PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[69FACUPfinal]

Nothing at all has happened. If you were relaxed last week, be relaxed this week.

Am now chilled after various replies. Thanks all x

 

[terraloon]

So Everton get points deduction for a bit of overspending but Chelsea get fined for potentially massive off the books payments to players and agents directly leading to the capture of players like hazzard who win them trophies and are sold to Real Madrid for how much ?

The PSR charges for all intents and purposes are straight forward in that the numbers in the accounts and the numbers in clubs submissions will tell the tale.
As you say and the point is those payments are“ potentially “ off the books. I am not for one we denying that that there is every possibility that the PL can prove that these payments were made but the question remains without access to RAs records, accounts etc can the PL prove even to a beyond reasonable doubt.
The PL can try as much as they like to get someone outside a clubs responsibility to make a statement, release emails, texts etc but if that individual isn’t under the control of a club, not involved in football then what conclusion will any investigator be able to reach?
The PL and indeed Chelsea will want to draw a line under RAs tenure , the new owners of Chelsea will want to draw a line under the issue so I very much doubt any major challenges will be encountered.
As I say I may be miss reading completely but I just sense the discussions now revolve around a “ comprise settlement “. If that’s right I suspect it will be a combination of 3 sanctions 1) a fine, 2, a Transfer Ban and 3) a points deduction the latter I would not be at all suppressed to be suspended

 

[eastmanc]

Thing is, the 'evidence' in the Chelsea case is every bit as damning as the evidence in our case, yet the Pl spent 4 years investigating us before making their allegations, yet you're confident Chelsea's case will not only be investigated but concluded before ours is?

More so because Chelsea actually reported that there was a problem with past accounts. City have denied there is a problem and are saying that we can prove it are saying there isn't any damming evidence.

 

[Roachy]

Done them all before

Yeah I'm really keen on the idea of every single top player we have leaving for a cut price, Pep and all his coaching team leaving and probably the club being sold off

And being totally pissed off being found guilty after completely thinking that we weren't.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

I wouldn't give a shit if they did that

Is this the wishlist manifestation of a chief exec at Arse/Dips/Rags/Spuds/Chavs.

 

[bluenova]

More so because Chelsea actually reported that there was a problem with past accounts. City have denied there is a problem and are saying that we can prove it are saying there isn't any damming evidence.

Aren't there two issues with Chelsea. They self-reported some less serious issues, which were then dealt with.

Later on, a bank leak discovered off the books payments, which it's quite possible that the new owners had no idea about. They're much more serious, and also, with Roman long gone, and not exactly best mates with the UK, are surely going to be very, very difficult to deal with.

 

[eastmanc]

Aren't there two issues with Chelsea. They self-reported some less serious issues, which were then dealt with.

Later on, a bank leak discovered off the books payments, which it's quite possible that the new owners had no idea about. They're much more serious, and also, with Roman long gone, and not exactly best mates with the UK, are surely going to be very, very difficult to deal with.

Yeah something like that. Didn't bringing up the less serious issue lead to them finding theo really serious issue.?

 

[dadnlad]

Their opinions seem to be very similar though

twin brother ?
alter ego maybe ?

 

[terraloon]

More so because Chelsea actually reported that there was a problem with past accounts. City have denied there is a problem and are saying that we can prove it are saying there isn't any damming evidence.

What we reported was “ incomplete transfer information “ we can all guess what that means from what I can gather what we are talking about is that whilst potentially contrary to Footballs own rules there would be nothing to stop say RA to pay x agent £200k.

Aren't there two issues with Chelsea. They self-reported some less serious issues, which were then dealt with.

Later on, a bank leak discovered off the books payments, which it's quite possible that the new owners had no idea about. They're much more serious, and also, with Roman long gone, and not exactly best mates with the UK, are surely going to be very, very difficult to deal with.

As I say they have reported matters but we don’t know what has been submitted. It wasn’t so much a bank discovered off the book payments there was a data leak.

I pointed out on the face of it we can all make a judgement as to the reason and or justification of these payments but as you say RA no doubt has been very very difficult if not impossible to deal with and that is why the PL will be trading very carefully simply because they can’t make assumptions they have to rely on evidence and not just an email but they , the PL, will need to be sure that say a payment to an individual was in respect of a specific transaction.

 

[bluenova]

Yeah something like that. Didn't bringing up the less serious issue lead to them finding theo really serious issue.?

I don't think so - it's just a coincidence that it came out shortly after.

From what I remember, it came out of a huge leak from the Cypriot banking system. The main story was about Russian oligarchs using their secretive accounts to avoid sanctions after the invasion of Ukraine, Abramovitch being one of them. It was only a small part of the story that his accounts showed tens of millions in payments, going back throughout the FFP/PSR era, that were linked with Chelsea, but weren't in their accounts.

 

[WRicko]

The PSR charges for all intents and purposes are straight forward in that the numbers in the accounts and the numbers in clubs submissions will tell the tale.
As you say and the point is those payments are“ potentially “ off the books. I am not for one we denying that that there is every possibility that the PL can prove that these payments were made but the question remains without access to RAs records, accounts etc can the PL prove even to a beyond reasonable doubt.
The PL can try as much as they like to get someone outside a clubs responsibility to make a statement, release emails, texts etc but if that individual isn’t under the control of a club, not involved in football then what conclusion will any investigator be able to reach?
The PL and indeed Chelsea will want to draw a line under RAs tenure , the new owners of Chelsea will want to draw a line under the issue so I very much doubt any major challenges will be encountered.
As I say I may be miss reading completely but I just sense the discussions now revolve around a “ comprise settlement “. If that’s right I suspect it will be a combination of 3 sanctions 1) a fine, 2, a Transfer Ban and 3) a points deduction the latter I would not be at all suppressed to be suspended

But if Chelsea have reported it surely there is not a problem proving it. Second if there is a problem proving it then why accept any punishment ? Your either guilty and should be relegated or are innocent or at least the case is not provable and should be assumed innocent and if I was you as in cities case won’t accept any punishment

 

[bluenova]

But if Chelsea have reported it surely there is not a problem proving it. Second if there is a problem proving it then why accept any punishment ? Your either guilty and should be relegated or are innocent or at least the case is not provable and should be assumed innocent and if I was you as in cities case won’t accept any punishment

There are two separate issues with Chelsea. One they reported, and a later bank leak of Roman's secret accounts, which they may have had no idea about, so couldn't have reported.

 

[Bert Swift]

A New Season and More Media Frenzy - Lets do all that we can off the pitch.

The season is due to start and some in the media, as exemplified by a ludicrous headline in today`s Telegraph Sport relating to FFP /PSR, are stoking up the fires and irresponsibly exacerbating the divisions that already exist between followers of football.

Young Tom, Sports Correspondent for The Telegraph, mentioned `The elephant in the room`, a phrase that he does not understand. It is not the only matter where understanding is lacking, or where there are deliberate misunderstandings as part of the ongoing scurrilous campaign against us and our club.

Better examples of `The elephant in the room` are strange `rules` or interpretations that -

(a) allow Man u exceptional provisions in their accounts, 20 times more than the same for Arsenal, without which they would have failed PSR;

(b) do not punish a club when a match is postponed, Man u v Liverpool, due to health and safety failings and fans illegal disorder, violence against police and staff, and trespass; and

(c) permit vested interests, such as the company that worked for LFC to be the same company that scrutinised City`s accounts for the PL.

There are many more examples which others on here have raised previously.

We then have a situation where credence is given, rather than questioning by the click bait media, to an individual found guilty of attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence. The accusations against City primarily emanated from a criminal. Further along the line, this eventually resulted in the PL`s rushed publication of a full list of charges (prepared by a company that worked for LFC), with errors on the PL`s web site, the day before the Government`s stance on independent football regulation was to be considered.

We need to keep on promoting the many positives such as domestic treble winners, The Treble winners, 100 points, Four-in-a Row champions and Club World Champions. All what is so very good at City.

Let's not be on the back foot but instead go on the attack, highlight and repeat the lists of offences and issues at the redtops. Don`t let any of those red bastards off the hook. They are behind the charges, along with Spurs, and have been trying to destroy our club.

As we commence a long season ahead and City attempt a remarkable fifth consecutive PL title, our second Champions League win and an extensive Club World Cup, it is more important than ever that we stick together, get behind the team and do all what we can off the pitch.

 

[WRicko]

There are two separate issues with Chelsea. One they reported, and a later bank leak of Roman's secret accounts, which they may have had no idea about, so couldn't have reported.

But both should warrant relegation or something like that if as serious as we think based on what’s been leveled suggested for us or Everton etc

 

[eastmanc]

I don't think so - it's just a coincidence that it came out shortly after.

From what I remember, it came out of a huge leak from the Cypriot banking system. The main story was about Russian oligarchs using their secretive accounts to avoid sanctions after the invasion of Ukraine, Abramovitch being one of them. It was only a small part of the story that his accounts showed tens of millions in payments, going back throughout the FFP/PSR era, that were linked with Chelsea, but weren't in their accounts.

I bow to your superior knowledge.

 

[bluenova]

But both should warrant relegation or something like that if as serious as we think based on what’s been leveled suggested for us or Everton etc

I don't know the full details, but I don't think the self-reported issues were particularly serious, but the second issues, that came from the bank leak are very similar to some of our charges, and hugely serious.

However, the new owners can (probably) legitimately say they knew nothing about Roman's secret bank accounts, and it's not like he's going to come forward and attend a hearing.

 

[bluenova]

As I say they have reported matters but we don’t know what has been submitted. It wasn’t so much a bank discovered off the book payments there was a data leak.

I pointed out on the face of it we can all make a judgement as to the reason and or justification of these payments but as you say RA no doubt has been very very difficult if not impossible to deal with and that is why the PL will be trading very carefully simply because they can’t make assumptions they have to rely on evidence and not just an email but they , the PL, will need to be sure that say a payment to an individual was in respect of a specific transaction.

I do wonder if the Abramovich issue could possibly help City.

A large part of the problem for the PL is proving anything City did actually broke the rules, without full access to accounts of everyone involved. If they already have an idea that the Chelsea issues will be impossible to prove, then then it might raise the bar on what level of evidence they need to find City guilty.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

twin brother ?
alter ego maybe ?

Jedward?

 

[WRicko]

I don't know the full details, but I don't think the self-reported issues were particularly serious, but the second issues, that came from the bank leak are very similar to some of our charges, and hugely serious.

However, the new owners can (probably) legitimately say they knew nothing about Roman's secret bank accounts, and it's not like he's going to come forward and attend a hearing.

I don’t know about the bank leak and I don’t really know about the self reported stuff but the way it was reported was off the books payments to players and agents over the whole or large part of Roman era to very large extent. This could have for example lead to signing Hazard etc who was then sold for how much. These are far bigger issues / amounts than Mancini payments or image rights all could have had a material change of the books / fraud like we are accused. That being said the press don’t mention it like us so maybe it’s all nothing or maybe it’s just bias

 

[Newman Noggs]

The PSR charges for all intents and purposes are straight forward in that the numbers in the accounts and the numbers in clubs submissions will tell the tale.
As you say and the point is those payments are“ potentially “ off the books. I am not for one we denying that that there is every possibility that the PL can prove that these payments were made but the question remains without access to RAs records, accounts etc can the PL prove even to a beyond reasonable doubt.
The PL can try as much as they like to get someone outside a clubs responsibility to make a statement, release emails, texts etc but if that individual isn’t under the control of a club, not involved in football then what conclusion will any investigator be able to reach?
The PL and indeed Chelsea will want to draw a line under RAs tenure , the new owners of Chelsea will want to draw a line under the issue so I very much doubt any major challenges will be encountered.
As I say I may be miss reading completely but I just sense the discussions now revolve around a “ comprise settlement “. If that’s right I suspect it will be a combination of 3 sanctions 1) a fine, 2, a Transfer Ban and 3) a points deduction the latter I would not be at all suppressed to be suspended

Firstly, from a personal point of view, I don't think any club should be punished for any breach of FFP/PSR because I don"t recognise them as legitimate. I believe they are the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on football.

However, given that we do have them, it is the actions of the club at any given time that are under scrutiny. It is a separate legal entity in it's own right. The fact that the current directors were not the individuals responsible for the club's past misconduct is not, in my view, relevant. It is simply mitigation concerning their personal roles. The club still gained a historic advantage, if that is the argument, and should be punished accordingly. Stupid, but that is where we are I'm afraid.