nmc
Well-Known Member
Just ask these cunts why if we are so guilty of so many accounting and fraud charges why the police, SFO or HMRC seem to have zero interest in our case ?
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Just ask these cunts why if we are so guilty of so many accounting and fraud charges why the police, SFO or HMRC seem to have zero interest in our case ?
So many ridiculous, irrelevant straw man arguments it's barely worth even trying to debate with you.
If any club decided to ignore or circumvent FFP/PSR then I'd say good luck to them as its a corrupt, unjust and iniquitous ruling aimed at giving an advantage to certain clubs over others ... if a club decides that the handball or offside rule no longer applies to them then obviously they deserve to be sanctioned because its a fair and just rule that is there for the benefit of the game as a whole, is applied even handedly and offers no advantage to any one club over another.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,454
- Team supported
- City
This is what Khaldoon was referring to when he spoke of "the tyranny of the majority". Lord Salisbury touched on the same principle when he explained that a free society was not one where six men (!) had the right to tell five men what they must do. Most free societies have a declaration of fundamental rights which must not be infringed by new laws. The PL's constitution includes no such limitations and a two thirds vote of members can enact any new rules. Thus (as proposed by our neighbours from Stretford) the PL voted for FFP rules which limit severely the right of owners and shareholders to invest in their club, despite a prohibition on such limitations being expressed clearly in law. City have taken proceedings against APT on the grounds that they conflict with the laws of the land. The complication in this case is that City are not accused of breaking these unenforceable rules but of avoiding them by unquestionably unlawful ways. City's defence is, however, the only one possible: we haven't done it and we can answer all charges with "irrefutable" evidence.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
You’d say good luck to any club purposely not abiding by the rules because they don’t like the rules they signed up to?
If that’s the case, let’s just leave it there and crack on with our days.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Depends how the IC apply the 6-year limitation. If they copy CAS, and back-date it to 6 years before the charges were formally laid (which was Feb 2023) then everything in and after the 2016/17 financial year will be in scope, with anything prior to that time-barred. The Mancini-related allegations will certainly be time-barred, but 2016/17 might have been the final year, or maybe the penultimate year, of the Fordham arrangement, so it could be in scope.
However, given what I said earlier, that the PL could well have known about it in 2015, then the IC might legitimately ask why the PL didn't do anything about it then.
Kippax Street 1880
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
I reckon they'll wheel Yaya out at some stage. Done nothing but slate us since he left and was being paid by Daniel Levy couple years ago.
Let’s be honest. If City wanted to take the Scouse hacking further, they could have. City decided to settle out of court with a pay off. We’ll never know the reason why. The PL were happy with that. City could have absolutely slaughtered Henry and Liverpool in court. But City decided not to do that. Yet all along Henry and Liverpool have been behind the constant and under handed smear campaign and attacks against City. Very strange decision by City.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Not a question of whether they liked the rules they signed up to or not. We signed up to a rule that required us to register a manager's contract, which had various statutory clauses in it. Presumably we did just that, in order to comply.
Yet we're being charged with something that someone has decided broke those rules, even though the rules didn't say anything about the things we've been charged with when we first got into Europe under Mancini in 2010/11.
Kippax Street 1880
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 7,756
As far as I know the 'hack' was just City not removing the permissions for old employees. They logged in using their old credentials from when they were employed by City. This is a pretty embarrassing security oversight by us imo and probably why we were happy to settle for a low amount. If they had hired some shady hacker to access our database then I'm sure we would have taken it further.
Following the publication of the Times’ report, the FA launched an investigation into whether misconduct rules had been broken.
However, English football’s governing body has now confirmed that the disciplinary process has ended with action being deemed unnecessary.
A spokesperson said: “The FA carefully considered the evidence received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation.
“This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.
“As per standard protocol, should the FA receive further information or evidence, the decision not to progress the investigation may be reviewed.”
However, English football’s governing body has now confirmed that the disciplinary process has ended with action being deemed unnecessary.
A spokesperson said: “The FA carefully considered the evidence received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation.
“This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.
“As per standard protocol, should the FA receive further information or evidence, the decision not to progress the investigation may be reviewed.”
Mistake or not, what the 2 ex City staff members did was known about by LFC and no action was taken against the 2 ex City staff members by LFC. People can make up their own minds about the way LFC acted.
Sporting director Michael Edwards and two former City employees, Julian Ward and Dave Fallows, were named in the subsequent settlement.
Julian Ward has returned to LFC and taken a position with Fenway Sports Group as technical director. This year.
Last edited:
Exactly this and which is why I've said all along that UEFA's ffp rules should have been challenged in a European court of law when they first imposed them. I understand why we didn't. We were trying to be accepted and didn't want to rock the boat. Also we had just about got into the elite boat before they pulled the gangway up. The same as the premier league. In hindsight now the club probably realises this was the wrong approach. The relentless persecution and slandering of our club I'd say has been unprecedented in the history of football. It's an utter disgrace the way we have been treated, just because we upset their cosy little monopoly.
As for voting for all these restrictive rules, the old guard of course would vote for them. So would the make up the numbers clubs with unambitious owners. It's a perfect excuse to say they can't invest because of these rules. Only now have the thick as pigshit fans of other clubs woken up to the fact that it's not fair and has condemned them forever to probably never seeing their club compete for or win trophies. It took them long enough after years of slagging us off. Even now a lot of the sheep are still bleating "What about City???"
The more enlightened ones have realised we are not the enemy, we never have been.
Fuck the lot of them. I hope we blow the whole stinking corrupt premier league to smithereens and if we ruin the red cartel in the process all the sweeter.
TBF John Henry does have a history of cheating;-
Red Sox aren’t only John Henry-owned team with a scandal; Liverpool has a 'hacking' incident
There's now another cheating scandal for a John Henry-owned team.
www.masslive.com
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that they used the credentials of an existing employee. It's also possible that City were negligent in some way. But it shouldn't matter, as the old employees committed a criminal offence, whatever credentials they used.