I very much care if they did with two exceptions, the non-cooperation charges given the PL are acting on others behalf and anything with "in good faith" appended as that's purely subjective rather than objective and can mean anything they like (or are told to like).Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or there’s we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.
Great response to that irritating bellend Ian Darke
The perfect time for an Independent Regulator to be introduced to English Football and would that not be where the FA step in. After all they are our governing body.It would be interesting to see how the Independent Regulator would view the cartel attempting to Reform the Premier League. Should such a thing come to pass.
I'd assume a) it has been permitted before b) United have had it cleared already.I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.
However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.
Could also be, as with the Etisalat sponsorship, that we were netting money off against money due from ADUG. So for the Mancini/Al Jazira contract it could be that City paid it as they had the banking details and Al Jazira repaid us, or ADUG added it onto any monies they paid us.Yes, we don't know much about the payments of the contract out of the club's bank account. But payments themselves mean nothing. It's the accounting of them that is important. Credit went to the bank account. But where did the debit go? Only one of two places realistically. Balance sheet as a receivable from AJ, or profit and loss as an expense. If the latter, what is the PL's problem? If the former, the payments mean nothing.
Anyway it doesn't matter, I don't think. It's the intent behind the AJ contract the PL is challenging. And good luck with that :)
I'd assume a) it has been permitted before b) United have had it cleared already.
I just don't believe they would take chances in a NYSE announcement. That said it appears both the PL and United have not guided either way which is a bit odd
I’m not sure if it has before and if not that is clearly wrong.
However if it has I do think that is the correct position to take.
Perhaps the PL should adopt the same possibilities when addressing sponsorship.But if other clubs put in say 6M and are happy that was their figure, then the prem accept that was their figure, then it is on them for putting a low number in no? Prem accepted it and Uefa didn't so it is clearly dodgy.
Exactly,this fucking nonsense on podcasts(city podcasts too)I’ve heard recently that our achievements will be tainted and won’t mean as much, EVERY successful club throughout football history has been allowed to build their club whichever way they chose without any scrutiny regarding their finances. But but but the rules were not in place then…again who gives a fuck,those rules were designed by the very clubs who didn’t want an upstart challenging their cozy little group. I will never condemn ANY club for breaking those “rules”. They were and always will be a protectionist racket. Fuck them all.As I don't agree with the rules I couldn't give a fuck as they were only created to stop our progress. I actually don't think they're legal anyway but unfortunately nobody challenged them in the same way Bosman did players contracts.
But the pl legal team still haven’t found what they are looking forI heard that the PL legal team have taken the case 'pro bono' which, i believe means they can avoid some corporation tax
I think this is far more likely if the investigation comes down on the side of the PL, i can see us coming out all guns blazing if we feel we have been shafted. I suspect if we win, we will see a statement from the club and a few people in the PL will decide to explore "new opportunities"Same here - I sincerely hope that ever since that first UEFA accusation we have been 'acquiring' filth on all our detractors... fire with fire.
When our name is cleared I'm envisaging a scene like the end of the Godfather - Mansour sat there whilst everyone gets their come uppance!
I now doubt an independent regulator will make any difference,if the premier league changed to whatever the same clubs with the same people will have their tentacles all over it,I wouldn’t be surprised either that the recent statement from uefa about government interference ( regulator)was somehow pushed by the usual suspects..The perfect time for an Independent Regulator to be introduced to English Football and would that not be where the FA step in. After all they are our governing body.
That's exactly where the Premier League will see it being reformed surely. Ownership, governance, finances (FFP), protecting the whole football pyramid and you never know we as fans may get more of a say. Although I'm not holding my breath for that one.
It would be interesting to know what other clubs lost out on summer tours during the same period and what they were able to claim as losses.They claimed it was lost revenue for not being able to have a summer tour during Covid.
How much are city really in debt compared to utd's 1billion plus ...I'm not sure if city are like Aston villa Fulham debtless or am I wrongI now doubt an independent regulator will make any difference,if the premier league changed to whatever the same clubs with the same people will have their tentacles all over it,I wouldn’t be surprised either that the recent statement from uefa about government interference ( regulator)was somehow pushed by the usual suspects..
This has been bothering me too .I think the main issue here is not what the rags did it’s whether the rest of the clubs were made aware by the PL that they could also do the same? Or did they only tell the rags?
It seems pretty obvious to me that had the other clubs known they could, they would have. Why wouldn’t they?
Looks like preferential treatment to me.
Could that be because this is a "nothing to see here, move on" situationBut the pl legal team still haven’t found what they are looking for
the Mancini charges aren't a problem anyway all the rule states is "the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager" and "the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary". Also " Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall include the standard clauses and clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party".Could also be, as with the Etisalat sponsorship, that we were netting money off against money due from ADUG. So for the Mancini/Al Jazira contract it could be that City paid it as they had the banking details and Al Jazira repaid us, or ADUG added it onto any monies they paid us.
With that Etisalat sponsorship, it was never denied that ADUG had met the initial payment but the accounting entries were then set up so that Etisalat owed ADUG the money, which they later paid. As we've always said with this, you simply can't take one email at face value without understanding the full picture and context.
Do you care whether City actually broke the rules or that we just get cleared of the charges?
For me it’s prove them or do one.
In some ways I’d rather we were guilty but got away with it.