PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Zabbasbeard said:
Oh indeed. They got into bed with the corrupt red cartel and now they have been caught...

And despite lying here, ill in a hospital bed...

I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it,
I'm lovin' like that, er...
Click to expand...


Hope you are up and about in no time mate, look after yourself.
 
halfcenturyup said:
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?

View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.

Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.

This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...
Why is that utter canute giving evidence about anything? He's not an expert witness in any capacity, surely?

And surely such a move won't have blindsided us? I would expect our legal team to have prepared itself for every snide trick imaginable.....
 
halfcenturyup said:
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?

View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.

Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.

This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?

If that's the case, what does this mean for us?
 
halfcenturyup said:
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?

View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.

Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.

This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a huge stretch for the pl to try and relitigate something that has been dismissed but what is universally recognised as the highest court for sports arbitration in the world.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
I'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?

If that's the case, what does this mean for us?
Click to expand...
I think what he's trying to say is that they could be throwing even more shit at us than originally thought
 
M18CTID said:
I think what he's trying to say is that they could be throwing even more shit at us than originally thought
Click to expand...
Between the lines it seems stuff isn't sticking.....

Think comedy films where once the gun runs out of bullets, the gun, bottles, cardboard boxes, sponges etc in fact, anything is then thrown in desperation.
 
mancboy said:
I think it would be a huge stretch for the pl to try and relitigate something that has been dismissed but what is universally recognised as the highest court for sports arbitration in the world.
Click to expand...

I don't think they dismissed either, tbh. I think they accepted that UEFA weren't disputing either fair value or "related partyness". Could be a subtle difference. What do I know?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
Click to expand...
Interesting , but would have thought our external auditors would have been all over the AD sponsorships to assure themselves none could be regarded as RPT given the risk of misstatement especially after the UEFA case and the noise around funding. I would have thought if the PL can't land these as a RPT then they can't land them as breaking any UEFA fmv rule (assume any overinflated fmv for a related part would be breaching UEFA rules and not PL rules as they stood at that time) or PL rules related to misstatement of the accounts.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
I'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?

If that's the case, what does this mean for us?
Click to expand...

I don't think it means anything new for the club. If the PL can't prove the most serious charges, fair value and related partyness (and pretty much everything else) fall away, I think.

That paragraph just ties up a loose end for me: why did the list of allegations refer to related parties?
 
Ste68 said:
Interesting , but would have thought our external auditors would have been all over the AD sponsorships to assure themselves none could be regarded as RPT given the risk of misstatement especially after the UEFA case and the noise around funding. I would have thought if the PL can't land these as a RPT then they can't land them as breaking any UEFA fmv rule (assume any overinflated fmv for a related part would be breaching UEFA rules and not PL rules as they stood at that time) or PL rules related to misstatement of the accounts.
Click to expand...

It would only really work for the PL, I think, if they can prove the most serious charges which, imho, they won't be able to. That paragraph just put to bed an annoying question that has been in the back of my mind since the list of allegations was published.
 
Thought I'd share this interesting Parliamentary response to my complaint to the BBC about Banned Roan and the appalling BBC bias against us. (Original complaint as posted on here below)
MP LETTER.png
Dear (my local MP),

I am contacting you as a long standing Man City supporter who is very unhappy about the BBC's biased coverage of my club over many years.

I would like to make you aware of my complaint to them about an article they published today as below and ask if it would it be possible for you to pass it on to Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State with responsibility for these matters.

It would be a bonus if you happen to agree with my views and can endorse them of course but I fully recognise they are not entirely neutral in the matter although would argue are considerably more balanced than those of our national broadcaster.


BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-7928353-B5P0L0

"Prejudicial Reporting 

"Man City case 'moral reward' for Football Leaks hacker, lawyer claims".

The above headline echoes the purpose of this article, which is clearly intended to defend a convicted extortionist whose corrupted evidence was comprehensively exposed by CAS two years ago after it was misused by UEFA to charge Manchester City with sponsorship wrongdoing under pressure from its elite rivals . Those same teams now control the Premier League, forcing it to repeat their earlier failed attempt to damage City using the identical doctored emails and once again relying on the full-throated support of your Sports Editor Dan Roan to endorse their blatantly racist, anti-arab media narratives . This outrageous piece is just the latest example of Roan's many attempts to smear the club following his permanent banning by them in 2018 for lying about Patrick Vieira. Over the years he has abused his position by enthusiastically promoting every element of the redshirt cartel's relentless anti-City propaganda campaign as it moved from 'state control' to 'financial doping' to 'sportswashing' and now the 'dirty cheating oil club ' slur. When these current confected charges are again dismissed as baseless the BBC will surely have to answer for his conduct (and that of subordinates under his direction) in nearly a decade of disgracefully biased reporting about Man City by our national broadcaster and the reputational damage it has unjustly inflicted as a result."
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Only thees.

Delaney is another who raises good points about where football is going but then, for one reason or another, blames entirely the wrong group of people.

It was always entirely predictable that super-rich individuals would get involved in football because opportunities are available to increase value and clubs generally are so badly managed. It was also entirely predictable that hedge funds would get involved in football because they see, and want to maintain, the potential for maximum value extraction for minimum investment.

A real clash of cultures.
Click to expand...
Delaney pines for a time when different teams won the league….50 years ago !!!

He must have been sleepwalking through the 90s and 00s when the expanded Champions League gave the same 4 clubs an unfair financial advantage for two decades that stopped any chance of anybody else getting a look in ( until City came in the scene ).

He’s written a book on State ownership and sportswashing due out soon so everything he has written for his day job thos year is sales patter for his new book.
 
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