PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

thomas1307 said:
stefan did you have you know when the apt was going to be delivered i think i remember you been on talksport and mentioned something about the verdict and it was announced a few hours later
Click to expand...
No, I just guessed broadly when it was coming. Definitely was not spot on with the guess though
 
Gesario said:
Correct
Click to expand...

CoventryBlue said:
@CC1 and @slbsn (ref. Transfers)

There's been loads of talk of the club being confident, nods and winks, someone saying a high up in CFG has said something.

I'm not speaking solely of transfer rumours, I get that agents etc. could be talking

But "horse's mouth" and Fbloke, Markmmmac recent posts DO suggest it's from within the club
Click to expand...

The original statement from City on the club website said that. That will have been reiterated to any person asking whether an employee at any level, player or chef or externally. You’ve only got to read this board to see how the same information can interpreted differently.

A few days ago Haaland expressed he was supremely confident to the world media but if he whispered the same message to his butcher it’s seen as a leak……
 
Ric said:
Obviously people at the club talk to people. They have hundreds of employees, so it’s inevitable and, indeed, just human nature. I have friends at the club myself who give a jist of things, but much of it is just anecdotal or Chinese whispers, nothing that I’d say constitutes an actual leak. Not really sure why you see it as so problematic.
Click to expand...
was the cas case leaked about our win after they got given the draft verdict
 
@Ric

Loose lips sink ships and all that

You're right if it is just hearsay and Chinese whispers but if that is what ITK stuff is built on then more fool the people who think it has credibility then. I tend to think it's more than hearsay though and given the credibility some ITKs have, so do a lot of people
 
slbsn said:
No, I just guessed broadly when it was coming. Definitely was not spot on with the guess though
Click to expand...

I know you've touched upon it before but in your opinion is it more likely that when it's announced it just drops, bang, "club statement" or during those few days potentially of the lawyers getting a draft of it could someone be briefed given there's very little if any room for both sides to "win" and spin it?
 
Ric said:
Obviously people at the club talk to people. They have hundreds of employees, so it’s inevitable and, indeed, just human nature. I have friends at the club myself who give a jist of things, but much of it is just anecdotal or Chinese whispers, nothing that I’d say constitutes an actual leak. Not really sure why you see it as so problematic.
Click to expand...

I’ve just put your statement through the ‘bluemoon translator’ ……

The club leaks like a sieve. There’s hundreds of employees & none of them can keep a secret. I’m an ITK so get all news before it’s leaked on here. You want some!
 
I think ( if my calculations are correct ), it was pretty clear the panel should clear City early on during the hearing and this was probably obvious within a few days.

FYI: You're allowed to lose up to £105m over a rolling 3 year period. Normally, you would just add up 3 consecutive years of P&L to get this figure. However you can adjust the P&L by removing depreciation, charitable donations, youth development and women's football development expenditure. Your P&L then becomes your Adjusted Earnings which are added up and compared to the £105m figure.


At some point the Premier League would have shown their sums to the panel re Allegation 4 and I suspect they were based on City's P&L and they hadn't calculated the Adjusted Earnings at all.

How many nobheads at the EPL would know City spent £120m expanding the stadium during the period in question and had sufficient depreciation listed in their accounts to adjust their earnings? Once the AE is calculated the whole case is futile.

I'm sure Lord Pannick and Co will have calculated the AE properly and pointed this out. If my calculations are correct, the case collapses at this point.

I'm pretty certain this is the biggest hole in the whole PSR case ie even if City have done all the nasty things they're accused of, they still don't break PSR.

We know from Michael Samuel's article that the Premier League were not ready to charge City, and this case was rushed through at the behest of Daniel Levy. They obviously made mistakes with the original statement. So they probably didn't check what they were accusing City of properly.

I suspect (because City were profitable at the time), that their Adjusted Earnings weren't calculated at the time and that only the normal P&L was looked at instead. If City were profitable, and they're nowhere near losing money, the AE figure didn't matter, why calculate it?

I therefore think that the EPL based their case on City's P&L from 2013-2018 rather than their Adjusted Earnings. This assumption is the problem. City would fail PSR if the calculations were just their P&L added up.

All the figures I used are based on the Premier League rules in force at the time, the statement the Premier League released and public information at Companies House showing City's accounts.

My conclusion is this entire case is bollocks and would have been immediately obvious, yet these lawyers need to justify their invoices, so careful consideration continued etc. All the latest smoke and mirrors is about this and getting the PR right.
 
TedofChume said:
I think ( if my calculations are correct ), it was pretty clear the panel should clear City early on during the hearing and this was probably obvious within a few days.

FYI: You're allowed to lose up to £105m over a rolling 3 year period. Normally, you would just add up 3 consecutive years of P&L to get this figure. However you can adjust the P&L by removing depreciation, charitable donations, youth development and women's football development expenditure. Your P&L then becomes your Adjusted Earnings which are added up and compared to the £105m figure.


At some point the Premier League would have shown their sums to the panel re Allegation 4 and I suspect they were based on City's P&L and they hadn't calculated the Adjusted Earnings at all.

How many nobheads at the EPL would know City spent £120m expanding the stadium during the period in question and had sufficient depreciation listed in their accounts to adjust their earnings? Once the AE is calculated the whole case is futile.

I'm sure Lord Pannick and Co will have calculated the AE properly and pointed this out. If my calculations are correct, the case collapses at this point.

I'm pretty certain this is the biggest hole in the whole PSR case ie even if City have done all the nasty things they're accused of, they still don't break PSR.

We know from Michael Samuel's article that the Premier League were not ready to charge City, and this case was rushed through at the behest of Daniel Levy. They obviously made mistakes with the original statement. So they probably didn't check what they were accusing City of properly.

I suspect (because City were profitable at the time), that their Adjusted Earnings weren't calculated at the time and that only the normal P&L was looked at instead. If City were profitable, and they're nowhere near losing money, the AE figure didn't matter, why calculate it?

I therefore think that the EPL based their case on City's P&L from 2013-2018 rather than their Adjusted Earnings. This assumption is the problem. City would fail PSR if the calculations were just their P&L added up.

All the figures I used are based on the Premier League rules in force at the time, the statement the Premier League released and public information at Companies House showing City's accounts.

My conclusion is this entire case is bollocks and would have been immediately obvious, yet these lawyers need to justify their invoices, so careful consideration continued etc. All the latest smoke and mirrors is about this and getting the PR right.
Click to expand...
I think they are giving the PL time to find a new CEO & Chair.
 
TedofChume said:
I think ( if my calculations are correct ), it was pretty clear the panel should clear City early on during the hearing and this was probably obvious within a few days.

FYI: You're allowed to lose up to £105m over a rolling 3 year period. Normally, you would just add up 3 consecutive years of P&L to get this figure. However you can adjust the P&L by removing depreciation, charitable donations, youth development and women's football development expenditure. Your P&L then becomes your Adjusted Earnings which are added up and compared to the £105m figure.


At some point the Premier League would have shown their sums to the panel re Allegation 4 and I suspect they were based on City's P&L and they hadn't calculated the Adjusted Earnings at all.

How many nobheads at the EPL would know City spent £120m expanding the stadium during the period in question and had sufficient depreciation listed in their accounts to adjust their earnings? Once the AE is calculated the whole case is futile.

I'm sure Lord Pannick and Co will have calculated the AE properly and pointed this out. If my calculations are correct, the case collapses at this point.

I'm pretty certain this is the biggest hole in the whole PSR case ie even if City have done all the nasty things they're accused of, they still don't break PSR.

We know from Michael Samuel's article that the Premier League were not ready to charge City, and this case was rushed through at the behest of Daniel Levy. They obviously made mistakes with the original statement. So they probably didn't check what they were accusing City of properly.

I suspect (because City were profitable at the time), that their Adjusted Earnings weren't calculated at the time and that only the normal P&L was looked at instead. If City were profitable, and they're nowhere near losing money, the AE figure didn't matter, why calculate it?

I therefore think that the EPL based their case on City's P&L from 2013-2018 rather than their Adjusted Earnings. This assumption is the problem. City would fail PSR if the calculations were just their P&L added up.

All the figures I used are based on the Premier League rules in force at the time, the statement the Premier League released and public information at Companies House showing City's accounts.

My conclusion is this entire case is bollocks and would have been immediately obvious, yet these lawyers need to justify their invoices, so careful consideration continued etc. All the latest smoke and mirrors is about this and getting the PR right.
Click to expand...

Crikey - Are you actually being serious?
Ps. Appreciate the effort at this late hour but you probably need to go back to page 4 and catch up
 
BlueAnorak said:
I read respected news sites. Not trash.
From memory a Times article went through the time line.
- Verdict to club & PL for checking.
- Points or order/corrections raised by parties.
- Final verdict released to club and PL.
The first one was last week some time.
Click to expand...
Not the sun mirror mail I take it with a few more involved
 
BusterPhillips said:
Long time lurker.. don't take this the wrong way, but you never say anything remotely positive about this case and City.. when discussing consequences I've heard you say plenty about City but I don't recall you saying anything remotely negative against the EPL and Masters... perhaps I'm wrong..
Click to expand...
It’s just how lawyers talk. They don’t take sides when discussing cases, just look at the presented facts and draw their conclusions from them.
 
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