PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

is it possible the pannel has reached its decision on the charges and the PL and the club have been advised of this?, lets assume for clarity we are guilty or part guilty 'not guilty wouldnt apply to my thoughts here' the club would know to a certain degree of the severity of the punishment its going to be given, if that for instance was a big points deduction which would relegate us in 26/27 season then so to speak 'the gloves are off' by the club and there going to fight their corner, are we at this stage where if it continues were going to spill the beans 'people in glass houses shouldnt chuck stones', the words this could go political have been used many times earlyer on in the thread,has it gone political behind the sceens and were at a stalling point?
 
marco said:
is it possible the pannel has reached its decision on the charges and the PL and the club have been advised of this?, lets assume for clarity we are guilty or part guilty 'not guilty wouldnt apply to my thoughts here' the club would know to a certain degree of the severity of the punishment its going to be given, if that for instance was a big points deduction which would relegate us in 26/27 season then so to speak 'the gloves are off' by the club and there going to fight their corner, are we at this stage where if it continues were going to spill the beans 'people in glass houses shouldnt chuck stones', the words this could go political have been used many times earlyer on in the thread,has it gone political behind the sceens and were at a stalling point?
Click to expand...
No
 
slbsn said:
Probably. In effect, Villa have done this with their "Warehouse". Built a function room on their plot and now will sell it to a related company for £50m (apparently) presumably on a sale and leaseback. Will probably be discussing this on Talksport at 11.15 today including recounting how I led the sale and leaseback of "Reebok City" in 2004 for the club - an early example of such deals!View attachment 161771
Click to expand...

Might be a daft question Stefan, but now clubs are doing this for PSR purposes, but back then PSR didn't exist - what was the benefit to us doing this then?
 
slbsn said:
Because it is obvious there is a case of some sort to answer.
Click to expand...
Why is it obvious? You don’t believe there is a potential that the clubs that despise us, the ones with the most influence, have persuaded the PL to bring dodgy trumped up charges against us? I’ll tell you what I think is obvious, united passing psr by getting a massive Covid allowance nobody else did, by passing the following year by getting tens of millions of pounds of share dealing costs allowed not to count for psr purposes, by getting loads of costs channelled via an offshore entity and dodgily excluded for psr purposes. Dippers passing ffp by the allowance of £50m for planning costs for a new stadium that never happened, chelsea passing psr by selling not one but two hotels to themselves and selling their women’s team for an unbelievably high amount, or Arsenal buying players on the back of hundreds of millions of pounds of illegal interest free loans.

Some things are more obviously more obvious than others, depending which team you are.

Tell me specifically which specific charges of the 115/130 obviously have a case to answer?
 
BringBackSwales said:
Why is it obvious? You don’t believe there is a potential that the clubs that despise us, the ones with the most influence, have persuaded the PL to bring dodgy trumped up charges against us? I’ll tell you what I think is obvious, united passing psr by getting a massive Covid allowance nobody else did, by passing the following year by getting tens of millions of pounds of share dealing costs allowed not to count for psr purposes, by getting loads of costs channelled via an offshore entity and dodgily excluded for psr purposes. Dippers passing ffp by the allowance of £50m for planning costs for a new stadium that never happened, chelsea passing psr by selling not one but two hotels to themselves and selling their women’s team for an unbelievably high amount, or Arsenal buying players on the back of hundreds of millions of pounds of illegal interest free loans.

Some things are more obviously more obvious than others, depending which team you are.

Tell me specifically which specific charges of the 115/130 obviously have a case to answer?
Click to expand...
Non cooperation and the emails we have seen do invite explanation. So I think it all passes the low bar of a case to answer. Which is why City didn’t run a case that there was no case to answer at any point
 
Last edited:
mattcity5 said:
That's what I'm expecting the first sign to be.
Click to expand...
The first sign I expect is a leaked story to the Times speculating we have been found guilty ( but only on the Mancini allegation). Then there will be a City-hating frenzy for 48 hours demanding we are relegated till the full result is released. The full verdict will clear us on all the major charges but this will be twisted and distorted by the UK press, egged on by private briefings from Directors at Spurs, AFC, and LFC suggesting we "have exploited loopholes." The following day the press will switch back to the sportswashing narrative (as seen in recent weeks) and pretend the 115/130 case never happened.
 
Damocles said:
All of them. Because every single regulatory body in the world that we play under has investigated these exact issues. So there's a case to answer.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense. There is probably reasons other than guilt for these charges to be levied by this particular football “authority”. This is the same logic as most media sources, oh there’s so many charges there must be case to answer
 
BringBackSwales said:
Utter nonsense. There is probably reasons other than guilt for these charges to be levied by this particular football “authority”. This is the same logic as most media sources, oh there’s so many charges there must be case to answer
Click to expand...
Remember that there is no smoke without fire, eh.
;)
 
slbsn said:
Non cooperation and the emails we have seen do invite explanation. So I think it all passes the low bar of a case to answer. Which is why City didn’t run a case that there was case to answer at any point
Click to expand...
I think the word “no” is missing from your last sentence for it to make sense? And surely City hand no case to say there is no case? We’ve had charges levied whether we like it or not and we have to defend them (however bullshit they may be) none of which proves they have any merit whatsoever. Non cooperation to an organisation that may be out to get us (however paranoid that may sound) has been debated enough on here and the reasons for it. I would turn the tables and allege non cooperation from the pl towards us, maybe they should be giving us ALL the emails between them and the other clubs about us? Oh and you didn’t mention whether you thought what the rags, dippers, chelsea and arsenal had got away with should not have been dealt with, or have those 4 got no case to answer?
 
Paladin said:
Herbert hates the Saudis, because they don't treat widows of migrant workers respectfully (doesn't mention parallels to widows of air crash victims) and they also murder and dismember journalists. But he is delighted they are coming to displace City, because he hates City and Abu Dhabi even more than he hates Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
The migrant workers issue is a blatant distortion because the vast majority of companies (especially construction) are owned and managed by Western firms including the UK and the USA. There are more than 1,300 UK and US companies operating in Saudi. I have been told by someone who had a senior construction role in Saudi for ten years that some of the worst working conditions were on American and British run sites. If Herbert was a proper journaist he would have included this vital context.
 
slbsn said:
Non cooperation and the emails we have seen do invite explanation. So I think it all passes the low bar of a case to answer. Which is why City didn’t run a case that there was case to answer at any point
Click to expand...
Demonstrably true prior to CAS, but I think most City fans were enraged that after all we went through with UEFA and CAS the whole affair was re-run again.
 
BringBackSwales said:
Why is it obvious? You don’t believe there is a potential that the clubs that despise us, the ones with the most influence, have persuaded the PL to bring dodgy trumped up charges against us? I’ll tell you what I think is obvious, united passing psr by getting a massive Covid allowance nobody else did, by passing the following year by getting tens of millions of pounds of share dealing costs allowed not to count for psr purposes, by getting loads of costs channelled via an offshore entity and dodgily excluded for psr purposes. Dippers passing ffp by the allowance of £50m for planning costs for a new stadium that never happened, chelsea passing psr by selling not one but two hotels to themselves and selling their women’s team for an unbelievably high amount, or Arsenal buying players on the back of hundreds of millions of pounds of illegal interest free loans.

Some things are more obviously more obvious than others, depending which team you are.

Tell me specifically which specific charges of the 115/130 obviously have a case to answer?
Click to expand...

The emails alone provide a case to answer. They aren't proof of guilt, but they do provide reason for investigation and potential charges, no?
 
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