PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Click to expand...

The article is all over the place. What is interesting though is the mention they went after Everton (and lost), in an attempt to make them pay the full cost of the proceedings. They seem to be coming more and more into conflict with their own member clubs. Well, some of them.
 
Ric said:
Yep, he's been pretty consistent in everything I've seen. As he himself said last night, his views haven't changed. Not sure why some feel the need to have a bit of a dig, just because he's not saying exactly what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

His views Have changed. You only have to go to the beginning of this thread when he had a real knee-jerk panic and doom, before calming down. That's a good thing, something this complex views Should change imo. Agree that afterwards, he has been fairly consistent.
 
Stoned Rose said:
@BerkshireBlue you’re arguing with someone who will intellectually decapitate you.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, in a place like this.

Doesn't necessarily mean he is right though, Stefan tends to get quite a few of his resolute claims wrong.

Love the input, like the trust, but not everything is, or can be, black and white gospel.
 
Catch all clauses

"Acting in upmost good faith at all times..."

These are legendary because of the amount of litigation they trigger, in many cases because they are inherently vague and open to interpretation.

So eg, the PL says City didn't tell us about the ADUG/Mancini consultancy contract in Abu Dhabi, irrespective of the contract content and fulfilment, so that was not in good faith, minor fine.

The problem will of course be the PL lawyers will go off on one like bat shit crazy, eg "it indicates a disregard for the spirit of the rules and a mind set that led to subsequent far more serious and egregious rule breaking bla bla bla... "

At this point Lord Pannick comes into bat and smashes shit out of that argument with our irrefutable facts....

I was once asked to sign a client/supplier service contract as the supplier. The last clause in the contract said something like "the client reserves the right to modify any of the preceeding clauses at any time". I signed it and wrote in brackets (except the last clause), never got questioned, did the work, got paid but wondered who the hell ever agreed to that.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
You are responsible for your own costs but you may (usually will) if successful get an order that the other side should pay your costs. That however doesn’t mean the other side will pay all your costs, simply that proportion the court thinks was reasonably incurred. So if spend £1m pursuing a case and are awarded costs of 50K you have to pay the rest yourself.

If the PL spent £10m pursuing Everton and only recovered £1.7m that could be said to be eye-watering
Click to expand...

If the pl ie the clubs are paying the lawyers against City. Does that mean that City are paying for our lawyers and also towards the pl lawyers. Surely we can't be paying towards lawyers working against us !
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well that's what they're using so clearly that's the PL's intention. But it's such a nebulous concept, and clearly open to wide interpretation.

I sure that we had good legal and other justification for doing things like Fordham but the problem is that we could demonstrate all the reasons why it was OK, and that there was no intention to mislead or deceive the PL but it's possible that the IC could still decide we didn't act in the utmost good faith. Whereas FFP, for example, is very much more specific about what is and isn't acceptable, as is the PL's PSR, yet there are still cases and appeals around these.

As you know only too well, there's no certainties when trading legal arguments. Also it's not a rule that seems to have been applied against a certain Merseyside-based club, who certainly didn't act in utmost good faith towards us back in 2013. If a clearly criminal act, or the constant vervbal sniping from Anfield, isn't a case of not acting in utmost good faith then what the hell is?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, the way I had it all in my head was that none of the alleged issues actually breach any specific rules. Neither those relating to the accounts, nor those relating to P7/8 or T13/14 for Mancini or Fordham/ Toure (although this argument may be weaker for Toure). What catches the club is the inclusion of the "good faith" rule in the first tranche of allegations which for example replaces the requirement to simply provide accounts with a true and fair audit opinion (which the club has done presumably) with a requirement to provide accounts that give a true and fair view in good faith, no matter what the actual audit opinion says (which the club wouldn't have done had the directors known about the alleged behaviours) (possibly, I am not even convinced of that, personally).

Does that make any sense? Following that, imho, there is a good chance that the PL can't "win" on any of their issues (we have discussed before how difficult it will be to prove the sponsorship allegations and the rest are immaterial from a true and fair standpoint). Even non-cooperation is up for debate, I think.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
in independent scientific tests recently, Kyle Walker scored an incredible 115 IQ proving that he is, in fact, incredibly bright.

That is just so fucking spooky.
Wow.
Click to expand...
Before the Sheikh our major trophies won were 7 (2 Leagues, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups & 1 ECWC) 1+1+5=7.
See it’s been written in the stars.

I wish I was good at maffs.
 
Last edited:
Warning: mental gymnastics

Our relations with the PL are so bad now I'm guessing there will be no informal conversations whatsoever at senior levels. But let's wind the clock back 16 years when the respective top men were Gary Cook and Richard Scudamore. I'm sure things were far more cordial to point were Gary and Richard had many cosy informal chit chats on the phone. Let's just say Gary mentioned the plan to bring a stellar manager from Italy to add to the glamour and international appeal of the PL namely Roberto. I do hope Gary mentioned the consultancy contract in conservation to Richard who replied in a rather nonchalant manner "sounds good to me Gary, just keep it hush hush".

Just saying....

Edit:
maybe it was an informal email, and that's why we requested Scudamore's email archive. I suppose we could ask that devious little rat faced twat Pinto, he's bound to have a copy
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Sorry. My last few posts have been boring, tedious stuff about accounting (hey, do what you are good at), so I wanted to post a picture of a pretty girl with an enormous pair of tits to lighten the mood .....











View attachment 130915
Click to expand...
Kelly Cates is looking well lately.
Take away the fact she is full on scouse, I think me and her could have got somewhere :)
 
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