PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[SilverFox2]

I am wondering if the verdict of our other case against the PL will have some bearing on the 115 attitudes of both parties.
By that I mean the non cooperation charges may be seen as justified because some PL leakage together with its obvious "fishing" reasoning.

Maybe if a fair/unfair assessment comes from the other appeal happens it may affect our combined agreement/non agreement to a settlement?

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Something struck me this morning, while out walking the dog.

Your cover has been blown now.
Admit it, you're Roy Keane

 

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

Not if the Premier League are saying the Information we supplied to to them which they subsequently passed on to UEFA was misrepresented.

I guess that makes sense. So would the allegations in relation to UEFA rules only come into play if the other allegations were proven?

 

[Vienna_70]

Your cover has been blown now.
Admit it, you're Roy Keane

I wouldn’t walk out on my teammates.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575

That was excusable. Kids kits.

What was absolutely inexcusable was the giant “AIG remembers” banner hanging from their shithole after asking for sponsorships to be removed for the day. They just couldn’t help themselves. Grubby cunts.

 

[elbearos]

If we are so guilty,why do Premier teams still play against us, can they refuse to play against the cheats?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I get the clutching at straws point, and I would say this is more about equitable application of the rules. Rule B.15.6 (2017/18) states that clubs have to comply with "the statutes and regulations of UEFA". The regulation on "good faith" appears to be specifically directed at other Clubs and the League (both which have specific definitions, for which definition of the League did change subtly around 2013).

UEFA have resolved their case against Utd and the Premier League don't see a need for further action. I suppose what I am asking is, if it is accepted that this is reasonable, should it not also be the case for City?

I was meaning UEFA presumably have a good faith rule.

Anyway, the point still stands that UEFA is responsible for determining UEFA FFP compliance, not the PL. The PL is responsible for collecting and providing the information to UEFA and clubs are required by UEFA rules, I imagine, to provide accurate and complete information in good faith. The PL can quite easily determine that City have breached those rules if they can prove City did the same to the PL, which is where the PL rule breach in respect of UEFA comes from, I think.

If we are looking for a good conspiracy, we could suggest the PL's allegations, if they can prove them, are written in such a way that UEFA have to re-open their FFP calculations for the years concerned, and punish the club for beaching their rules.

This is all hypothetical imho, though, as they won't be able to prove any of the most serious charges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

At one point, there was a big noise outside the stadium like a bang. Some of the press tried to attribute that to City fans, without any evidence of course.

:) I read that as "big nose" and my mind went straight to Simon Stone for some reason. Need new glasses, I think, and something for my Stone fixation \0/

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Reviewed the 2nd half on City+ : the "shithousery" starts 64th min. - Raya 2m10s lost ; 70th - Havertz 1m ; 72nd - Calafiori 1m30s ; 82nd Rice ( booked time wasting ) 50s ; 85th Martinelli 50s ; Gabriel 1m20s ( up to 90m ) Add on 2mins for substitutions = a minimum of 9 mins. There were other occasions when Tarquins " sat down for a rest ° and the hapless Oliver let play go on.Of course the persistent disruptions prevented City ever getting up "a head of steam" So extra time - 7 mins. Gabriel still down "injured" and play starts at 91.40 . Raya delays a goal kick ; Jesus booking 30s and City score at 97.20 in effect only 5 mins ( of the allocated 7 mins ) played. The game does kick off but then Haaland gets involved in a skirmish and Oliver blows for time. Might have been interesting if Oliver had allowed City the extra 2 mins !

Oliver couldn't wait to finish the game ...he'd lost it from about 3 seconds in and never had any control thoughout.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I guess that makes sense. So would the allegations in relation to UEFA rules only come into play if the other allegations were proven?

Yes. The PL would have to show we'd knowingly submitted misleading accounts for that charge (and the one relating to PSR) to stand.

 

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

I was meaning UEFA presumably have a good faith rule.

Anyway, the point still stands that UEFA is responsible for determining UEFA FFP compliance, not the PL. The PL is responsible for collecting and providing the information to UEFA and clubs are required by UEFA rules, I imagine, to provide accurate and complete information in good faith. The PL can quite easily determine that City have breached those rules if they can prove City did the same to the PL, which is where the PL rule breach in respect of UEFA comes from, I think.

If we are looking for a good conspiracy, we could suggest the PL's allegations, if they can prove them, are written in such a way that UEFA have to re-open their FFP calculations for the years concerned, and punish the club for beaching their rules.

This is all hypothetical imho, though, as they won't be able to prove any of the most serious charges.

No not looking for a conspiracy theory, there's plenty of those already. Just interested in understanding how the rules might work or be applied on this point. Thank you for the additional explanation.

I am also struggling to see how they would prove or gain proof that would support any of the serious allegations. My feeling is that City will have a robust explanation to refute any allegation they bring forward.

 

[hello]

That was excusable. Kids kits.

What was absolutely inexcusable was the giant “AIG remembers” banner hanging from their shithole after asking for sponsorships to be removed for the day. They just couldn’t help themselves. Grubby cunts.

Especially with the context that the club treated the families of the victims with absolute distain on the back of woeful insurance until they realised they could monetised it.

 

[Kinkybyname]

If we are so guilty,why do Premier teams still play against us, can they refuse to play against the cheats?

that'll be next when we're not relegated to vanarama

 

[GSW Blue]

If we are so guilty,why do Premier teams still play against us, can they refuse to play against the cheats?

Like Arsenal second half.

 

[failsworthblueboy]

If we are so guilty,why do Premier teams still play against us, can they refuse to play against the cheats?

Because we are not guilty at this moment in time,so they can't refuse, innocent until found guilty, and we won't be, I would hazard a guess that most of the clubs hold the same stance as there idiot fans. click click baited morons.

 

[freshie]

 

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

Yes. The PL would have to show we'd knowingly submitted misleading accounts for that charge (and the one relating to PSR) to stand.

I'd be seriously surprised and disappointed if our transactional history (and that of our sponsors) showed anything other than we are squeaky clean, which I guess leads back to witness statements and whether or not you believe there is something meaningful which can be derived from the emails. Putting the CAS judgement to one side, I am not sure how emails could stand up against records of signed off, approved, authorised transactions. This is bread and butter stuff for any auditable industry.

I know there are other charges, but to me, the ones aimed at disguised shareholder funding feels like the most serious set.

 

[M18CTID]

At one point, there was a big noise outside the stadium like a bang. Some of the press tried to attribute that to City fans, without any evidence of course.

Yeah, a shit load of fireworks went off during the silence itself. Sounded like it was right behind the away end as well. I thought that might get people talking and wondering what the fuck was going on but everyone stayed silent. Much to the disdain of the media!

 

[Coatigan]

It's really hard to judge in this case, because whilst it's playing out behind closed doors there's immense public scrutiny. Any settlement is a sign of weakness from the PL and an admission of guilt from City. And without knowing what that was it's hard to make a true judgement. There could be a number of commercial reasons why City couldn't rather than wouldn't accept a settlement - in terms of an admission of guilt. And you'd expect the PL, aware of the optics, would have offered something that had a substantial impact on our chances of success this season.

There doesn't appear to be much difference with what's on the table here in terms of charges, and what UEFA levelled at us. And it's always positive to have case law, or in this instance, the CAS verdict, to quote and utilise as part of our defence this time around. I don't believe there's anything additional the PL have other than the hacked emails, although I could be wrong.

If you're turning up to an independent panel with the same accusations, even if rules and legislation differ, it's helpful as I said to point to the CAS verdict and provide their opinion on inflated sponsorships/sources of income etc.

I just cannot see the club settling regardless of what was on the table, when the public perception is that we're guilty. That might not change even with a "win" at the independent panel in terms of your social media content from rival fans, but it will have to from the media and anyone employed to comment or they open themselves to a legal battle of their own.

All this talk of settlement, like it was ever a real option. Great hypothetical chat, but I would doubt it was ever really on offer.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd be seriously surprised and disappointed if our transactional history (and that of our sponsors) showed anything other than we are squeaky clean, which I guess leads back to witness statements and whether or not you believe there is something meaningful which can be derived from the emails. Putting the CAS judgement to one side, I am not sure how emails could stand up against records of signed off, approved, authorised transactions. This is bread and butter stuff for any auditable industry.

I know there are other charges, but to me, the ones aimed at disguised shareholder funding feels like the most serious set.

Financially it is the most serious, and probably in the overall issue of deception. But we know from CAS that it's nonsense, so it's quite bizarre that the PL are going down that route. As we've said before, why is no one in the media making that connection?