PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ayrshire_blue]

Has the case actually started does anyone know? I know it was apparently scheduled for September, but is it underway as of now?

 

[Alfie Budd]

Has the case actually started does anyone know? I know it was apparently scheduled for September, but is it underway as of now?

Nobody knows. PL keeps hearings of this nature secret to avoid the inevitable media circuses. The first anyone knew about the Everton, Forest and Leicester hearings was when the decisions were announced.
I’m shocked that Masters actually gave any clues about the possible timeframe when he referred to September as being likely.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Nobody knows. PL keeps hearings of this nature secret to avoid the inevitable media circuses. The first anyone knew about the Everton, Forest and Leicester hearings was when the decisions were announced.
I’m shocked that Masters actually gave any clues about the possible timeframe when he referred to September as being likely.

Why doesn’t somebody give the Chambers of Lord Pannick a quick call and see when he is next free.

If it’s late December then we know its started.



I’m joking in case anybody thinks this is real !

 

[crystal_mais]

I don't think Sorriano would have said that UEFA's claims were "simply untrue" had such emails existed, nor would Khaldoon have have spoken in such uncompromising terms about the PL charges. I am of course assuming that both men are aware of the club's funding arrangements!

What they say publicly may not be the full picture. I briefly saw what some of those emails contained on Twitter - they didn't read too well but we are only seeing what some propaganda individuals are wanting to post.

City should have the full email trails with actual evidence of what actually happened.

 

[mike1923]

I see the rags have made a massive loss again. Presumably they just tell the PL how much of it needs writing off to comply with PSR and no further mention of it?

 

[vincent]

Can someone enlighten me on this point please. If we have irrefutable evidence (and I am confident we do), why did we just not present that during the investigation? Yes it may be commercially sensitive material, and the premier league were probably overreaching their jurisdiction, but the immense damage this has done the club and we could end up paying millions for some non-cooperation bull shit charge. Doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

Did you mean ….
Best ANALogy?

You forgot the “R” between the O and G, and when are the invitations sent out?

 

[mancboy]

Can someone enlighten me on this point please. If we have irrefutable evidence (and I am confident we do), why did we just not present that during the investigation? Yes it may be commercially sensitive material, and the premier league were probably overreaching their jurisdiction, but the immense damage this has done the club and at we could end up paying millions for some non-cooperation bull shit charge.

how do you know we didnt, how do you know we didnt give them exactly what they asked for and it still wasnt enough, this has been a witch hunt from day one specifically designed to smear the club because they couldnt beat us on the pitch, it wouldnt have mattered what we gave them it would never have been enough.

 

[vincent]

how do you know we didnt, how do you know we didnt give them exactly what they asked for and it still wasnt enough, this has been a witch hunt from day one specifically designed to smear the club because they couldnt beat us on the pitch, it wouldnt have mattered what we gave them it would never have been enough.

I don’t and they’re fair comments. Ive just read on here multiple times (by several posters) that we would never provide them with commercially sensitive material.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Can someone enlighten me on this point please. If we have irrefutable evidence (and I am confident we do), why did we just not present that during the investigation? Yes it may be commercially sensitive material, and the premier league were probably overreaching their jurisdiction, but the immense damage this has done the club and at we could end up paying millions for some non-cooperation bull shit charge.

Principle and precedent. You never, ever voluntarily give an investigation more information than they are entitled to.

You give them some, they ask for more, you give them that, they want more still. In essence, you help them fishing for information. And the next time, you refuse. "You gave us information voluntarily before, what have you got to hide now ?". And so it goes on. Plus, this whole charade is an exercise in bad faith and should be obstructed at every available opportunity as a matter of principle.

 

[SWP's back]

The idea the PL have no evidence seems unlikely.

UEFA had none, per CAS.

 

[dadnlad]

UEFA had none, per CAS.

Come on we all know CAS is a joke and rushed hearing just to get home :)

 

[jockblue]

Can someone enlighten me on this point please. If we have irrefutable evidence (and I am confident we do), why did we just not present that during the investigation? Yes it may be commercially sensitive material, and the premier league were probably overreaching their jurisdiction, but the immense damage this has done the club and we could end up paying millions for some non-cooperation bull shit charge. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Because it's probably not as black and white as the PL asking a specific question and us providing the specific details of the transactions. They will potentially have asked for all transactions over a period of time, or relating to a specific supplier and that would involve providing information that is potentially irrelevant to the investigation (or the PL's mind, provide a chance to find something else to investigate).

 

[mancboy]

I don’t and they’re fair comments. Ive just read on here multiple times (by several posters) that we would never provide them with commercially sensitive material.

we would never provide them with information they are not entitled to and not entitled to ask for anyway and nor should we, the pl have massively overstepped their remit of what information they feel like they should be allowed to access dont forget they genuinely believed they were entitled to peruse the books of etihad airways etc and that just wasnt going to happen when emirates sponsor arsenal

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Can someone enlighten me on this point please. If we have irrefutable evidence (and I am confident we do), why did we just not present that during the investigation? Yes it may be commercially sensitive material, and the premier league were probably overreaching their jurisdiction, but the immense damage this has done the club and we could end up paying millions for some non-cooperation bull shit charge. Doesn’t make sense to me.

BEcause everybody in a legal battle calims to have "irrefutable evidence". It's just posturing.

 

[cookster]

Also he wears multiple hats

Magic hats?
Think I've found the source ;)

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Can someone enlighten me on this point please. If we have irrefutable evidence (and I am confident we do), why did we just not present that during the investigation? Yes it may be commercially sensitive material, and the premier league were probably overreaching their jurisdiction, but the immense damage this has done the club and we could end up paying millions for some non-cooperation bull shit charge. Doesn’t make sense to me.

I asked something similar 5-6 months ago and was told by somebody who knows far than me, that essentially the irrefutable evidence is our accounts.
It's up to the PL to prove that they are seriously fraudulent and not the other way round

 

[mancboy]

I asked something similar 5-6 months ago and was told by somebody who knows far than me, that essentially the irrefutable evidence is our accounts.
It's up to the PL to prove that they are seriously fraudulent and not the other way round

Have said all along until i see HMRC knocking on the door i aint worried, like you just said they are accusing a member of the abu dhabi royal family, one of the biggest investment vehicles in the world, a country and scores of pre eminent business man of lying and fraudulent behaviour not to mention one of the worlds top accountancy firms of not being able to audit our accounts properly, as we are a registered company this would be considered a criminal offence yet oddly none of the witnesses have been spoken to as noted by the people involved and nothing passed over to the serious fraud team.

 

[KS55]

Have said all along until i see HMRC knocking on the door i aint worried, like you just said they are accusing a member of the abu dhabi royal family, one of the biggest investment vehicles in the world, a country and scores of pre eminent business man of lying and fraudulent behaviour not to mention one of the worlds top accountancy firms of not being able to audit our accounts properly, as we are a registered company this would be considered a criminal offence yet oddly none of the witnesses have been spoken to as noted by the people involved and nothing passed over to the serious fraud team.

The authorities will wait for the outcome as the hearing may provide evidence.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

I don't think you can infer from that we treated equity funding as sponsorship revenue. It clearly separates partner funding from equity funding but makes the point that some sponsorship revenue would be offset against monies due to or from ADUG.

The Etisalat sponsorship is a case in point. ADUG paid that initially and reclaimed that from Etisalat later on. So the monies due to us from Etisalat were offset against the money they owed to ADUG. You can see that there's £15m due from Etisalat and £15m going from us to ADUG effectively meaning Etisalat repaid the money they owed ADUG.

In my younger days, when I lived at home, I'd be going out and need some cash. My brother would lend me £20 but he'd also borrowed £30 from our dad the week before. So I'd repay the £20 I owed my brother direct to my dad.

Did your Dad ever get back the tenner he was owed?