The 115 was hardly mentioned and if “fraud” is established then the punishment will be severe.I thought he was very downbeat about 115 - all his soft signals squashed flat. PL have us dead and buried.
As I've said before, the legal fraternity on here have become seemingly fixated on the idea that the PL allegations imply there's been significant financial fraud. I can understand why you take that view but I don't agree with it.
My view is that the theme running from the 2014 settlement, where there was a dispute about related parties, through to the CAS hearing, where the panel didn't test that question but did put in their report that we may be guilty of misreporting if the Abu Dhabi-based sponsorships were related parties.
This carried on, with the issue of supposed misreporting of alleged related parties being behind the introduction of the APT, so contracts like Etihad and FAB could be examined.
So I'm convinced that the first group of the PL charges which total over 50 of the 130, is less about financial misfeasance but much more about the related party issue. If that succeeds then I doubt it would have no real impact on our finances and is unlikely to subject us to sporting penalties such as points deductions but:
I think our adversaries will be pleased enough with that outcome.
- The "cheats" label will stick.
- We'll be forced to publish the value of the contracts.
When you say "we barely discussed 115" do you recall the last section of the interview where you told us City have absolutely nowhere to go if these incredibly serious charges haven't been shown to be clearly false at the Tribunal without adding your customary rejoinder that it is extremely unlikely for them to be provable? I found that omission rather odd (and depressing). Cheer me up.Whats the question?
115 is really just about accusations of wholesale fraud and the final part of the discussion proceeded on the premise of a 30 point deduction next season and City's powerless position in terms of appeal if it came about.The 115 was hardly mentioned and if “fraud” is established then the punishment will be severe.
Think we all know that. If we want someone to push back then the club need to send one of their top men/women to do the media rounds.
I don’t think the club care.
not true, you are missing my point - but it seems you are not alone so I apologise for my poor communication skills.Still trollin
Yes - did forget about that part. We weren't discussing the substance or my view of whether there will be an adverse finding. It was more a process discussion in my mind. Wouldn't read anything into it. Not sure how much more confidence you need to see from the clubWhen you say "we barely discussed 115" do you recall the last section of the interview where you told us City have absolutely nowhere to go if these incredibly serious charges haven't been shown to be clearly false at the Tribunal without adding your customary rejoinder that it is extremely unlikely for them to be provable? I found that omission rather odd (and depressing). Cheer me up.
I think you know too much.115 is really just about accusations of wholesale fraud and the final part of the discussion proceeded on the premise of a 30 point deduction next season and City's powerless position in terms of appeal if it came about.
thank you, you've lifted my spirits as I set out to climb the wooden hill.Yes - did forget about that part. We weren't discussing the substance or my view of whether there will be an adverse finding. It was more a process discussion in my mind. Wouldn't read anything into it. Not sure how much more confidence you need to see from the club
Same asthank you, you've lifted my spirits as I set out to climb the wooden hill.
As I said, the club can send someone to talksport to defend its position and argue the points raised. Stefan is not the person to do this.115 is really just about accusations of wholesale fraud and the final part of the discussion proceeded on the premise of a 30 point deduction next season and City's powerless position in terms of appeal if it came about.
I've held back from saying this on more than one occasion but I'm going to say it now.
Despite, or maybe because of, your important and substantial contributions to this thread, you really can be quite patronising at times. I'm also really tired of you twisting the narrative on pretty well everything I say that doesn't agree with your view, a view which often confuses fact and opinion. I am fed up of you trying to make me look like some part of uneducated simpleton and looking down your nose at me. Rant over.
Let me put it as simply as I can. The APT1 verdict clearly showed that the reason for the introduction of those rules was that certain clubs felt we had played fast and loose with our Abu Dhabi sponsorships and IAS 24. It actually says that quite explicitly.
CAS also mentioned the issue of potential misreporting of related party transactions. In my opinion this indicates that this is a clear angle of attack. I agree that if that was the only issue then that wouldn't have taken as long as it has, and it's highly unlikely any charges would have been bought on the first place. But we do know the charges cover the Fordham payments and Mancini's side contract and maybe other things in the first group of charges that we're not aware of.
BUT IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS RELATED PARTIES IN THOSE CHARGES. So there's a good chance that this is a significant part of the charges. Not the only one, but definitely a key part. You clearly either fail to understand this or are just being contrary for the sake of it. That latter possibility was why I made my jibe about you spending too much time on Talksport, because that's their modus operandus.
Unlike Stefan who`s been climbing the fucking walls all day. ;)thank you, you've lifted my spirits as I set out to climb the wooden hill.
You aren’t missing anything. It’s a good question. And why not charge this RPT issue simply and discretely for more recent years. Nice tight case.Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
It’s not a communication issue. Colin simply believes the case is much less serious for the reasons he’s set out. He’s entitled to that view. I disagree and have pointed out numerous times the indicators to support my view. But honestly I can’t be arsed going over it again and again.I can sense the words "fuck off" forming somewhere in the ether :)
I think part of the problem is that @slbsn is so involved with the subject matter on a day to day basis, and is presumably very good at it, and so sometimes forgets that the rest of us need more explanations to understand the legalities to his level.
Also, I don't blame him for being a little tetchy recently in view of the bizarre comments which have been aimed in his direction.
I don't have a problem with that, tbh. I will just keep asking questions until I get as close as I can. It doesn't bother me if I get a snide reply every now and then, but I can imagine it bothers others.
Maybe what we need on here is someone who can explain @slbsn 's legal views down to the level of a regular poster on here. That's a different skill set, I think, maybe someone who is a qualified lawyer, who deals with students on a daily basis and has a way with words. @petrusha , do you know anyone like that? :)
Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
No more fucking lawyers !!!!!I can sense the words "fuck off" forming somewhere in the ether :)
I think part of the problem is that @slbsn is so involved with the subject matter on a day to day basis, and is presumably very good at it, and so sometimes forgets that the rest of us need more explanations to understand the legalities to his level.
Also, I don't blame him for being a little tetchy recently in view of the bizarre comments which have been aimed in his direction.
I don't have a problem with that, tbh. I will just keep asking questions until I get as close as I can. It doesn't bother me if I get a snide reply every now and then, but I can imagine it bothers others.
Maybe what we need on here is someone who can explain @slbsn 's legal views down to the level of a regular poster on here. That's a different skill set, I think, maybe someone who is a qualified lawyer, who deals with students on a daily basis and has a way with words. @petrusha , do you know anyone like that? :)