PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
As I said. A hostile investigation. No-one "acts in good faith" towards a hostile investigation.
Click to expand...
There has been bad faith at all stages with the Eufa and now PL cases. I don’t care what anyone says about legal battles. Personal animosity always has an impact. For starters I think the tasteless jibe ( was it Simon Pearce who said on email “one down”) about the death of that UEFA official poisoned the well.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
There has been bad faith at all stages with the Eufa and now PL cases. I don’t care what anyone says about legal battles. Personal animosity always has an impact. For starters I think the tasteless jibe ( was it Simon Pearce who said on email “one down”) about the death of that UEFA official poisoned the well.
Click to expand...

Possibly, although I meant hostile not in a personal way but more as a reflection of a corrupted process that was trying to work towards a pre-determined conclusion rather than an independent consideration of the facts.

I am sure the club know exactly who was behind the UEFA witch-hunt yet our relationship with them now is better than it has ever been. I expect when this is all over the same will be true of the PL.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Wasn't that the same time as all the employees transferred to CFG came back to the club? Tends to lend weight to the idea that the two were connected, probably after the UEFA settlement was concluded?
Click to expand...
We know they were connected as both involved the sale of IP to those parties. That was done to try to meet the first FFP assessment. The FFP rules were then changed so that the two subsidiaries were brought into the 'reporting perimeter' but the football services one was doing the vast majority of its business for City, so most of the staff were brought back in-house.
 
KS55 said:
Third parties were not subject to PL regs at the time, but they have since added a requirement that they must agree as part of a sponsorship to divulge info that the PL ask for. Overreach, I think. May put some potential sponsors off. If, under the latest rules Etihad, for example, refused to hand info over, would City be charged with non cooperation? All very murky, if you ask me.
I can’t see the Saudis handing info to anybody!
Click to expand...
Since the 115 came out we've concluded at least 4 or 5 sponsors, new or existing, without any hesitation or any questions asked.

Now ask yourself.

If we're rotten to the core, we wouldn't be allowed to conclude any fresh sponsorship deals or you would think sponsors and companies would give us a very wide berth.
 

Man City's Global and Regional Partners | Manchester City F. C.

We’re grateful for the support of our partners, who make a vital contribution to the Club.
www.mancity.com www.mancity.com

That's a mighty impressive list.

Keeps being added to with new sponsors.

Other sponsors extending the partnership. If we was corrupt, fraudulent and lying about figures, do you think all these names are in on the corruption?

All been told to ssh mums the word and fingers on lips?

Absolutely not. This alone is evidence we're above board and complying with the rules.

Masters and the Premier League are going to look very stupid very soon.
 
manimanc said:

Man City's Global and Regional Partners | Manchester City F. C.

We’re grateful for the support of our partners, who make a vital contribution to the Club.
www.mancity.com www.mancity.com

That's a mighty impressive list.

Keeps being added to with new sponsors.

Other sponsors extending the partnership. If we was corrupt, fraudulent and lying about figures, do you think all these names are in on the corruption?

All been told to ssh mums the word and fingers on lips?

Absolutely not. This alone is evidence we're above board and complying with the rules.

Masters and the Premier League are going to look very stupid very soon.
Click to expand...
UEFA said they had a smoking gun. It didn’t exist, it was a ploy to get us to settle. When will Masters say they have one?
 
Sir peace frog said:
having read martin zieglers tweet, it amazes me when i see ,the premier league wont do anything as they are part of the "big 6" and somehow we get lumped into that by some, how the fuck can people actually believe we are part of the prem league cartel
Click to expand...

We’re only part of the Big One, mate.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think it's anything to do with commercial sensitivity. The club were required by the courts to provide everything the PL asked for provided it was within the scope of their investigation (grosso modo). I doubt very much the club didn't comply with that requirement. But that doesn't mean the club was prevented from challenging the PL on their requests and it certainly doesn't mean that the PL could get information from third parties. I am guessing the non-cooperation takes three forms: taking all action possible to delay the investigation; challenging requests for information from inside the company; and not providing information from external parties.

Back to your question. When you are facing a hostile investigation, and after the UEFA investigation and verdict I think there is no doubt that is how it would be judged by the club, you do everything you can to limit the information you give to the investigators. Why? To slow them down, to make them as uncomfortable as possible and to control the flow of information yourself. If the club would have volunteered information in good faith the PL would undoubtedly have had to investigate that information further and, most likely, ask for more. It would be never ending and there may be other things they could find that they may not like. No, you want to control the information flow yourself. In this case by only providing what you think you have to, and then providing what you want to at the right time. In front of the panel.

One of the reasons I am so confident in the club's position is that they have cleverly forced the PL into this disciplinary process by withholding external information so they can effectively decide what external information to provide, knowing what evidence the PL has. They are controlling the information flow to a very large extent. If they were in the least worried they would have provided the information and settled a long time ago.
Click to expand...
We are lucky to have several ultra knowledgable guys in the forum.
 
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