PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Centurions said:
It was one of the PL heads they tried to appoint before Masters was "interviewed" by the rags and dippers. The woman from the Discovery TV group I think.
Click to expand...
That was Susannah Dinnage, but apparently she didn't give any reasons for pulling out.
I definitely read that someone had resigned stating the level of influence of certain clubs.
 
oldius said:
That was Susannah Dinnage, but apparently she didn't give any reasons for pulling out.
I definitely read that someone had resigned stating the level of influence of certain clubs.
Click to expand...

Think it was a woman who’d taken the job Masters is now in but fucked it off after a few days, citing the above?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Great article that my friend; I just which you’d emphasised the fact that the time limits are as much a part of the PL rules as the rules we have been accused of breaking. Arguably more so, as they supervene them eventually.

The press talk about the time limits as if they are a legal loophole. They are not. They are a key, core rule and understood by all parties at the outset.

Anyone who considers them as a legal loophole is a know nowt ****.
Click to expand...
Can I like this twice??
 
bitterblue78 said:
Andy gray said hes been told were going to get a points deduction that would make it impossible to survive relegation
Click to expand...
Andy Gray and hairy hands would shop their own mum and gran even if though they were innocent in some bizarre crime that had nothing to do with them..
Scum of the earth and 2 of the most untrustworthy people walking the earth..
Scumbags.
 
I’m not stirring or indeed making much of a point, but just an interesting conversation last night with someone who works high up for one of our local rivals (not high, high but fairly high) who is interested in this.

He does not support the team he works for and is an intelligent, articulate guy.

We’ve spoken previously but this time was the first time we have had a real chat on it.

Firstly, I was struck by how much they believe we are guilty, he felt that it is widely considered City enhanced our revenues to comply with FFP. He listened to my argument around the damage reputation and the theory the process is the punishment and acknowledged there are 2 sides.

We pretty much agreed that we hear different things from both sides and in reality City being in a growth stage and needing to maximise revenue, whilst planning to be self sufficient long term where happy to invest in the short term.

He acknowledged Man City are considered very professional and probably took the best advise possible on how to spend the most, whilst keeping compliant. A conversation that now dominates most Board rooms in the PL as all clubs have this problem.

He knew about information and the detail, which I find to be rare. Spoke about the £8 million Etihad deal and agreed that it would be a lot below market value and would be a strange deal to do, not one he would expect our owners to do. He felt that it would be a friendly agreement where we back date sponsorship value to help us pass. Which he felt was not in the spirit of how sponsorship worked (likened it to a successful business man, sponsoring his Son’s grassroots team and getting a bill at the end of the season for whatever they have incurred). Felt it was not commercial reality. I kind of got him onboard with the fact FFP, football has always been short term, but these guys are long term and by supporting the team to grow the value comes in later years etc. He acknowledged that the Etihad deal has proved worthwhile and we agreed to disagree who paid, although acknowledged if Etihad paid then there should be no issue.

The Esislat deal I know less about, despite my time on here and the image rights is also a bit confusing, so I was not comfortable enough talking about that. We did touch on Mancini (he considered it a work around but not as clear). However, seemed to agree those contracts happen in the Middle East.

It was interesting I felt how there is such certainty around guilt, whereas a sensible conversation tended to find the middle ground that probably points to City not being charged.

It was also felt that clubs where getting very frustrated with Chelsea, so expect some pressure on them especially if they start to perform.
 
Bein’s deep dive!!

Firstly Sylvester made the most sense through not talking.

Secondly, it shows how much info people are really interested in.

It amounted to 115 charges, so must be guilty of something.

Then speculation on punishment and if so would it effect our success (mainly aimed at the time now, as opposed to the time under enquiry).

Good work guys.
 
tregyblue61 said:
115
Click to expand...
images
 
slbsn said:
I assume they have much more in disclosed docs but I agree, I do not see how the PL win on the sponsor agreements without showing these people were lying. Simply too senior to be naively mistaken or unaware.
Click to expand...
Who pays matters, really? I know it’s the stick to hit us with but if it was a fair price!!! Maybe the new rules of fair valuation should be back dated, especially if we win our case against the premier league.
 
MMA said:
Andy Gray and hairy hands would shop their own mum and gran even if though they were innocent in some bizarre crime that had nothing to do with them..
Scum of the earth and 2 of the most untrustworthy people walking the earth..
Scumbags.
Click to expand...
Hairy hands was shagging his daughters friend as his wife was receiving treatment for Cancer & eventually left her,the blokes an absolute twat.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
I’m not stirring or indeed making much of a point, but just an interesting conversation last night with someone who works high up for one of our local rivals (not high, high but fairly high) who is interested in this.

He does not support the team he works for and is an intelligent, articulate guy.

We’ve spoken previously but this time was the first time we have had a real chat on it.

Firstly, I was struck by how much they believe we are guilty, he felt that it is widely considered City enhanced our revenues to comply with FFP. He listened to my argument around the damage reputation and the theory the process is the punishment and acknowledged there are 2 sides.

We pretty much agreed that we hear different things from both sides and in reality City being in a growth stage and needing to maximise revenue, whilst planning to be self sufficient long term where happy to invest in the short term.

He acknowledged Man City are considered very professional and probably took the best advise possible on how to spend the most, whilst keeping compliant. A conversation that now dominates most Board rooms in the PL as all clubs have this problem.

He knew about information and the detail, which I find to be rare. Spoke about the £8 million Etihad deal and agreed that it would be a lot below market value and would be a strange deal to do, not one he would expect our owners to do. He felt that it would be a friendly agreement where we back date sponsorship value to help us pass. Which he felt was not in the spirit of how sponsorship worked (likened it to a successful business man, sponsoring his Son’s grassroots team and getting a bill at the end of the season for whatever they have incurred). Felt it was not commercial reality. I kind of got him onboard with the fact FFP, football has always been short term, but these guys are long term and by supporting the team to grow the value comes in later years etc. He acknowledged that the Etihad deal has proved worthwhile and we agreed to disagree who paid, although acknowledged if Etihad paid then there should be no issue.

The Esislat deal I know less about, despite my time on here and the image rights is also a bit confusing, so I was not comfortable enough talking about that. We did touch on Mancini (he considered it a work around but not as clear). However, seemed to agree those contracts happen in the Middle East.

It was interesting I felt how there is such certainty around guilt, whereas a sensible conversation tended to find the middle ground that probably points to City not being charged.

It was also felt that clubs where getting very frustrated with Chelsea, so expect some pressure on them especially if they start to perform.
Click to expand...
Why don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Why don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the Dippers take responsibility and accountability for their own actions….? Good luck with that!
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Why don’t these clubs focus on putting their own businesses in order instead of obsessing over what City or Chelsea are doing? I think a lot of it is just deflection tactics to cover up for their own incompetence.
Click to expand...
Good points.
The problem is that they have always feared Sheikh M and tried desperately to scupper his massive investment program early doors.
Their current accusations refer to the way we funded yesteryear. Today we are head and shoulders above them all financially and tactically.
Their weak argument is that we funded this superiority against their loaded and targeted rules but concede we are superior when our business plan matures.
 
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