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

Keeper! said:
Our gloves are off I think that's the reason.

Our recent action against the PL was the line drawn in the sand and the Times and a lot of other media have realised this and are now very wary on what they say.

A certain Mr Jordan has also taken a very different stance recently, and again he is not that stupid and knows the winds are changing direction.
Click to expand...
There is always a tipping point with these sort of stories. The press like to end up on the winning side. The Mail and Times know Masters is doomed.
 
M18CTID said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spot on. It never made sense in the context of the losses we were posting. ADUG were pumping in serious funds to cover player purchases and infrastructure upgrades. There were no PL rules in place about owner investment (UEFA rules were not even in place at the start of Mancini’s tenure), so the idea we were attempting to somehow conceal the true extent of annual losses of around £150m by paying Mancini an extra £1m ‘under the table’ is bizarre.

It would be like trying to conceal an elephant under an acorn.
 
cheekybids said:
I think it has to have changed. Like Politics you will have a paper that decides pro Iraq invasion for e.g. & it will never change & the journalist will frame every article that way on the orders of his editor.

Dan Roan must know by now but there is bbc editorial policy backing the premier league, if it’s to change it will be above him & not on the basis of right & wrong. That’s been glaringly obvious from the offset.
Click to expand...
I have been told that the problem within BBC sport is cultural rather than led from above. It is a laddish banter culture and some key people in there just dislike City for various reasons. They also have very inexperienced staff, especially in the website team, who are easily influenced. Apparently Roan is Teflon man.
 
BobKowalski said:
Spot on. It never made sense in the context of the losses we were posting. ADUG were pumping in serious funds to cover player purchases and infrastructure upgrades. There were no PL rules in place about owner investment (UEFA rules were not even in place at the start of Mancini’s tenure), so the idea we were attempting to somehow conceal the true extent of annual losses of around £150m by paying Mancini an extra £1m ‘under the table’ is bizarre.

It would be like trying to conceal an elephant under an acorn.
Click to expand...
Concerning Mancini, I think there was an obligation, at the time, to show all Manager remuneration on the books. It predated FFP. They will have to show his consultancy contract with the Abu Dhabi club was a sham - can’t see this going anywhere tbh.
 
vincent said:
Tolmie has just alluded to this on Twitter, but wonder whether the announcement from DP ports in the last couple of days has anything to do with what is going on. Probably not but interesting all the same.

www.ft.com

DP World shelves £1bn UK investment pledge ahead of summit

Ministerial blame game erupts after transport secretary dubbed ferry company a ‘cowboy operator’
www.ft.com www.ft.com
Click to expand...
It certainly makes the Government jumpy. We have huge ongoing deals with Saudi and other Gulf partners.
 
Bluewonder said:
He's having a 'biggest imbecile' competition with Delaney
Click to expand...
It’s just blatant. City issue a letter, oh big bad bully. PL change course and take their time as City urged……..nothing from the shits, just tumbleweed. The readers of so many papers are just not important to these arses and are deliberately misinformed by them to punt their agenda.
 
threespires said:
Nothing that I can see in The Guardian yet on the latest developments. Perhaps Barney has been too busy helping Dan with his mental gymnastics to get round to writing anything of his own?
Click to expand...
He was writing some bollocks about an extraordinary Test Match proving that test cricket was doomed
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not looking for an argument but voting for recommendations for a proposed rule change is very different from voting for the final proposal. A lot can and presumably did happen between the two votes, including two more FCAG meetings. Differing legal opinions being one, I imagine.

At no point did the club as a member shareholder vote to exclude shareholder loans from the APT rules. I can't see how that is debatable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, your first sentence doesn’t detract from my point. We didn’t vote for the APT rules as a whole, we did vote to support the recommendations. It’s pretty clear that that either wasn’t our main reason for thinking the APT rules were unlawful at the time or we were playing an incredibly insightful long game even then.
 
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...
I always enjoy reading your posts Bobby.
I do start to wonder if some elements of the press feel there might just be a much bigger scandal about to erupt than the ever diminishing 115 fantasy ?
 
ComfySeats said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like the lack of a question mark at the end of your piece......
 
Last edited:
Rory Bluelow said:
Concerning Mancini, I think there was an obligation, at the time, to show all Manager remuneration on the books. It predated FFP. They will have to show his consultancy contract with the Abu Dhabi club was a sham - can’t see this going anywhere tbh.
Click to expand...
Nope. The "all manager remuneration" rule came in later. 2013/14 I think. The only manager remuneration rules when Mancini was at City was that he must have a contract, and that that contract must include two (iirc) standard clauses. Pretty hard to imagine we didn't comply with those.

But yes, you are right, they have to show that the AJ contract was a sham then they can claim to adjust the accounts for it, and say the amounts should have been included in a contract with the club. Pretty difficult I would think as, as has been pointed out, there was no FFP reason to do that at the time (because it didn't exist then).
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It certainly makes the Government jumpy. We have huge ongoing deals with Saudi and other Gulf partners.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't get too carried away with what the government may do to ensure that AD isn't upset by what the PL is doing.

Our owner funded RedbirdIMI to purchase The Telegraph and The Spectator for 600 mill with Redbird actually running the titles. The last government (possibly more disposed to AD than the current one) rushed a law through to prevent our owner even being a passive partner. They have had to sell the Spectator and are in the process of selling the Telegraph to get as much of their money back as possible. It actually looks like they will get most or all of it back contrary to the market expectations.

You have to say that this was an extremely unfriendly act by the UK government but there you go. Don't expect anything helpful regarding football issues.
 
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