PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jrb]

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?

Even when the emails have been hacked and edited by a convicted criminal?

 

[Damocles]

Even when the emails have been hacked and edited by a convicted criminal?

They were hacked by a criminal but they were edited/stitiched together by a newspaper. However, CAS said that having being given the original emails by City then it didn't materially change the accusations.

 

[1961_vintage]

I'd be pretty confident that if I was to sponsor a forensic examination of the accounts of every football club, I would be able to identify grounds for asserting that they "had a case to answer".

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It wasn’t internal. We needed the £5m cash to pay the bills

But Alistair Mackintosh used to assure us our debts were manageable and that we generated significant amounts of cash.

While simultaneously flogging off the shop to raise some much needed cash and Wardle & Makin having to pump money in every season to keep us going.

 

[BringBackSwales]

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?

What you mean the hacked emails that had relevant bits taken out? Yes a lot more of a case to answer that uniteds Covid allowance, share dealing allowance and costs charged to offshore entities, or arsenals interest free loans, or chelsea selling hotels and women’s teams to themselves, or liverpools fictitious new stadium costs. If we are talking about football related cheating I know which I think are dodgy; IF we are guilty of corporate fraud , false accounting etc (which I think CAS said we weren’t) then it’s not the football authorities we should be worried about, and for that we’d deserve anything we get. If you think in football terms what we are ALLEGED to have done is on a par with what the others HAVE done then I agree to disagree

 

[Marvin.]

Can you explain why you believe to an outside entity that there's zero possible reason to investigate given the emails, the meteoric rise, the criticised sponsorship deals, etc?

And saying your opinion is irrational is not the same thing as saying you're irrational, for the record.

The original case raised by UEFA was reasonable in that serious allegations were made. Everyone in football was shocked. That case was addressed and finally reviewed by CAS.

Why were we charged again by the Premier League? Logically the PL do not respect the opinion of CAS, or they have additional evidence. I suspect that there is no case to answer because it was heard at CAS but I cannot know that this is so. The PL have not made any evidence public, therefore I think it's reasonable to say that there is no case to answer this time. Prior to the CAS case, the emails were out in the public domain, and hence there was evidence against us.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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?

I think that's a great point. The only case we had to answer was the stolen emails and they were totally discredited by CAS. The PL has carried out a fishing expedition going back 17 years into our accounts. What evidence did they have at the start of that process? Why no fishing expeditions for any other clubs. What about Spurs whose owner was convicted of insider trade dealing, or Chelsea run by a Russian gangster, or LFC with proven hacking and dodgy land deals?

 

[Damocles]

The original case raised by UEFA was reasonable. Everyone in football was shocked. That case was addressed and finally reviewed by CAS.

Why were we charged again by the Premier League? Logically the PL do not respect the opinion of CAS, or they have additional evidence. I suspect that there is no case to answer because it was heard at CAS but I cannot know that this is so. The PL have not made any evidence public, therefore I think it's reasonable to say that there is no case to answer this time. Prior to the CAS case, the emails were out in the public domain, and hence there was evidence against us.

The PL started their case before the CAS judgment and they have different standards of guilt.

I'm all for believing that we're not going to be found guilty, even that the case has various political elements involved in it such as the timing of the announcement to coincide with a Parliamentary vote on the IFR but it's the argument to claim that it has no merit at all isn't something I believe.

If Manchester United had the same evidence against them then I'd very much be in favour of an investigation

 

[slbsn]

But Alistair Mackintosh used to assure us our debts were manageable and that we generated significant amounts of cash.

While simultaneously flogging off the shop to raise some much needed cash and Wardle & Makin having to pump money in every season to keep us going.

Not sure our issues were hidden. I doubt AM would have survived 25 years at the top of PL clubs if he wasn't a very good operator.

 

[Damocles]

they were totally discredited by CAS.

But they weren't, they were judged to be representative of the conversation and real. CAS said (extremely summarised) that the emails don't in their opinion constitute proof of wrongdoing. I don't see that as them being totally discredited.

 

[slbsn]

I'd be pretty confident that if I was to sponsor a forensic examination of the accounts of every football club, I would be able to identify grounds for asserting that they "had a case to answer".

Yes. It is a low bar. I agree with that.

 

[wolviedinho]

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?

The club has no case to answer.

This is how it went:

Der spiegal backed Bayern released out of context hacked emails.

Spurs,rags, dips and arse conplained to the league because they are failures.

Lawyers get involved to creative legal jargon and bill by the letter.

City should have told them to fuck off.

Tyranny of a hostile competition against 1 lone club. You see it happening all around the world. The majority conform and attack the outsider believing they have some sole claim over winning leagues and cups.

It’s been nothing but hostile from the moment Mansour rocked up. The made up financial shit is just that shit. Most of it has been taken apart in a legal arena.

 

[slbsn]

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?

Yes word missing.

I don't think the other clubs mentioned are relevant to whether City have a case to answer. It certainly wouldn't be an argument run by City.

 

[Marvin.]

An outside observer who was not affiliated with any Premier League club might well believe that there is an organised attempt to damage Manchester City. We know from the European Super League that there has been collusion at the very highest level between rival clubs to act against the interests of other clubs. That UEFA found City guilty and CAS found the arguments not proven should raise suspicions. The subsequent APT cases raise even further question marks regarding the conduct of the PL in writing and implementing their own rules, and then there is the absolutely farcical conduct of the PL towards the PSR calculations of clubs like Chelsea FC. I could go on.

 

[mattcity5]

The club has no case to answer.

This is how it went:

Der spiegal backed Bayern released out of context hacked emails.

Spurs,rags, dips and arse conplained to the league because they are failures.

Lawyers get involved to creative legal jargon and bill by the letter.

City should have told them to fuck off.

Tyranny of a hostile competition against 1 lone club. You see it happening all around the world. The majority conform and attack the outsider believing they have some sole claim over winning leagues and cups.

It’s been nothing but hostile from the moment Mansour rocked up. The made up financial shit is just that shit. Most of it has been taken apart in a legal arena.

This is it.

I do though say that the questions and the constant media exposure meant there was a case to answer, but the only reason there was was the behaviour of rival clubs. There are definitely questions (at the very least) that they should have to answer also.

 

[Damocles]

Not sure our issues were hidden. I doubt AM would have survived 25 years at the top of PL clubs if he wasn't a very good operator.

I was always taught that "a good operator" is a euphemism for "this backstabbing incompetent wanker only has a job because he knows who to suck up to". I appreciate it might mean something different in other circles.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

What you mean the hacked emails that had relevant bits taken out? Yes a lot more of a case to answer that uniteds Covid allowance, share dealing allowance and costs charged to offshore entities, or arsenals interest free loans, or chelsea selling hotels and women’s teams to themselves, or liverpools fictitious new stadium costs. If we are talking about football related cheating I know which I think are dodgy; IF we are guilty of corporate fraud , false accounting etc (which I think CAS said we weren’t) then it’s not the football authorities we should be worried about, and for that we’d deserve anything we get. If you think in football terms what we are ALLEGED to have done is on a par with what the others HAVE done then I agree to disagree

I don't mean to sound rude, genuinely, but when we start talking about "X, Y or Z other club" I don't necessarily disagree but it's largely irrelevant. On the conversation about City - the emails alone warrant at least investigation and a case to answer - hacked, out of context or otherwise.

 

[BringBackSwales]

I don't mean to sound rude, genuinely, but when we start talking about "X, Y or Z other club" I don't necessarily disagree but it's largely irrelevant. On the conversation about City - the emails alone warrant at least investigation and a case to answer - hacked, out of context or otherwise.

I heard what you said the first time. Another poster has already called me irrational and I can’t be stressed at the mo. I’ve already said we should agree to disagree so your follow up adds nothing. I will ignore from now on. By the way “I don’t mean to sound rude” at the start of your post was pretty fucking patronising

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Not sure our issues were hidden. I doubt AM would have survived 25 years at the top of PL clubs if he wasn't a very good operator.

He only survived because John Wardle (despite his many other qualities) was an ineffective chairman. Shinawatra saw through Mackintosh straight away.

I witnessed an incident where he told a large shareholder a barefaced lie and we were able to easily demonstrate it was false. He told people what he thought they wanted to hear and he lied to the Stock Exchange about having discussions leading to potential investment. The Takeover Panel were taking an active interest and asking some awkward questions about this just before Shinawatra came along, which saved him.

He also clearly flouted the Corporate Governance code in a number of areas, including being simultaneously de facto Finance Director, the CEO and one of the two members of the Audit Committee.

He certainly seems to have done a good job at Fulham but I suspect the Khan family keeps him on a much tighter leash than Wardle did.

 

[halfcenturyup]

you've been on talksport for too long mate, you are starting down the journalistic route of saying alot while saying nothing, it could be good, it could be bad, it could be neither or it could be both.

You are talking to a lawyer, matey :)

If you want clear, unequivocal answers, ask an accountant. And, as an accountant, I can unequivocally say with great clarity that, much like most everyone else, I have no fucking idea how long this is going to take.