PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

"If found guilty of the most serious charges, City would risk being forever associated with one of the biggest financial scandals in sport. City could, in theory, face a points deduction serious enough to condemn them to relegation - or even expulsion - from the Premier League.

Such a fate would cast a long shadow over City's achievements, plunge the future of the manager and squad into uncertainty, and possibly spark claims for compensation from other clubs. It has been suggested that such a stain on the reputation of City and the club's owners could even affect Britain's relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key Gulf ally and trading partner - whose president is the brother of the club’s majority owner Sheikh Mansour.

Equally, if City are cleared following a legal battle that is already thought to have cost both sides tens of millions of pounds, the viability of rules intended to safeguard the league's sustainability and competitiveness will be in grave doubt."

Dan Roan basically saying the quiet part out loud. If we lose, we're guilty - points deductions, expulsion, titles stripped, compensation. The destruction of a football club.

But if we're cleared, it's a bad thing for 'the league's sustainability and competitiveness'. No mention of the damage caused to our reputation, of course.

Win or lose, we're the ones in the wrong.

Twat.
 
First question from the slimy rag **** Stone tomorrow, " Hi Pep, is it a relief that the case regarding the 115 charges will be starting next week".
Either him or some other ****!
 
balotelli's back pocket said:
"If found guilty of the most serious charges, City would risk being forever associated with one of the biggest financial scandals in sport. City could, in theory, face a points deduction serious enough to condemn them to relegation - or even expulsion - from the Premier League.

Such a fate would cast a long shadow over City's achievements, plunge the future of the manager and squad into uncertainty, and possibly spark claims for compensation from other clubs. It has been suggested that such a stain on the reputation of City and the club's owners could even affect Britain's relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key Gulf ally and trading partner - whose president is the brother of the club’s majority owner Sheikh Mansour.

Equally, if City are cleared following a legal battle that is already thought to have cost both sides tens of millions of pounds, the viability of rules intended to safeguard the league's sustainability and competitiveness will be in grave doubt."

Dan Roan basically saying the quiet part out loud. If we lose, we're guilty - points deductions, expulsion, titles stripped, compensation. The destruction of a football club.

But if we're cleared, it's a bad thing for 'the league's sustainability and competitiveness'. No mention of the damage caused to our reputation, of course.

Win or lose, we're the ones in the wrong.

Twat.
Click to expand...
He really is an odious person. Always had a clear agenda against us. Yet strangely never a peep against utd or Liverpool. The day the bbc cease to exist I will raise a glass.

He's really gone to town hasn't he. No mention of if we are vindicated and cleared that we will still have had our reputation damaged by not onlybthe PL but the likes of him and his ilk.

Strange no mention of the special deals utd get, from the PL to allow them to pass PSR.
 
Last edited:
Let's just remind ourselves of one of the key charges, which (to pick one year, 2012/13) involves Rule E3. This rule says:

"Each club shall by 1st March in each season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts.......(such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal & regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the Directors' Report for that year and a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts."

I've missed a bit in the middle out but that's the rule - to submit audited accounts for the prior year by March 1st of the following year. So unless we didn't do that (which is highly, highly unlikely) then the IC simply can't find us to have breached that rule. There's nothing in E3 about accuracy, or anything else, and as we saw from the Leicester appeal, the PL can't rely on a defence of "Well what we really meant was...."

If we submitted properly prepared accounts, then we aren't in breach of Rule E3.

There's also the rule about acting in utmost good faith. If we took good legal and financial advice to ensure we acted properly, then how could we not have acted in utmost good faith? I reckon at least half the charges will have gone out of the window by the end of the month.
 
balotelli's back pocket said:
"If found guilty of the most serious charges, City would risk being forever associated with one of the biggest financial scandals in sport. City could, in theory, face a points deduction serious enough to condemn them to relegation - or even expulsion - from the Premier League.

Such a fate would cast a long shadow over City's achievements, plunge the future of the manager and squad into uncertainty, and possibly spark claims for compensation from other clubs. It has been suggested that such a stain on the reputation of City and the club's owners could even affect Britain's relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key Gulf ally and trading partner - whose president is the brother of the club’s majority owner Sheikh Mansour.

Equally, if City are cleared following a legal battle that is already thought to have cost both sides tens of millions of pounds, the viability of rules intended to safeguard the league's sustainability and competitiveness will be in grave doubt."

Dan Roan basically saying the quiet part out loud. If we lose, we're guilty - points deductions, expulsion, titles stripped, compensation. The destruction of a football club.

But if we're cleared, it's a bad thing for 'the league's sustainability and competitiveness'. No mention of the damage caused to our reputation, of course.

Win or lose, we're the ones in the wrong.

Twat.
Click to expand...
Roan’s coverage has been unfair and biased since day one. So his narrative is City lose: great day for football. City win: bad day for football. He’s an utter disgrace
 
TonyColemansbagofapples said:
Ok everyone, it’s now Thursday 12th. Scum making another big loss is now yesterday’s news so can we please not mention it again.
Click to expand...
roy.or.r said:
How much is Lord Panic making?
Click to expand...
The point is that cost charges stopped happening when the PL overstepped their control limit.
It will take what it costs to destroy their legal capability.
Their hubris has made them vulnerable and they have frankly underestimated Sheikh Ms business acumen.
 
Just driving home had Talk Sport on Jermaine Pennent basically saying as there are so many charges we must be guilty. TBF his co host kept pulling him up
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Roan’s coverage has been unfair and biased since day one. So his narrative is City lose: great day for football. City win: bad day for football. He’s an utter disgrace
Click to expand...
Our victory at CAS was heralded in many quarters as "the death of FFP". They were totally wrong (but I bet united are gutted they weren't).

So either we're guilty, according to Roan, or the rules are shit. No possibility in his mind that the rules are actually OK, but that we didn't break those rules.
 
So here we go. 10 weeks to establish that it is highly unlikely that CFO's, FD’s, Auditors such as Deloitte, KMPG, Investors and members of the UAE Royal family colluded over 10 years to commit industrial criminal fraud based on a small number of selective out of context emails. A panel of 3 is really going to make that call, that on the balance of probabilities we are guilty. I just do not see it happening. The PL made a massive mistake going after City with so many charges hoping some will stick. Some such as Mancini’s contract, which was signed a year before the PL even introduced their FFP model will be disputed, as how can you break rules that are not in place as was the case with player image rights such as Yaya Toure. So much of this will fail on technical arguments, interpretations, and timings, with the most likely outcome being a fine for being obstructive and not fully cooperating, as was the case with UEFA because they kept leaking the details of the case. Important that on the substantive charges in the PL case, CAS found there was ‘no evidence’ that City had inflated sponsorships to essentially cook the books. The time bar element only means the same charges were not taken into consideration due to UEFA’s own statute of limitations. It did not mean City would have been found guilty of the charges. Sadly, regardless of the outcome and such is the tribal feral nature of football we will be guilty either way. Me, I’ve loved every minute if it. Had we bribed referees, fixed matches then that is another matter. But bending and working around financial rules that kept being implemented by the red top cartel to prevent clubs like City competing is fair game and the fact that it upsets them so much makes it even sweeter. CTID
 
Kazzydeyna said:
That’s true. And guess when the derby is? Mid December. Expect an avalanche of leaks, lies, and conjecture in the run up to it. “This could be the last derby at the ground for many years” etc etc.

And then we win the case.
Click to expand...
And even then it could be the last derby for years, as they have Ten Bob in charge.
 
balotelli's back pocket said:
"If found guilty of the most serious charges, City would risk being forever associated with one of the biggest financial scandals in sport. City could, in theory, face a points deduction serious enough to condemn them to relegation - or even expulsion - from the Premier League.

Such a fate would cast a long shadow over City's achievements, plunge the future of the manager and squad into uncertainty, and possibly spark claims for compensation from other clubs. It has been suggested that such a stain on the reputation of City and the club's owners could even affect Britain's relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a key Gulf ally and trading partner - whose president is the brother of the club’s majority owner Sheikh Mansour.

Equally, if City are cleared following a legal battle that is already thought to have cost both sides tens of millions of pounds, the viability of rules intended to safeguard the league's sustainability and competitiveness will be in grave doubt."

Dan Roan basically saying the quiet part out loud. If we lose, we're guilty - points deductions, expulsion, titles stripped, compensation. The destruction of a football club.

But if we're cleared, it's a bad thing for 'the league's sustainability and competitiveness'. No mention of the damage caused to our reputation, of course.

Win or lose, we're the ones in the wrong.

Twat.
Click to expand...

In other words...

"Equally, if City are cleared following a legal battle that is already thought to have cost both sides tens of millions of pounds, the viability of rules intended to curtail City's sustainability and competitiveness will be in grave doubt."
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Our victory at CAS was heralded in many quarters as "the death of FFP". They were totally wrong (but I bet united are gutted they weren't).

So either we're guilty, according to Roan, or the rules are shit. No possibility in his mind that the rules are actually OK, but that we didn't break those rules.
Click to expand...
Exactly it doesn’t suit the narrative of what he’s getting across basically City are to blame even if we are found not guilty..
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
In other words...

"Equally, if City are cleared following a legal battle that is already thought to have cost both sides tens of millions of pounds, the viability of rules intended to curtail City's sustainability and competitiveness will be in grave doubt."
Click to expand...
Frankly they bullied their rules into place and dared any retaliation.
Now the onus is on them to prove their legal fairness. Sheikh M can afford such a battle. Can the Pll?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Let's just remind ourselves of one of the key charges, which (to pick one year, 2012/13) involves Rule E3. This rule says:

"Each club shall by 1st March in each season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts.......(such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal & regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the Directors' Report for that year and a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts."

I've missed a bit in the middle out but that's the rule - to submit audited accounts for the prior year by March 1st of the following year. So unless we didn't do that (which is highly, highly unlikely) then the IC simply can't find us to have breached that rule. There's nothing in E3 about accuracy, or anything else, and as we saw from the Leicester appeal, the PL can't rely on a defence of "Well what we really meant was...."

If we submitted properly prepared accounts, then we aren't in breach of Rule E3.

There's also the rule about acting in utmost good faith. If we took good legal and financial advice to ensure we acted properly, then how could we not have acted in utmost good faith? I reckon at least half the charges will have gone out of the window by the end of the month.
Click to expand...

Love it when you go all 50 shades.
 
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