Hopefully the thread can stop focussing on Chelsea and more on the enablement of what they did and this should be the story and where we should be highlighting PL inconsistencies, in relation to FMV, related parties and, especially, in relation to UEFA alignment.
Any fair minded person would look at selling things back to yourself to make a ‘profit’ and say it looks wrong but, somehow, the PL clubs voted it through.
Not with 14 clubs but with a ‘majority’ after some abstentions.
A perfect example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, if you will.
What colour was it?Just been for a piss, helping to get to 10k
Oh, they’ll all have a good idea, but does anybody know what the vote was that Cliff wanted minuted?If the club have no idea of the verdict and no date for the outcome, why were we all getting so positive a few days ago that Simon Cliff wanted a question minuted at the Premier League meeting?
Surely we're reading too much into it as well if Cliff has no idea of the outcome.
Are we talking about Tebas again.:-)Not right that.
He’s a fat sad bastard
I made that lawyer assumption in an earlier post. A couple of lawyers on here put me right in that they play down confidence apparently.I know that lawyers usually play up confidence, however given the onus is very much on the PL to make a strong case for serious allegations, our team must surely know that the PL haven't been able to provide the required level of evidence. And with that set against our accounts evidence I very confident also even from my position of ignorance.
I wonder if this loophole was a sweatner to help the premier league get the 2nd wave of APT rules waved throughThey only plug loop holes if it affects Man City and that loop hole was given the ok by the majority of the premier clubs..
Was it boiled ??Just been for a piss, helping to get to 10k
Simon Cliff likes this postThey only plug loop holes if it affects Man City and that loop hole was given the ok by the majority of the premier clubs..
Probably voting on three 30 minute segments for the games ;-)Oh, they’ll all have a good idea, but does anybody know what the vote was that Cliff wanted minuted?
Was the vote on whether we are kicked out of the league or if American donuts are served rather than scones?
To be fair...American donuts...Was the vote on whether we are kicked out of the league or if American donuts are served rather than scones?
We did call it out the last premier meeting !
"A senior Manchester City figure reportedly left club chiefs in astonishment at the end of the Premier League's shareholders meeting this week. According to a report by The Times, Simon Cliff, City's legal chief, appeared to question some clubs' motives in recent votes.
Whether to have tea or coffee?Oh, they’ll all have a good idea, but does anybody know what the vote was that Cliff wanted minuted?
Because this thread is full of whoppers who only want positivity and think Rodney Marsh knows the result.If the club have no idea of the verdict and no date for the outcome, why were we all getting so positive a few days ago that Simon Cliff wanted a question minuted at the Premier League meeting?
Surely we're reading too much into it as well if Cliff has no idea of the outcome.
the cartel wanted Oreos over hob nobs...an outrage.Whether to have tea or coffee?
Yes. The precedent here is the case of 2007 concerning third party ownership of Tevez, then of West Ham. The club had changed ownership and the new owners reported the problem with Tevez to the PL. Interestingly a points deduction was precluded by PL rules but the club was guilty of the "offence" and in the end they were fined and had to pay financial compensation to Sheffield United who had been regulated as a result of WHU's win at OT on the last day when Tevez scored the only goal.
He started a muffin vs barm debateOh, they’ll all have a good idea, but does anybody know what the vote was that Cliff wanted minuted?
Was the vote on whether we are kicked out of the league or if American donuts are served rather than scones?
I think one big difference between our case and Chelsea is the Chelsea have admitted certain breaches and may well be sanctioned: City have denied all the charges and claimed to have irrefutable evidence that our accounts are a full and accurate picture of our finances and that all our business conforms to PL regulations. Our financial position is healthy to say the least and we would thus be foolish in the extreme to sell off assets as Chelsea have. Our owners have invested heavily in infrastructure and have done this to increase revenue, not to raise capital by dealing with a crisis which doesn't exist. The concert venue is thought to be worth upwards of £30 million pa., a 400 bed 4* hotel will bring in a bob or two as will increased capacity at the ground. Chelsea's expedients don't appear to breach any PL rules (UEFA's may be a different matter) but they do seem to be a tad desperate.
At last someone gets it as it is.I thought there were some issues at Chelsea that were self-reported, but that was prior to the Cypriot bank leak, which showed the potential 'off the books' payments?
Not sure the second is classed as self-reporting. The new owners can argue they didn't know anything about it, but all the talk around City is that the club will be punished, not the owners. I'd assume Chelsea would be punished for the breaches, and then the owners can take it up with RA if it costs them money.
Let's face it, both cases are almost impossible to prove, because the PL can't be looking in detail at the accounts of all City's sponsors, just as they can't force Abramovich to help - however, I assume Chelsea are still under investigation, or has the case been closed?