City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

halfcenturyup said:
For the most serious allegations, the rules are filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around. If the club knowingly filed false accounts, it's difficult to argue that the club complied with those rules in good faith.
Click to expand...
But why would they if there were no rules to break at the time?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The Times are leading the way on this story. As they done pretty much since day one. But they seem to have changed their editorial position to be more sympathetic to City. Perhaps City's comms team are being more proactive. It's just speculation from me but I wonder if The Times team know what is in the emails between some Club Directors and the PL. Tolmie has suggested those emails are damaging to the PL's 115 case. Perhaps the Times (and the Mail) want to end up on the winning side. It certainly looks like they are going after Masters.
Click to expand...
The Times had a rethink once Martin Samuel joined them. He has obviously persuaded Lawton and others to be more sceptical of the PL.
Up till then, arses like Ziegler held sway, but his star has waned.
Henry Winter now sells burgers.
 
Gingers Dad said:
But why would they if there were no rules to break at the time?
Click to expand...

You are talking about FFP? The years 2009/10 to 2014/15 aren't about breaching FFP, they are about filing false accounts in bad faith. The years after 2014/15 (once FFP was effective) are about filing false accounts in bad faith AND failing FFP if the accounts were corrected (amongst other things).

The rules for filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around.
 
I remember seeing an interview once with 2 people in the street. And a passerby walks through the interview. The interviewer starts complaining about being interrupted, the interviewee stop the interview and says "don't confuse incompetence for malice".
After having a few days to soak all this in and trying to apply some critical thinking. It does make me wonder if this is just a case of incompetence in the offset and arse covering thereafter.
Obviously the blue in me thinks it's a red cartel led agenda. But with regards to the APT case the rules being implemented where born out of outside pressure and then incompetently applied and arse covered going forward. And I think the 115 is no different and we know this by the initial charges being incorrect and all over the place. So again from the outside looking in. Could it just be as simple as incompetence.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Didn't the "judges" also say they found the omission of interest free loans from the owner not only to be intentional but also to be "akin to cartel price fixing". Acting is as a cartel is about as serious a violation of competition law as there is. To my mind the only course of action open to the PL is to end all the bluster, all the defiance, to ditch the cartel and begin serious negotiation with City, the other PL clubs and the tribunal to figure out some cost control measures which are fair to all and, above all else, lawful. If this is the first step it is to be commended, but there's a long way to go and much work to be done. It may mean that Masters has to have the balls to tel the cartel that they're on their own, if they can't compete that's tough but football is under a new, fairer regime. And there could be the problem of UEFA and there regulations which may/do have elements which are unlawful, but the PL has to conform to our law.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there can be any meaningful negotiations while Masters is there. He fixed his flag firmly to the cartel’s mast, even after the tribunal’s verdict. If he went, City and the PL could work it out in time.
 
johnnytapia said:
Aye. True. Was chatting with my dad tonight. He’s 86 and hasn’t been “online “ in his life. He lives in a world where “115” is the house down the road. Think I envy him.
Click to expand...
I once asked my elderly neighbour if he was still having sex at 86, he said "good Lord no, the woman at 88 has much bigger tits".

Apologies for nearly the oldest "joke" in existence.
 
marco said:
how anyone can suggest this has no bearing on the 115 couldnt be further from the truth, were dealing with incompitent fools who simply cant get anything right, even the members of the pannel must have raised eybrows tonight, my guess is Pannick is sat there this evening with a large glass of sherry pissing himself
Click to expand...
He drinks Haut Brion.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Thanks for that. Clear as always. And very long likewise :)

When you have time, do you think you can apply your mind to the evidence provided by the PL as to why the APT rules were necessary in the first place? I am struggling to see the logic in the tribunal's findings, based on the evidence presented, that the APT rules were necessary to ensure the proper functioning of PSR.

No problem if you have no time, or don't have the inclination. I wouldn't blame you, but maybe some others could help me out? Just an old accountant trying to understand how the arbitrators, in my mind at least, got it so badly wrong.

I don't see anything in the evidence presented that shows the ex-post review of transactions failed, and justifies a move to excessively complicated and onerous ex-ante rules. It just shows unsubstantiated fear from rival clubs that the existing rules may not be sufficient.

Maybe it's simply the case of City failing to prove they weren't necessary rather than the PL having to prove they were. But I may be biased. :)
Click to expand...

I still find it odd the panel claim there was no agenda against the gulf owned clubs yet describe a massive agenda.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
My mum and dad used to have two decanters in the lounge (I know!) and when they used to go out, when I was about 8, I’d take a swig of the sherry decanter, but sometimes I’d swig it from the wrong one by mistake, which was the whisky one!

Swigging whisky from the bottle at eight!
Click to expand...
I take it you were a late starter.
 
halfcenturyup said:
View attachment 134701

Once again, I find that the best analysis of any situation concerning City is on here, a humble football forum (provided you are happy to sift through it all). Pat yourselves on the back Bluemooners.
Click to expand...

If it’s not dawned on these frauds now that just like the CAS case they’ve been made to look fools by the posters but more importantly City & their representatives then there is no fucking hope for them. They’d have been better saying City had got a result due to the expensive lawyers, something they always hint but the thick cunts went along with the story City were embarrassed.
 
KS55 said:
I don’t think there can be any meaningful negotiations while Masters is there. He fixed his flag firmly to the cartel’s mast, even after the tribunal’s verdict. If he went, City and the PL could work it out in time.
Click to expand...
There can be no meaningful negotiations with any PL matter until the 115 decision is made and any other disputes that are on going.

Once all those are finished the rule book needs to be rewritten from the start to finish in a fair and open manner and done with lawyers to a proper standard.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You are talking about FFP? The years 2009/10 to 2014/15 aren't about breaching FFP, they are about filing false accounts in bad faith. The years after 2014/15 (once FFP was effective) are about filing false accounts in bad faith AND failing FFP if the accounts were corrected (amongst other things).

The rules for filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around.
Click to expand...
I think his point is not that we haven’t been charged with that - because we have - but why would City feel the need to file inaccurate accounts when there was no FFP in place. Just like why would City hide a couple of million quid a year of Mancini’s contract at a time when we’d just spent £17m on a crock from Blackburn, all that £17m went through the books, and we were posting losses north of £100m.

I guess what he, and I, are trying to say is that we know we’ve been charged with filing inaccurate accounts but it makes no logical sense to have done that.
 
KS55 said:
The Times had a rethink once Martin Samuel joined them. He has obviously persuaded Lawton and others to be more sceptical of the PL.
Up till then, arses like Ziegler held sway, but his star has waned.
Henry Winter now sells burgers.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe it’s that simple, editorial stance doesn’t change with evidence of rights or wrong it goes above that. Something has happened between City & the Times & Daily Mail to change the editorial stance.
 
KS55 said:
I don’t think there can be any meaningful negotiations while Masters is there. He fixed his flag firmly to the cartel’s mast, even after the tribunal’s verdict. If he went, City and the PL could work it out in time.
Click to expand...

There has to be a thorough investigation & clear out from the Premier league & clubs. I firmly believe this should be a criminal investigation.
 
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