PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

FanchesterCity said:
Even if we accept 'the hacked emails' gave the PL some cause for concern, it should still be questioned why nothing was detected by their own processes at a much earlier stage.
Click to expand...
  • Fordham was in plain sight from 2013, as it's linked directly to us on the Companies House website.
  • Every set of accounts since Etihad and any other AD-based sponsor put money in are publicly available, showing we don't believe they are related parties, as our accusers claim.
  • Those publicly available accounts show over a billion pounds of equity investment, so why would we try to hide a small percentage of that?
  • The issue of whether they were related parties came up in 2014 as part of the FFP settlement (but wasn't tested specifically).
  • The Booz Allen presentation, which is in the public domain, strongly suggested that ADUG wasn't funding the Etihad sponsorship.
Apart from the Mancini contract, everything has been in the public domain for over 10 years.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m struggling to see your point. He’s unequivocally stated that if we win the PL is fucked. ‘Get[ting] nowhere’ means they have not been able to establish anything. It’s a fairly accurate ex tempore assessment of the position post a finding in our favour.

If you are expecting Martin Lipton to go full Bert then you are going to be perpetually disappointed.

True he hasn’t said it will mean City were perfectly innocent but actually none of us know if that will be the basis of a finding in our favour.

What he has said is correct imo, but then again it might be my English comprehension that’s deficient…
Click to expand...
We agree on the PL board is fucked for pursuing a case where there is little or no evidence, or that they charged us for something where rules were not in place at the time

But for him to say, if City win there are no rules, is absolutely not true, so the headline is correct

He made two statements
 
Maybe a silly question but with it being an independent panel, is there an official channel that an announcement may be posted first rather than a statement from the League or ourselves?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
  • Fordham was in plain sight from 2013, as it's linked directly to us on the Companies House website.
  • Every set of accounts since Etihad and any other AD-based sponsor put money in are publicly available, showing we don't believe they are related parties, as our accusers claim.
  • Those publicly available accounts show over a billion pounds of equity investment, so why would we try to hide a small percentage of that?
  • The issue of whether they were related parties came up in 2014 as part of the FFP settlement (but wasn't tested specifically).
  • The Booz Allen presentation, which is in the public domain, strongly suggested that ADUG wasn't funding the Etihad sponsorship.
Apart from the Mancini contract, everything has been in the public domain for over 10 years.
Click to expand...
From memory Mancini was sacked by Inter and was hired for UAE consultancy work as it was always the intention for him to replace Hughes at the end of the season. He was given a contract which stopped other clubs from approaching him.

Hughes was then sacked mid season and Mancini replaced him. I'm sure I read the contract for his UAE consultation work was renegotiated and he was obviously given a contract to manage City.

He could do both jobs simultaneously, he didn't need to even be in the UAE or do any work for them himself, he could contract that out or employ a colleague to oversee that part of his remit.

I could be way wrong but that's what I remember from a few years back.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m struggling to see your point. He’s unequivocally stated that if we win the PL is fucked. ‘Get[ting] nowhere’ means they have not been able to establish anything. It’s a fairly accurate ex tempore assessment of the position post a finding in our favour.

If you are expecting Martin Lipton to go full Bert then you are going to be perpetually disappointed.

True he hasn’t said it will mean City were perfectly innocent but actually none of us know if that will be the basis of a finding in our favour.

What he has said is correct imo, but then again it might be my English comprehension that’s deficient…
Click to expand...

If the charges are found unproven then the PL board will have lost all authority and will be rendered incapable of continuing.

A regulatory authority with no ability to enforce regulations can be easily interpreted as there being “no rules any more”.

It then comes down to the individual, how you view this new position.

City fans = no rules is good because these rules were targeted, discriminatory and unfair.

Lipton = bad because he (I think) believes there should be financial rules in place and something is better than nothing.

Two completely different ways to view the same outcome, while sharing common ground that City have been largely exonerated and the PL are a bunch of clowns.
 
SWP's back said:
I remember reading The Secret Barrister and he lamented the lack of knowledge of most juries and stated that if he were ever falsely accused of something he’d much rather have a case tried by a judge rather than a jury as so often they’re either disinterested or prejudiced from the off, but that’s the full extent of my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Disinterested is exactly what you’d want a jury to be.
 
In the event of City being cleared of the charges brought by Masters and the PL, who will be the first to call out the massive waste of time,money and effort involved in satisfying the demands of the cabal members ?

Who will be calling for the head of Masters and acolytes who have allowed themselves to be driven by the greed of others ?

That is the litmus test regarding the integrity of the media surely ?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
If you can’t see how the headline is misleading in relation to what he said overall, then I’d say your English comprehension is deficient.
Click to expand...
The headline says no rules and he says no rules. This is clearly wrong. Please tell me what deeper meaning I should be reading into the headline or what he says
 
Centurions said:
I am constantly & equally amused and amazed that no matter how gushing an article on City that is published, that someone will focus on one line, phrase or even a single word and then find the whole thing negative.
Click to expand...
As it’s conditioning.
We’re not used to any positive media reports. There always has to be a slant.

You can see it. “What does he mean we’re completely innocent”.
 
Centurions said:
Aren't those two statements contradictory? If there was a transfer ban incoming then yes, we'd probably try and get everything done ASAP. There isn't one coming regardless, we just need the bodies to rescue something from this season.
Click to expand...
plus the club world cup .need a big chunk done before we head to usa as we are going to have very little time in the summer
 
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