PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Keeper!]

2017 called, wants its post back.

Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.

 

[Coatigan]

Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.

Or what?

I think that is naive. It might slowly fizzle out to a lower level, but won't stop.

But if we are hopefully cleared, I won't really care about the innuendo. I already don’t.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

@Chris in London Mancini has previously stated that he has had no contact with the PL.
This is what I find totally amazing. Whether it is a police investigation or an internal disciplinary inquiry at Tescos, you would always look to speak to the main witness. Obviously they could lie or even refuse to speak to you but, the witness just might give you all the evidence you require.
If the PL had asked Mancini and he backed up everything they are alleging we would not now be pissing about it London.
It shows how amateurish this witch hunt really is and who is driving it.
For the record Mancini stated everything was above board and that he would attend any hearing to give evidence. Again this shows that the investigation was deliberately stretched out to cause maximum damage to City, it has no integrity.

City should then call him as a witness for the defence job done

 

[WRicko]

The PL may have asked the club for information from AJ and Mancini but City said they were unable to provide it. The PL can't just ask third parties for information directly, as I understand it, they can only ask City to provide it "when able to do so". Which is the biggest problem they have with all the allegations I think and, I would imagine, the main element of their non-cooperation allegation.

Surely they can ask who they want they just cannot demand but even if the rules say you ask the club that doesn’t stop them asking the other people. And surly the rules cannot make the club provide stuff from third parties they have no control over

Do you think the rules prohibit them asking Mancini directly

 

[halfcenturyup]

I still don’t know why you can’t ask a 3rd party a question. They aren’t obligated to answer but I see no problem in asking Mancini if he’d be happy to explain what his consultancy role was in the UAE. If he says no it’s a different matter but not approach is wrong.

These are the latest rules around power of inquiry and provision of information:



And the definitions of Manager / Official, just for the record:



Seems to me that says that the PL's power of inquiry is only to the current manager and the current officials, and the information that they can provide. And that they can ask for information from anyone else where the club is "able to do so". Many ways to say you aren't able to do so, I would imagine, and then miraculously turn up with it at the panel.

Edit: I may be wrong. It has been known occasionally :)

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

The bit I really do not get is 4 years to complete an investigation. Was it carried out by the office junior who picked it up and put down when they got bored or had to go on day release?

4 years, teams could win lots of trophies in 4 years and yes, I know it’s unlikely but a team could possibly win 4 consecutive premier league titles ;-)

Thousands or millions of documents to obtain and examine
Plus litigation at every step
I understand why it’s taken 4 years

 

[halfcenturyup]

Surely they can ask who they want they just cannot demand but even if the rules say you ask the club that doesn’t stop them asking the other people. And surly the rules cannot make the club provide stuff from third parties they have no control over

Do you think the rules prohibit them asking Mancini directly

Seems that way to me. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[cheekybids]

These are the latest rules around power of inquiry and provision of information:
View attachment 132551
View attachment 132552

And the definitions of Manager / Official, just for the record:
View attachment 132553
View attachment 132554

Seems to me that says that the PL's power of inquiry is only to the current manager and the current officials, and the information that they can provide. And that they can ask for information from anyone else where the club is "able to do so". Many ways to say you aren't able to do so, I would imagine, and then miraculously turn up with it at the panel.

Edit: I may be wrong. It has been known occasionally :)

it’s ridiculous isn’t it.

 

[dickie davies]

Impossible to prove he did not.

One five minute zoom call a month

 

[halfcenturyup]

it’s ridiculous isn’t it.

It's great :)

 

[Joe Donachie]

Has anyone seen the Stephen howson video that he did yesterday about if we get off with these charges??

 

[dickie davies]

Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.

The whatsapp group will always say "City, who were charged by the Premier League of financial irregularities"
There will always be the constant reminders that the club was charged. Just like they remind us the club was banned from European competitions

 

[KS55]

As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I also can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.

The non cartel clubs won’t ask awkward questions— they are purblind, viz: sign here hateful eight:
ok.

 

[give it to gordon]

I think this is close to the truth. The PL could have got out after CAS. But Masters was under pressure from key club directors who wanted to damage City at all costs irrespective of any evidence. Masters is stupid and weak. Don’t underestimate how stupid he is. He was grossly over promoted and has no skillset to be a CEO,

I don't understand how the non cartel clubs have just sat back and allowed the cartel clubs to use their money to fund this hearing.
Some non cartel clubs have had points deducted, some have had to sell players to get I side the financial rules.
Yet one cartel club with nearly a billion in debt failed UEFA ffp and did a deal worth 75million with the pl not to be charged.

Why are these non cartel clubs just sitting back and doing nothing ?

 

[dickie davies]

City should then call him as a witness for the defence job done

If you were made redundant in what you believe was a wholly unfair decision, would you do that company a favour 12 years later by defending them in court?

 

[KS55]

If you got £100 every time you said “banana” and £10 every time you said “orange” you would say banana all the time.

This is social media and increasing regular media.

That’s all it is. You won’t change it so try not to keep saying “OMG look what they have said now” that’s what they want. Look at the length of this thread for your answer.

Footy is very tribal and rival fans are desperate to see us found guilty. There are more rival fans than City fans. The media write what is popular not what is true. You must know this by now, why get triggered? All it does is feed them.

Do you think, even if we had never been charged, that rival fans would not bait us? We are the number one target because we win everything. It’s off the scale because we are accused of cheating. If Forest were the best team England had ever seen, they would be baited. It comes with the territory.

This is the World we live in and it’s shit.

It’s all bananas. It’s not meant to be fair any more.

Enjoy the verdict.

Banana banana

 

[KS55]

More chit chat and speculation.
It’s simple: Masters is dead man walking.

 

[SilverFox2]

I am convinced that the malicious motive of a small group of clubs to damage City has driven everything. Masters has just taken the line of least resistance and carried out the instructions of that clique. The Comms narrative against City has been weaponised since day 1. The end game for these club directors is not to win the case but to damage City’s reputation. The evidence is irrelevant to them.

Their media attack is intensifying presumably to magnify the public opinion trial and verdict running alongside the Panel Appeal.

Let's hope the Panel members ignore this public outrage and stick firmly to their task.
We and our owners are used to media bias and attack in fact it helps us to focus better so I'm hoping the Panel will do the same rather than be the tools of a kangaroo court clamoring for our lynching.

 

[dickie davies]

Has anyone seen the Stephen howson video that he did yesterday about if we get off with these charges??

Just for asking or even suggesting you should receive a thread ban
Why on earth would any bluemooner have any interest in what that bitter fat rag wanker has to say!

 

[uwe rosler 28]

If you were made redundant in what you believe was a wholly unfair decision, would you do that company a favour 12 years later by defending them in court?

Well he would be clearing his own name to? As I see it and I may be wrong it's a hearing against us but if we are found guilty I'd imagine other people would have a lot to answer for and that include mancini.