PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

GortonBlue62 said:
Different question, but as you're 'around'...

Will witness evidence be given by video link or will people be seen arriving at the venue to testify in person?

I'm just wondering if we will be seeing people like Mancini arriving Pannick style in the days and weeks ahead.
Click to expand...
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
 
Bluesince1979 said:
My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))
Click to expand...
Also this. Can’t fit the replies in but needless to say stupid is as stupid does. That didn’t look at the account, just presumed its sky sports and off they went, venting their anger.

IMG_7054.jpeg
 
I watched The Athletic YouTube channel video about "what punishment will City get?"

Video truthfully wasn't as bad as I was expecting, still was bad mind you, but at least they mostly included "if".

They did address, very briefly, what will City do if/when we win the case. They seemed to think City would be happy to just let it go and move on

I find that madness.
 
TheKippaxM14Blue said:
It couldnt be just that though. They couldnt submit those loss figures without knowing for a fact they wouldnt be disputed/Charged.

They would be completely open to a huge points deduction. They confidently spent hundreds of millions in the preceding transfer windows knowing that they wouldnt be punished further down the line.
Click to expand...
Yep. They were clever and must’ve had the “nod” that it would be waved through. I do hope the detailed ruling following our hearing shines some light on how powerful certain rivals are in yanking the chain of the Premier League. More and more examples are coming to light.
 
cheekybids said:
He also got given a horse by major shareholders.
Click to expand...
That's the kind of thing I was querying, would things like that come under disguised owner investment now? Would anything like that have to be declared?
It seems like these new financial rules would have to be incredibly convoluted to cover all the eventualities and it feels like the Premier League are using the whole 'bad faith' clause to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the regulations which, as we saw with Leicester, doesn't seem like the best idea.
 
Timbobs said:
I watched The Athletic YouTube channel video about "what punishment will City get?"

Video truthfully wasn't as bad as I was expecting, still was bad mind you, but at least they mostly included "if".

They did address, very briefly, what will City do if/when we win the case. They seemed to think City would be happy to just let it go and move on

I find that madness.
Click to expand...
I watched that and thought it was surprisingly balanced tbh though obviously focussing on City’s potential punishments.
 
Bribe the FA to g
Bluesince1979 said:
My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))
Click to expand...

Bribe the FA to get off a PL charge. Your brother in law is a sharp tool isn’t he !
 
Dannyblue52 said:
My first question to Masters would be Why have you charged Manchester City for things that allegedly happened 12 years ago when you didn't charge Liverpool for Hacking City's database as " It was too long ago" By the way, you have charged Manchester City for breaking EUFA FFP. Man United were found guilty by EUFA and fined for breaking FFP but not charged. Why not?
Click to expand...
They ducked out of the dipper charge by claiming it was all settled up between the two clubs. Personally I think it was insane letting the dippers away with it but subsequently read on here that considerations regarding GDPR and possible severe sanctions softened our cough in relation to this matter.
 
Bluesince1979 said:
My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))
Click to expand...
Yet they've got let off from failing PSR because of the Premier League giving them a Covid 19 allowance over 40 times more than the next highest allowance and an allowance of £35 million for their legal fees from Scruffy Jim's investment. A fee oid Catweazle could have easily paid from his tax dodging money. As the old saying goes "One rule for one, one for the rest of us". That is what we're up against.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Ah, this is where we are disagreeing.

I agree with you that the club has very probably complied with a literal reading of P7 and P8 which I suppose is the benchmark now, so those two rules shouldn't be a problem.

But I think you can't read the "filing incorrect accounts" rules literally, for the very reason they have also thrown "bad faith" in there. Yes, the club filed accounts. Yes, they had a clean audit opinion. Yes, the club filed future financial information. All good. Until you take bad faith into account. The PL is saying the directors filed accounts in bad faith because they knew they were wrong, deceived the auditors in bad faith into giving a clean opinion and then deliberately concealed all that in bad faith from the PL.

If you don't take the bad faith allegation into account, it's basically saying these aren't effectively allegations of fraud and that argument has been done to death since day one.

Anyway, I could be completely wrong, but I think all that applies to Mancini and Fordham and/ or Toure as much as sponsorship, no matter what the individual rules for manager and player remuneration say.
Click to expand...
but this is the problem for the PL they've wrote the rules and what you've just said is city passes all of them apart from the first good faith one. So for the seasons from 2009 to 2013 they've charged us with 20 breaches, we pass them all by definition apart from 4 of them which are open to interpretation.
 
slbsn said:
In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
Click to expand...

Fair enough :)
 
slbsn said:
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
Click to expand...

Not like Mancini to be shy, I think :) With the language issues, though, and the relative low-risk of that particular issue, would a written statement be enough?
 
Dannyblue52 said:
I agree entirely with what you have said. The rules only cover his contract with the club. So why the fuck have they charged us ? Surely if we broke the actual rules at that time we should have been charged then. It stinks of "charge them with everything we can think of and hope something sticks".
Click to expand...
agreed, but this is just the first section which is just not going to stick at all.
it's the 2015 to 2018 bit that I want to cover next as this is where all the PSR bullshit kicks in. rules E53 to E60 are the critical ones. I haven't dug into the past handbooks to what they are yet but I'm expecting it to be about sponsorships
 
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