PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dannyblue52]

If it's things like Covid allowances, then whether we like it or not United are going to get more of an allowance than most or all the clubs in the league due to their lost match day revenue during the pandemic being higher than pretty much everyone else's. That said, I don't know the figures involved compared to other clubs and whether they've been given more of an allowance than they should. I'm sure the number crunchers would be able to make a fair assessment on that if they had the figures for every club in front of them.

On the face of it, United's latest losses and the 3-year rolling figure of losses look pretty grim reading and you'd have to think that they would be sailing close to the wind with regards PSR, even when allowances are taken into account.

What can't be denied by anybody is that, given the resources at their disposal and their performances on the pitch, they've been the worst run club in the league for fucking years now. How can they be so shit despite spending so much? I'd say that's worthy of an investigation in itself!

It should not be an arbitrary decision. Allowances should have been made for Covid to all teams as a % of turnover or a similar award. No one can then get favourable treatment. The one I take most exception to is an allowance for the sale of shares by their owners, the Glazers. There is no reason that this should be allowable. It's a normal business expense. Bent as fuck. As a member of the PL our club need to ask questions at the next board meeting as to why this allowance was made and more importantly who made it. I see nothing in the PL rules that allows it. Again bent as fuck.

 

[Centurions]

It should not be an arbitrary decision. Allowances should have been made for Covid to all teams as a % of turnover or a similar award. No one can then get favourable treatment. The one I take most exception to is an allowance for the sale of shares by their owners, the Glazers. There is no reason that this should be allowable. It's a normal business expense. Bent as fuck. As a member of the PL our club need to ask questions at the next board meeting as to why this allowance was made and more importantly who made it. I see nothing in the PL rules that allows it. Again bent as fuck.

Wouldn't surprise me if they included scruffy Jim's costs in there as well.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I think I would prefer the charges not to even be mentioned. If, say, the verdict ends up being on 65 charges, it will highlight that the original rushed announcement was nothing more than a vindictive publicity stunt.

Absolutely. If it is true that some charges have been dropped before the hearing, then it is remiss of the PL (to put it politely) not to issue a press release correcting their previous release and stating how many, and which, charges are actually going before the IC. After all, they were quick enough to publicise the 115 and are still allowing that narrative to run in the media.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Absolutely. If it is true that some charges have been dropped before the hearing, then it is remiss of the PL (to put it politely) not to issue a press release correcting their previous release and stating how many, and which, charges are actually going before the IC. After all, they were quick enough to publicise the 115 and are still allowing that narrative to run in the media.

115 just caught on but it was never 115. I think it was 124 or something.

 

[bluemc]

Imagine you were a journalist looking to distinguish yourself from the herd and make a name for yourself.

Wouldn't you think that exploring the possibility that City are just the victim of a witch-hunt and completely innocent would be worth an article?

Wouldn't it also be worth exploring the effect of such an outcome on the PL?

Maybe Martin Samuel will write something in his next column.

Being a journalist and daring to publicly look down that rabbit hole would see you:

Banned from any events/press conferences involving the rags, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and potentially others. Damaging your ability to grow, network and report.

Never invited onto Sky Sports, Talksport, any BBC media to present the "other" side.

You'd be left with writing stories on what Dickie Masters would call "smaller" clubs and relying on social media to share content. And we all know what a cesspit social media is.

Unfortunately, we're in the clickbait era. Journalism is dead.

Fanning the flames of CHEATING CITY and pandering to the red shirts for ad revenue is what the industry has become.

 

[JewelZee]

That's his Harris to Trump face.

Please don't associate the bride of Count Chocula with anything City...my Lord...

 

[City Raider]

I think nearly all the charges are pre-Pep, but they are still used to discredit his success. If we are cleared, him being able to stick two fingers up will be glorious.

To be honest, whilst it would be nice to be vindicated, it won’t alter my stance in discussions with rags etc. I’ve always refused to accept the validity of the rules. Football has never censored spending until we became successful. Edwards family, Moores family, Walker, Fiszman, rags floating on stock exchange to raise money - all were allowed to do it without impediment. The only cheats are the law makers and those in the shadows behind them.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Only seen it reported that United are confident that the exemptions will allow them to pass PSR, which would suggest the Premier League hasn’t waved it through (sorry, scrupulously examined it) yet

Last month they got exemptions for covid and for scruffy Jim's takeover, that no one else got. I dont think they were examined by the PL.

 

[Mancini’s Pastilles]

Picture the scenes, we get completely cleared, Win our 5th PL in a row, Pep signs new 3 year deal, we spend 300 million in transfer window acquiring Wirtz Musiala, Zubimendi etc. Glorious

 

[vincent]

Picture the scenes, we get completely cleared, Win our 5th PL in a row, Pep signs new 3 year deal, we spend 300 million in transfer window acquiring Wirtz Musiala, Zubimendi etc. Glorious

And United fail PSR...

 

[hcblue95]

I think nearly all the charges are pre-Pep, but they are still used to discredit his success. If we are cleared, him being able to stick two fingers up will be glorious.

To be honest, whilst it would be nice to be vindicated, it won’t alter my stance in discussions with rags etc. I’ve always refused to accept the validity of the rules. Football has never censored spending until we became successful. Edwards family, Moores family, Walker, Fiszman, rags floating on stock exchange to raise money - all were allowed to do it without impediment. The only cheats are the law makers and those in the shadows behind them.

Yep and even now the rules are bent to suit them. At least the rags COVID losses story is now appearing in a few papers. Even if we did pay Mancini a couple of mil extra 10 years ago, surely that is small fry compared to the £120m COVID losses the rags have been allowed to write off?

 

[Champions again in 2012]

And United fail PSR...

If Carlsberg did football scenarios ….

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

And the only person, to my mind, who disrespected the dead that day was Ferguson chewing away as he laid a wreath in memorial. Disgraceful.

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I think nearly all the charges are pre-Pep, but they are still used to discredit his success. If we are cleared, him being able to stick two fingers up will be glorious.

To be honest, whilst it would be nice to be vindicated, it won’t alter my stance in discussions with rags etc. I’ve always refused to accept the validity of the rules. Football has never censored spending until we became successful. Edwards family, Moores family, Walker, Fiszman, rags floating on stock exchange to raise money - all were allowed to do it without impediment. The only cheats are the law makers and those in the shadows behind them.

Great post to remind us of why all these restrictive rules were brought in. To keep the cartel at the top of the table.

 

[dickie davies]

When we get proven innocent then we can come out and let them all know what witch hunt it was by certain clubs and the media were utter one eyed cunts

We won't be proven innocent
The charges will be unproven
There is a difference

 

[jockblue]

Got the scarf that they gave out to everyone that day somewhere.

It was a red one as I was in the wrong end, but still....

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575

And they had huge tributes over the front of their store windows at Old Trafford with AIG plastered all over the tributes. Laughable if it wasn't so sad.

 

[nmc]

Just contacted the BBC to ask them for the source of Dan Roan’s quote "no conclusive evidence that they disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship" - because I can’t find that in the 93 page CAS Summary. I suspect the arse made it up.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Got the scarf that they gave out to everyone that day somewhere.

It was a red one as I was in the wrong end, but still....

Rag.

 

[cheekybids]

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575

It stood out a mile……..


Like a vile but clever marketing stunt.