everton case. In particular their appeal reduction was due to being found guilty of this charge but not actually being charged for this offence in the first place. So a complete legal fuck up. This is why they got a 2 points reduction (I think it was that right?) from their initial penalty. I seriously doubt it was a legal fuck up in the first place though and it's set them up to deduct us 10 points if they find us guilty on the charge.
 
Anyone thinking non cooperation will just be a fine will probably be disappointed. It obviously makes sense that such a minor offence is a fine, and it should be, but we can only go off past offences and judgments of the Premier League. There has only been one case that I know off thats been found guilty of non co-operation and that was the Everton case. In particular their appeal reduction was due to being found guilty of this charge but not actually being charged for this offence in the first place. So a complete legal fuck up. This is why they got a 2 points reduction (I think it was that right?) from their initial penalty. I seriously doubt it was a legal fuck up in the first place though and it's set them up to deduct us 10 points if they find us guilty on the charge.
Or you could argue Evertons original 10 point penalty included the non co-operation charge, and it was reduced to 6 on appeal when the non co-operation charge was removed, so that element was worth a maximum of 4 points
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top