PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

This is a surprisingly decent read from our mates at the Guardian.

For those who don't want to click.

https://archive.ph/ZwSiU

Surprisingly balanced for Ronay, but while one or two in the press have begun considering the possibility the allegations may not be proven, none of them are considering the huge obstacles in front of the PL if they want to prove their allegations, or the consequences for the people in the PL if they can't land a serious charge for their 30 million investment, in fact 40-50 million by the time they have paid some of City's costs. They are still peddling the "the emails are convincing" argument of the Magic Harris Hat which has minimal legal weight.

Anyway, there is that. And the fact that City is now an "arm of an influential nation state", apparently. I suppose it's better than state-owned, state-funded, state-supported and the rest but I have no idea what it means in the real world.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What annoys me is that its often stated that City are paying Pannick, whos a KC, either £5K, £7k or £10K per hour depending what you read. However, its never mentioned that the PL have also employed several KC and their hourly rate is never mentioned

That's just an extension of the constant quoting the cost of our squad when playing a lower league team in one of the cups.

I bet that narrative never saw the light of day when united played Barnsley.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

This is a surprisingly decent read from our mates at the Guardian.

Win or lose, Manchester City case poses perilous threat to Premier League power | Barney Ronay

Arsenal clash is part Super Sunday but more importantly Tribunal Day Seven and the stakes could scarcely be higher

www.theguardian.com

It isn’t, for all the reasons GDM so eloquently describes above. It’s a Guardian journalist doing what Guardian journalists always do when writing about City; present an entirely one sided narrative, sneer, reference state ownership, time barring and clever lawyers, and never entertain the possibility that we might not be guilty for a second. That offering of Ronay’s ticks every box……

 

[halfcenturyup]

Would agree but he certainly isn’t stupid, as the article is quite carefully constructed to appear balanced - and the conclusions contained in there are superficially plausible.

He presents three scenarios. The first being that we are found guilty - because we are guilty and that the club will engage in ‘vengeful’ retribution following it. The second scenario is the we are cleared but it’s inevitably qualified on the basis that it could be a just outcome, but by implication may very well not be. And the third scenario, and one he posits as the most likely, is a middle ground and one that crucially involves an admission of guilt on our part.

There is a common theme running through those three scenarios, namely that the club has done something wrong, a view that is underpinned by his description of the emails as ‘compelling’ despite them manifestly not painting the full picture (how could they?) juxtaposed against his derision at the club’s deployment of the word ‘irrefutable’ to describe the evidence we have/had in our possession to rebut these charges, through the prism of a gratuitous and grossly exaggerated reference to the hourly rate of our leading counsel. Along with, of course, the obligatory and misleading reference to the time-barring of the UEFA charges.

And he finishes off the article to remind everyone of the wider geopolitical consequences of a finding of guilt - a worthwhile point but plainly designed to bolster the inference of that gult, given its location at the end of the article.

It’s a carefully constructed, but wholly specious work of sophistry, and whilst conspicuously better written than most of its ilk, is still consciously designed to project the unwavering position that the club must have acted dishonestly.

Maybe it has, it’s perfectly plausible, however unlikely, but it’s the absence of any suggestion at the possibility that the club has not, and what the consequences are that would flow from that (rather than us simply getting away with it) that has marked this wholly dishonest species of article for the last two and a half years.

This may all be true, but the tone of the article is a million miles away from all the other articles he has written about the subject, imo. It's interesting to consider why. He certainly hasn't developed any journalistic integrity over the last few weeks.

Maybe it's a sign of progress?

 

[patrickblue]

What annoys me is that its often stated that City are paying Pannick, whos a KC, either £5K, £7k or £10K per hour depending what you read. However, its never mentioned that the PL have also employed several KC and their hourly rate is never mentioned

That's just pretty much the same as the pundits and match commentators constantly bringing up how much our squad cost when we're playing the likes of rags and dippers.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It isn’t, for all the reasons GDM so eloquently describes above. It’s a Guardian journalist doing what Guardian journalists always do when writing about City; present an entirely one sided narrative, sneer, reference state ownership, time barring and clever lawyers, and never entertain the possibility that we might not be guilty for a second. That offering of Ronay’s ticks every box……

Well said John. When even the supposedly honest Conn comes out with the mendacious statement about us selecting two of the CAS panel, you know the Guardian has a clear agenda.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I am one of those who tries to keep up with this thread, but has to skim through because of lack of time, there is one question I would like to ask of the better educated here.
Take the scenario that City have been found guilty of some or all of the substantive "fraud" and "false accounting" charges, based on the flimsy evidence that we know exists, and the Commission uses the "balance of Probabilities" rule to get over the fact there is no incontrovertible evidence of guilt.
The club will obviously appeal if in this position, but my question is what would the other parties who have been tarnished by the verdict do, or what remedies would be open to them.
In particular I am thinking about the Audit firms involved in the whole saga, to the auditors their independence from their client is sacrosanct - they have now been found guilty of colluding with their clients to falsify records with intent to mislead other parties, I don't think this would go down well with these people, is there anything to stop the audit firms from suing the hell out of the PL ??? - I think not, and for this reason I feel that the Commission will only be able to find the club guilty if they can provide some serious new "smoking gun" evidence, the bar must be set very high.
But there may be factors I am not taking into account

I doubt they will be found to have been colluding with the club, at worst they will be found to have been misled by the club.

But yes, you are right, there would be implications for BDO around the audit procedures carried out pre-2018 and even post-2018.

One of the things that gives me confidence in the club's position is that, if the auditors thought they had been misled by the club, they would have resigned in 2018. They didn't, so this means the club were able to convince the auditors everything was tickety-boo. If the club can convince auditors whose reputation will be in the line if they are wrong, there shouldn't be any problem convincing an independent panel.

Your question was what happens if the panel effectively says they were wrong and their audit procedures were inadequate? All hell breaks loose, I would imagine. :)

Which, as I say, is one of the reasons why it won't happen.

 

[homerdog]

What annoys me is that its often stated that City are paying Pannick, whos a KC, either £5K, £7k or £10K per hour depending what you read. However, its never mentioned that the PL have also employed several KC and their hourly rate is never mentioned

They must be representing the wankers at the PL pro bono...

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This may all be true, but the tone of the article is a million miles away from all the other articles he has written about the subject, imo. It's interesting to consider why. He certainly hasn't developed any journalistic integrity over the last few weeks.

Maybe it's a sign of progress?

The spineless **** is just trying to hedge his bets as the determination advances towards us.

He pays lip service to a finding in the club’s favour, but the wording of the article is plainly designed for the reader to conclude that such an outcome would be in spite of the club’s conduct, not because the of it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well said John. When even the supposedly honest Conn comes out with the mendacious statement about us selecting two of the CAS panel, you know the Guardian has a clear agenda.

Looks like I am on my own thinking it wasn't a bad article by Ronay (inasmuch as he has any qualification at all for talking about legal and accounting issues, or football issues actually), but he did try to explain the rationale for a sporting advantage. Although, he did say rather strangely that "a few spare millions can make a massive difference on the pitch" which is weird. I think we could all point to hundreds of millions spent that haven't made any difference at all.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The spineless **** is just trying to hedge his bets as the determination advances towards us.

He pays lip service to a finding in the club’s favour, but the wording of the article is plainly designed for the reader to conclude that such an outcome would be in spite of the club’s conduct, not because the of it.

Baby steps :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Looks like I am on my own thinking it wasn't a bad article by Ronay (inasmuch as he has any qualification at all for talking about legal and accounting issues, or football issues actually), but he did try to explain the rationale for a sporting advantage. Although, he did say rather strangely that "a few spare millions can make a massive difference on the pitch" which is weird.
I think we could all point to hundreds of millions spent that haven't made any difference at all.

Quite. I think we could provide a couple of high-profile examples of that. But you can apply that argument even to Everton, where their results got worse the more they were alleged to have spent.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

That's just pretty much the same as the pundits and match commentators constantly bringing up how much our squad cost when we're playing the likes of rags and dippers.

More pertinently it's the value of the squad rather than the cost which is significant. Commentators conflate cost with value. The City squad probably cost a bit less than the rags squad but it's worth a lot more, possibly twice as much. This is actually successful investment. But the commentators imply that this is a bad thing.

 

[Silva61]

You will be better declaring that you don't need a TV License too, which you can do on the TV license website below. Lasts for a year and then you have to declare again. Stops them mithering you. I suppose they can still send someone around to your property to check, but the amount of people cancelling I doubt they have the resource to investigate everyone. I've not had a license for about 4 years now and never had a visit or anything.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

You must of had some letters, they never stop sending, I get 1 each month, never bother opening them but do collect them and put the date received.
Without counting I have around 20, must be 3 year now without a licence, gives me a nice warm feeling I contribute nothing to that disgusting organisation.

 

[cheekybids]

Would agree but he certainly isn’t stupid, as the article is quite carefully constructed to appear balanced - and the conclusions contained in there are superficially plausible.

He presents three scenarios. The first being that we are found guilty - because we are guilty and that the club will engage in ‘vengeful’ retribution following it. The second scenario is the we are cleared but it’s inevitably qualified on the basis that it could be a just outcome, but by implication may very well not be. And the third scenario, and one he posits as the most likely, is a middle ground and one that crucially involves an admission of guilt on our part.

There is a common theme running through those three scenarios, namely that the club has done something wrong, a view that is underpinned by his description of the emails as ‘compelling’ despite them manifestly not painting the full picture (how could they?) juxtaposed against his derision at the club’s deployment of the word ‘irrefutable’ to describe the evidence we have/had in our possession to rebut these charges, through the prism of a gratuitous and grossly exaggerated reference to the hourly rate of our leading counsel. Along with, of course, the obligatory and misleading reference to the time-barring of the UEFA charges.

And he finishes off the article to remind everyone of the wider geopolitical consequences of a finding of guilt - a worthwhile point but plainly designed to bolster the inference of that gult, given its location at the end of the article.

It’s a carefully constructed, but wholly specious work of sophistry, and whilst conspicuously better written than most of its ilk, is still consciously designed to project the unwavering position that the club must have acted dishonestly.

Maybe it has, it’s perfectly plausible, however unlikely, but it’s the absence of any suggestion at the possibility that the club has not, and what the consequences are that would flow from that (rather than us simply getting away with it) that has marked this wholly dishonest species of article for the last two and a half years.

He’s a ****!

 

[halfcenturyup]

He’s a ****!

Something we can all agree on :)

 

[CC1]

Back to the settlement discussion, would you settle for no sporting sanction, no financial sanction, but seven asterisks?

:)

The thing that the football world & it’s envious biased fans have omitted to mention is that IF we are found guilty (unlikely) and IF we do get removed from the PL (what a loss to their brand) is that every PL title won without our presence will have:-

A BLOODY GREAT ASTERISK AGAINST IT - pointing out that the title was won when the best team in the land were PREVENTED from competing

Think they’ve all overlooked that aspect when they keep banging on (Camelgob) about putting asterisks against our past 10 years achievements

It works both ways

 

[Bluewonder]

The media judge City on the principles of the medieval dipping stool test. If we drown we are innocent. If we survive we are guilty.

References Newcastle AND PSG. The State-owned, dirty money play. He cites the Der Speigel e-mails with no context around our defence and mocks the idea of “irrefutable evidence” as mere legal trickery. As you (and GDM in more detail) point out its more appalling treatment in the MSM. The hysteria around the damage to the PL is bollocks.
If (when !!!) City win, all it will take is a few heads on spikes - and Khaldoon and Allison Brittain will kiss and make up and everything in the garden will be rosy again.

Ronay is a massive racist

Allegedly

 

[Keeper!]

Manchester City should be loudly applauded, not roundly condemned

It’s been a difficult week for English football. A shadow is hanging over the club I have poured my love into since 1969.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Can anyone get around the paywall?

 

[homerdog]

Manchester City should be loudly applauded, not roundly condemned

It’s been a difficult week for English football. A shadow is hanging over the club I have poured my love into since 1969.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Can anyone get around the paywall?

It’s been a difficult week for English football. A shadow is hanging over the club I have poured my love into since 1969.

I fell for Francis Lee, Mike Summerbee and Colin Bell. My friends were George Best and Mancunian red but I was never lured by automatic success and after years of being underdogs, City now bark the loudest.
There is a special blend of satisfaction that comes with being a Manchester City fan. Having the best team in the world brings an unbridled sense of pride to those of us who feel a deep attachment to whoever is wearing sky blue with the City crest.
Over the last few years, Pep Guardiola has sculpted the perfect panel. Two, sometimes three elite superstars competing for every position. Their abilities leaving gifted gatherings elsewhere in Manchester, across in Liverpool and down in London floundering in their wake. This is perfection or as the headline writers say “Pepfection”.
It is a joy to watch. Sometimes they are flawless, often they aren’t, but on those off days they most usually excel in the end. There is a sense of confidence, desire and general workmanship alongside a wealth of natural talent that ensures these players are habitual winners.
Other great teams, especially those under the guidance of Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United, have helped to make the Premier League the benchmark for global football but nothing equals the Manchester City formulae of the last few years.
It wasn’t always like this. In the late 1990s they were in the third division. City struggled but their fans never abandoned them and that loyalty was rewarded when our oil rich owners took control. They knew Manchester City had global appeal and now the club is a who’s who of soccer stardom. The Premier League is not only better thanks to the presence of this great club but it owes a debt of gratitude to those who drive Man City in the direction of total domination.
As we know, however, this is not the case. The League has levelled charges against the club on the grounds of financial irregularity and seem prepared to continue to pick at a scab until blood is drawn. The case, which started this week, will probably have no winners but one thing is for sure — the loser will be football. There may have been accounting errors or possibly something was lost in financial translation between the UAE and the UK but Man City bosses deny any wrongdoing and as a fan I am confident this great club will have its name cleared.
If for some technical reason a penalty has to be paid by City, then well and good but those making the decisions should give immense consideration to the damage they could cause to one of England’s greatest ever products.
Blighting the image of Manchester City would cast a blemish across the entire league. The eyes of the world will see envy and an absence of respect towards the club that built on the solid foundations of an excellent league and made it the greatest in the world.
Tampering with the lynchpin of this superstructure could see a collapse the English game might not be capable of surviving. Wise heads must make wise decisions and realise the Premier League needs the modern Manchester City more than anyone can begin to imagine.

The re-inventing of the game was planned and delivered at The Etihad. Every team at every level is now trying to play like Manchester City. Imitation is the ultimate form of flattery. This club should be loudly applauded, not roundly condemned.