PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
Costs were probably split in the APT hearing but we may never know. It would be a very good indicator who the Tribunal assessed as the overall winner.

Etihad has gone through for at least this season (look around) and it’s very large. We don’t know if City have successfully gone back on the rejected deal or simply accepted a lower amount as approvable. The ten year deal with the compounded uplifts in the later years will exceed £1bn.
Click to expand...

Yep.. it's gone quiet on the results of the hearing, City claimed a win and damages and losses could be available
But the Premier League also claimed a victory but the main rules had to be changed, in fact, they have been voted on by the members and the victory was in the hands of the Premier League to keep it with renewed rules

What was the first Etihad deal worth ten years ago £600million, So it had to be over £1billion spread across 10 years
I think Manchester City can now ask for any major company for sponsorship, We are good value because of the past 10 years, The best team should be able to pick the best deal for them,

Sometimes People forget we are not little old Manchester City with no fans. Our revenues are 2nd to none and stand up to the best in the world
 
journolud said:
Well I know a bit more about it now thanks to @Mr Fraser posting the AI generated definition. Doesn’t really seem related to football or a reason to walk away from the game.

Does the definition he gives accord with your meaning?
Click to expand...
We are going somewhat off topic & tbh I really can’t be mithered to get involved in that particular debate.
 
ancoats said:
Correct..

The aim was to damage our image in the media and if some of the shit sticks then it was a bonus.
It all started with the Sky Sunday Supplement attack on Mancini and Yaya, Manchester City should have taken action and taken them to court and stopped it dead in the tracks.

Our weak media team did nothing and from that moment on it was a free-for-all, So many witch hunts and claims of cheating, We were even cleared by CAS of any wrongdoings and they still called us cheats,
Click to expand...
I believe our "weak" media team probably came to the conclusion that by acting it would only make it worse. You can never have the last word if you are outnumbered. Boring but probably the right decision. I hope they just wait for the right moment though, when all this is over and they have facts that are proven.
 
Carrl said:
I believe our "weak" media team probably came to the conclusion that by acting it would only make it worse. You can never have the last word if you are outnumbered. Boring but probably the right decision. I hope they just wait for the right moment though, when all this is over and they have facts that are proven.
Click to expand...
Then they came to the wrong conclusion. Some resistance, last word or not, is better than a complete free hit.
 
slbsn said:
Now I am really confused. E.54 is not referenced in the charges press release aside from within the breach of the entire PSR sections from 2015/16 to 2017/18 but not 13/14 or 14/15. In fact, if there was a distinct alleged breach of FMV why is there no charge on a breach of E.53 from 2013/14 or the equivalent E.54 from 2014/15. That could easily have been added to the charges in bullet 1 or in bullet 4. It is notable that it is not there.View attachment 142076
Click to expand...

My official answer is I have parked this because our exchange is confusing people and taking attention away from our much more important agreement on the most serious allegations.

My unofficial answer would be that I'm not here to justify what the PL has referred to the disciplinary process as allegations or not (but if I were to try I would suggest E53 and E54 weren't referred for 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively for the same reason no other FFP breaches were referred for those seasons: the first three year assessment period ended with the 2015/16 season. I suppose it's hard to assess a breach of FFP rules until the first assessment period is over).

I am simply saying the investigation, imo, looked at the related party nature of the sponsorships, that they were presumably
not satisfied with the outcome and so they included the issue in the referred allegations in two places: the first tranche (as one of the areas in which the annual accounts were incomplete or inaccurate) and the FFP tranche (as a breach of E53/54 for certain seasons). It may be wrong, of course, but I'm not sure why it's such a controversial opinion.
 
Carrl said:
Agree it's frustrating. Just believe and hope there is some competence behind their strategy.
Click to expand...
Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of ‘rope a dope’.
A simple boxing tactic made famous by Muhammad Ali which consisted almost entirely of lying on the ropes and letting your opponent punch himself out then springing into action when they have nothing left to defend themselves and knocking them out.
Incredibly simple and effective.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of ‘rope a dope’.
A simple boxing tactic made famous by Muhammad Ali which consisted almost entirely of lying on the ropes and letting your opponent punch himself out then springing into action when they have nothing left to defend themselves and knocking them out.
Incredibly simple and effective.
Click to expand...
Only if you can absorb the punches!
 
Bodicoteblue said:
You have any doubt??
Click to expand...
Was a more general comment, mate.

Yes I think we can absorb the punches, I just worry that we won’t, as you phrased it, spring into action as stridently and purposefully as I would like if this goes comprehensively our way. Think the club are, overall, too diffident with their comms, and I fear this MO won’t materially change if we are vindicated.

More than happy to be wrong on that though.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Was a more general comment, mate.

Yes I think we can absorb the punches, I just worry that we won’t, as you phrased it, spring into action as stridently and purposefully as I would like if this goes comprehensively our way. Think the club are, overall, too diffident with their comms, and I fear this MO won’t materially change if we are vindicated.

More than happy to be wrong on that though.
Click to expand...
‘softly softly catchee monkey’
I have a cliche for every occasion!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Was a more general comment, mate.

Yes I think we can absorb the punches, I just worry that we won’t, as you phrased it, spring into action as stridently and purposefully as I would like if this goes comprehensively our way. Think the club are, overall, too diffident with their comms, and I fear this MO won’t materially change if we are vindicated.

More than happy to be wrong on that though.
Click to expand...
If we win, there is nothing more to be said. We continue to let our talking happen on the pitch.
 
ancoats said:
Yep.. it's gone quiet on the results of the hearing, City claimed a win and damages and losses could be available
But the Premier League also claimed a victory but the main rules had to be changed, in fact, they have been voted on by the members and the victory was in the hands of the Premier League to keep it with renewed rules

What was the first Etihad deal worth ten years ago £600million, So it had to be over £1billion spread across 10 years
I think Manchester City can now ask for any major company for sponsorship, We are good value because of the past 10 years, The best team should be able to pick the best deal for them,

Sometimes People forget we are not little old Manchester City with no fans. Our revenues are 2nd to none and stand up to the best in the world
Click to expand...
Little old City had plenty of fans. I know, I was there. According to the numbers we had 25,000 turning up when we were crap. Allowing for fiddling of the match day take, it was 30,000 in reality. I remember one occasion when we got 30, 000 plus on a weds night in Div 2 and the rags got 25,000 that Saturday in div1.
You could argue that the current regime have forgotten us FOCs and our loyalty.
 
halfcenturyup said:
My official answer is I have parked this because our exchange is confusing people and taking attention away from our much more important agreement on the most serious allegations.

My unofficial answer would be that I'm not here to justify what the PL has referred to the disciplinary process as allegations or not (but if I were to try I would suggest E53 and E54 weren't referred for 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively for the same reason no other FFP breaches were referred for those seasons: the first three year assessment period ended with the 2015/16 season. I suppose it's hard to assess a breach of FFP rules until the first assessment period is over).

I am simply saying the investigation, imo, looked at the related party nature of the sponsorships, that they were presumably
not satisfied with the outcome and so they included the issue in the referred allegations in two places: the first tranche (as one of the areas in which the annual accounts were incomplete or inaccurate) and the FFP tranche (as a breach of E53/54 for certain seasons). It may be wrong, of course, but I'm not sure why it's such a controversial opinion.
Click to expand...
Not about controversy. I just don't think it is convincing to raise E.54 as important when it wasn't even a rule in effect until 2015/16 and even then required a consultative process that never happened (E.55).
 
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