PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[KS55]

The interesting thing with that Mirror article is that it is the first time I have ever seen it recorded in print that we have American ownership, alongside the Abu Dhabi proportion.

Yes,the whole tone suggests that the Mirror are getting ready for City to be cleared.

 

[mcfcphil]

Be interesting to see how Harris deals with this, if it goes our way. Will he front it out, or just disappear? The odds on his openly admitting he was wrong are absolute zero.

I think Delaney, as dumb as he is, will probably be a bit more pragmatic, simply because, unlike Harris, he actually has a journalistic career to maintain.

Delaney already has a slightly different approach - he focuses on the charges regularly but his stance is that state ownership is bad for football regardless of this case.

He knows state ownership (as defined by himself) isn’t going anywhere so it’s a sensible approach in terms of longevity of the story and the opportunity to continue writing negatively about City, even in the event we’re totally exonerated.

 

[Petrovs left peg]

I’ve thought about this further and it gets worse.

The club has made its position clear. They expressly deny any wrongdoing, which plainly means an absence of any fraudulent activity whatsoever. That is City’s unequivocal stated position.

So an organisation that turns over 700 million quid, that has been accused of fraud by its regulatory body, unequivocally states that the allegations are entirely false. And they have ‘irrefutable’ proof of this. Strident words.

And yet there has been zero input from the press about the implications if this is correct, which is plainly seismic. If the club’s assertion is correct then they have been accused of something of which they have not done. That’s a huge deal by any objective measure.

Think of the Wagatha Christie trial. Imagine one of the statements of case, say Vardy, being forensically examined by the press and the implications for all parties if the court found favour with her case being set out in great detail. And then the only scenario being presented for Rooney was one where her defence didn’t get over the line because there wasn’t enough proof, without any reference to what it would mean if her stated case was upheld by the court.

That’s actually what we are dealing with here. The club’s defence is that the charges are bollocks and yet there has been next to zero analysis in the media of what it would mean for the PL if City are vindicated.

The levels of mental gymnastics and Nelsonian blindness involved here are off the fucking scale.

Agreed, although I do think we’re playing a very good long game. What the press will NOT be able to ignore is when Khaldoon says his piece. As previously suggested on here, I think the club have enough shit on the PL and other clubs, that they can then start pulling the strings.

Beating them in a short term media battle is of little value compared to long term control.

I’ve had faith in KAM since the first day. Nothing changes that.

 

[laserblue]

Delaney already has a slightly different approach - he focuses on the charges regularly but his stance is that state ownership is bad for football regardless of this case.

He knows state ownership (as defined by himself) isn’t going anywhere so it’s a sensible approach in terms of longevity of the story and the opportunity to continue writing negatively about City, even in the event we’re totally exonerated.

Except that City aren't, by any definition, state owned except in the fucked up mess that is Miggy's mind.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If we were to avoid punishment altogether or else be subject only to what's clearly a very minor sanction, that would clearly be rather humiliating for the PL. However, in terms of how matters might then unfold, much would depend on how the Panel framed its final determination. A suggestion that the PL clearly had legitimate concerns in making the accusations it did, even if it wasn't able to prove them in the end, would merit comment that differed significantly from the reaction to a suggestion that the PL had simply wasted everyone's time in prosecuting these matters.

Then there's the issue of whether mainstream media outlets, which until now have almost universally shown no desire to report the accusations against City honestly and in good faith, will be inclined suddenly to be truthful and accurate in reporting any overwhelming ruling in City's favour. Hopefully at least on the part of the club, there'd be a willingness to drive home the message of resounding vindication should the Panel's words allow us to.

Still, it has to be a case of wait and see at present IMO. I'm still at the stage for now of hoping that for the Panel to issue a determination whereby City avoid any meaningful sanction. Let's worry about the rest of it when the time comes.

I still think it most likely (almost inevitable) that the most serious charges won't be proven (how could they be?) but the panel will agree that the PL were right to raise the allegations if they weren't satisfactorily answered during the investigation. Possibly even to the extent of criticising the club for withholding third party counter-evidence from the investigation that would have satisfactorily answered the allegations.

Then the only question is non-cooperation: whether the club were required by the rules to provide such information. I am not so sure the PL are on firm ground there, either.

There is a lot we don't know, of course, but I think it most likely this was always the situation. And it still is.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The Mancini contract is a complete red herring as far as the charges are concerned and I don't disagree with anything you've said.

My point was that it's the only part of the charges that the PL wouldn't have known about prior to the Der Spiegel articles.

Presumably they wouldn't have known about the alleged ADUG reimbursements to Fordham? Or about the alleged ADUG payments to Touré's agent?

No that I am worried by either of those. Just not material enough to have changed the audit opinion.

 

[Bald fraud]

If we get a fine will Khaldoon fight it? I thought he wanted us cleared totally, seems a fine would go against that, he wants us completely exonerated.

Let’s hope so! We want total exoneration nothing for any of these wankers to throw at us anymore end this bollocks once and for all!

 

[foggy1974]

Delaney already has a slightly different approach - he focuses on the charges regularly but his stance is that state ownership is bad for football regardless of this case.

He knows state ownership (as defined by himself) isn’t going anywhere so it’s a sensible approach in terms of longevity of the story and the opportunity to continue writing negatively about City, even in the event we’re totally exonerated.

Hell be back to human rights & sportswashing

 

[manclad]

Except that City aren't, by any definition, state owned except in the fucked up mess that is Miggy's mind.

It's known as " A state of mind" !!

 

[mcfcphil]

I still think it most likely (almost inevitable) that the most serious charges won't be proven (how could they be?) but the the panel will agree that the PL were right to raise the allegations if they weren't satisfactorily answered during the investigation. Possibly even to the extent of criticising the club for withholding third party counter-evidence from the investigation that would have satisfactorily answered the allegations.

Then the only question is non-cooperation: whether the club were required by the rules to provide such information. I am not so sure the PL are on firm ground there, either.

There is a lot we don't know, of course, but I think it most likely this was always the situation. And it still is.

This would a difficult position to argue surely?

If there were reasons to begin an investigation (the leaked emails) but this wasn’t satisfactorily answered, that means the PL didn’t have sufficient evidence at their disposal to say one way or another whether City committed mass fraud.

The PL decided to proceed to charge regardless of a lack of evidence to prove guilt of such a serious allegation.

If that serious allegation is consequentially not proven, the course of action by the PL can’t be viewed in any other way than highly reckless.

I’m sure the police and CPS have suspicions that numerous people committed crimes, but if they don’t have a reasonable prospect of conviction, they they don’t just go ahead and charge hoping for the best in court.

Which brings us back to motivation to charge…

 

[Bald fraud]

Martin Lipton was always giving us short shrift and sticking the knife in on Sunday supplement along with the other bitter nobheads on there.
He's another arsehead with racial undertones whenever he writes or speaks about us.

Proper jumped up crossed eyed little ****!

 

[FanchesterCity]

• 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.

If I recall correctly, City even made a point of stating they were running everything past the PL co-operatively many years ago (reading between the lines because we didnt trust having some stunt pulled on us), but my memory might be playing tricks on me. I'm sure this was shortly after the UEFA then CAS ruling.

In light of the PL now taking a very relaxed view on Chelsea and United's situation it only looks more vindictive than ever how they've handled City. We shall see...

The Mancini contract looks more like a perk / tax advantages to Mancini than it does an attempt to dodge FFP. It probably was unwise in hindsight, but I would be staggered if such practice wasn't widespread.

 

[oakiecokie]

Proper jumped up crossed eyed little ****!

Hey manics not that bad of a poster.

 

[SWP's back]

That’s uninterested.

Top pedantry.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This would a difficult position to argue surely?

If there were reasons to begin an investigation (the leaked emails) but this wasn’t satisfactorily answered, that means the PL didn’t have sufficient evidence at their disposal to say one way or another whether City committed mass fraud.

The PL decided to proceed to charge regardless of a lack of evidence to prove guilt of such a serious allegation.

If that serious allegation is consequentially not proven, the course of action by the PL can’t be viewed in any other way than highly reckless.

I’m sure the police and CPS have suspicions that numerous people committed crimes, but if they don’t have a reasonable prospect of conviction, they they don’t just go ahead and charge hoping for the best in court.

Which brings us back to motivation to charge…

You may be right.

But even CAS criticised the club for withholding information and UEFA had a lot less "evidence" to proceed than the PL presumably had.

There were points at which the PL could have closed the investigation and we can justifiably ask why they didn't, but I don't really see how the PL had any choice other than to proceed with the process in 2023.

I accept I am the only one that thinks this, though. Still, that just means the rest of you are wrong :)

 

[mcfcphil]

You may be right.

But even CAS criticised the club for withholding information and UEFA had a lot less "evidence" to proceed than the PL presumably had.

There were points at which the PL could have closed the investigation and we can justifiably ask why they didn't, but I don't really see how the PL had any choice other than to proceed with the process in 2023.

I accept I am the only one that thinks this, though. Still, that just means the rest of you are wrong :)

History is written by the victors - so fingers crossed that’s City!

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Ye but that was a little bit different I think we just wanted it over, this one is a witch hunt and Khaldoon wants it done once and for all and our name cleared of everything. I can’t see how we can be done for non cooperation if we win all the other charges they are intrinsically linked, if the evidence shows us not guilty then they have all the evidence.

"Once and for all" !!

No Equivication !!

 

[halfcenturyup]

History is written by the victors - so fingers crossed that’s City!

No need to cross fingers, matey. Will all be good ;)

 

[levets]

He was One of the worst. An horrible bastard where our club is concerned.

Spurs ****

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Agreed, although I do think we’re playing a very good long game. What the press will NOT be able to ignore is when Khaldoon says his piece. As previously suggested on here, I think the club have enough shit on the PL and other clubs, that they can then start pulling the strings.

Beating them in a short term media battle is of little value compared to long term control.

I’ve had faith in KAM since the first day. Nothing changes that.

I don’t disagree with your view on the wider, long game the club are playing, but they failed to sufficiently control the narrative in the press after the CAS judgment and are at risk of repeating this again if the decision goes our way; and I don’t agree that the press cannot ignore what Khaldoon says afterwards unless it’s sufficiently incendiary. If he throws a big, fuck off Molotov cocktail into the middle then I agree that will take hold, but if he simply talks in riddles and euphemisms (as he has done previously) then I fear it will simply blend into the background.

At the end of the day, the club will do what’s best to meet its long term strategic goals, which will most likely not elide with the wishes of us supporters.