PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Having read that article, Gaughan’s actual words read like a fairly anodyne, unsubstantiated statement from a much wider Q&A that City’s view is as it always has been: we’ll clear our name.

Definitely not presented as a hot of the press update based on recent developments/knowledge, so I’m really not sure any of us should be reading anything specific into them.

As my recent experience shows - both sides are clearly very confident in their case, and until judgement lands, will remain so.

And that very clearly hasn’t happened - yet.

The very definition of ‘nothing to see here’.

Bless you for taking the time to flag it to me though - that’s endearing!

;-)
Click to expand...
tbf you flagged your 'hot take' to everybody else ;)
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Having read that article, Gaughan’s actual words read like a fairly anodyne, unsubstantiated statement from a much wider Q&A that City’s view is as it always has been: we’ll clear our name.

Definitely not presented as a hot of the press update based on recent developments/knowledge, so I’m really not sure any of us should be reading anything specific into them.

As my recent experience shows - both sides are clearly very confident in their case, and until judgement lands, will remain so.

And that very clearly hasn’t happened - yet.

The very definition of ‘nothing to see here’.

Bless you for taking the time to flag it to me though - that’s endearing!

;-)
Click to expand...
Thats hilarious

You're quite happy to take the word of 2 high ranking premier league executives as gospel when they say they are confident & City don't have a leg to stand on but when Jack, a journalist with well known connections to City, said what he did, its unsubstantiated
 
foggy1974 said:
Thats hilarious

You're quite happy to take the word of 2 high ranking premier league executives as gospel when they say they are confident & City don't have a leg to stand on but when Jack, a journalist with well known connections to City, said what he did, its unsubstantiated
Click to expand...
Perhaps English isn't your first language (or you just haven't bothered reading anything) but that's not what they said.
 
jockblue said:
I know you've been consistant in the "not material" aspects of the Mancini and other parts of the charges, but there is a glass-half-empty view I have that materiality, whilst important to us accountants, will not stop a guilty verdict and punishment, and the continued "cheat" campaign, even if we only "made" £3.50 out of the whole thing. Which is, of course, part of the reason for the charges in the first place.
Click to expand...
I've also said that if you look at the Mancini contract and Fordham stuff in context, there's nothing there.

For the former, he was being paid £1.45m a year under the Al Jazira contract, at a time when we were making huge losses. And we were paying him a lot more officially as his contract was heavily incentive based. Does that sound like an attempt to cook the books? It was far more likely an attempt to give him some tax advantage in some way.

The Fordham stuff was actually about bringing revenue INTO City in 2012/13, rather than hiding payments going out. The only real issue in that case was if we failed to declare those payments to UEFA as part of player remuneration. As UEFA were clearly aware of the arrangement, because they discussed it with us in 2015, and didn't charge us when we were still under sanction after the 2014 settlement agreement, I'd say that doesn't suggest any great wrongdoing.

And as far as the sponsorships are concerned, I've also said that I suspect a large part of that will be the accusation that we didn't declare those payments to be related party transactions. That will almost certainly fail but even if they were RPs, the charges would have to show that they weren't fair value, whereas UEFA had already accepted they probably were. If they were fair value then there's no issue as our revenue won't have been affected.

If they're going after us on the basis that Sheikh Mansour funded the bulk of these, then they're going against the most respected sport arbitration court in the world, where we showed that wasn't the case.

As I said to Didsbury Dave, this case is based on scraps. That's why I'm confident. I also struggle to believe that the hearing didn't comprehensively demonstrate that this was a flimsy set of accusations, hence that the broad outcome has been known for a while, even if the formal verdict hasn't been handed down.
 
DJBusinesscake said:
I think you’ve just proven your own point wrong lol. Juventus aren't known as cheats anymore, people just forget with time. If we are cleared it'll be forgotten very quickly.
Click to expand...
We'll see
I know we're still waiting for the decision on the PL hearing so charges are still very newsworthy, but we are constantly reminded that we were found guilty at CAS five years ago and that we agreed a settlement with UEFA over 10 years ago
 
dickie davies said:
We'll see
I know we're still waiting for the decision on the PL hearing so charges are still very newsworthy, but we are constantly reminded that we were found guilty at CAS five years ago and that we agreed a settlement with UEFA over 10 years ago
Click to expand...
If it wasn’t for the 115 shit, that CAS stuff would also be long forgotten by now.
 
foggy1974 said:
Thats hilarious

You're quite happy to take the word of 2 high ranking premier league executives as gospel when they say they are confident & City don't have a leg to stand on but when Jack, a journalist with well known connections to City, said what he did, its unsubstantiated
Click to expand...

Read my posts - at no point did I say it was gospel.

I relayed what they’d said, and - again, if you actually read my words, rather than making wild assumptions based on absolutely fuck all - included plenty of caveats that in my view it clearly wasn’t based on any recent material updates or insights from the impending judgement, but was evidence of high confidence levels amongst senior execs at the PL ahead of publication.

What I said about Jack’s post is that’s it’s also a statement of confidence levels at City based on no recent material updates ahead of publication.

I don’t think it’s any great surprise or secret that both parties are publicly putting out a position of confidence.

But it sounds like you’re not looking for any sort of conversation about what I actually wrote or said, and would instead prefer to put words in my mouth based on your own assumptions just to have a pop - so if that’s your interest, I can’t help you.

I’ll leave you to it.

Enjoy your weekend.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've also said that if you look at the Mancini contract and Fordham stuff in context, there's nothing there.

For the former, he was being paid £1.45m a year under the Al Jazira contract, at a time when we were making huge losses. And we were paying him a lot more officially as his contract was heavily incentive based. Does that sound like an attempt to cook the books? It was far more likely an attempt to give him some tax advantage in some way.

The Fordham stuff was actually about bringing revenue INTO City in 2012/13, rather than hiding payments going out. The only real issue in that case was if we failed to declare those payments to UEFA as part of player remuneration. As UEFA were clearly aware of the arrangement, because they discussed it with us in 2015, and didn't charge us when we were still under sanction after the 2014 settlement agreement, I'd say that doesn't suggest any great wrongdoing.

And as far as the sponsorships are concerned, I've also said that I suspect a large part of that will be the accusation that we didn't declare those payments to be related party transactions. That will almost certainly fail but even if they were RPs, the charges would have to show that they weren't fair value, whereas UEFA had already accepted they probably were. If they were fair value then there's no issue as our revenue won't have been affected.

If they're going after us on the basis that Sheikh Mansour funded the bulk of these, then they're going against the most respected sport arbitration court in the world, where we showed that wasn't the case.

As I said to Didsbury Dave, this case is based on scraps. That's why I'm confident. I also struggle to believe that the hearing didn't comprehensively demonstrate that this was a flimsy set of accusations, hence that the broad outcome has been known for a while, even if the formal verdict hasn't been handed down.
Click to expand...

The poorly drafted initial letter from the PL bringing the charges was evidence to me that they hadn't spent a lot of time on the matter and had just hastily pulled something together. The looming announcement about an independent football regulator might have had something to do with that.

A call from Mr Levy and his pals to say "we are going to have to back this IFR if you don't take action" was probably enough to provoke it.

The only doubt I have ever had is simply down to the 2-1 vote from CAS. That shows we don't have irrefutable evidence and that UEFA did convince one judge to agree with their case, and we failed to convince them otherwise.

Will it be possible for the PL to twist that 2-1 in their favour? Probably not, but it has been the only nagging doubt I have had.

What I would say, is the fact CAS did ultimately clear us is substantial evidence at our PL hearing. Judges don't tend to undermine one another, so they would need a lot more convincing to shift positions on matters CAS were ultimately comfortable with....not sure what your thoughts are on this?
 
dickie davies said:
We'll see
I know we're still waiting for the decision on the PL hearing so charges are still very newsworthy, but we are constantly reminded that we were found guilty at CAS five years ago and that we agreed a settlement with UEFA over 10 years ago
Click to expand...
Found guilty at CAS? They threw out all the charges apart from non-co-operation, for which they reduced the fine imposed by UEFA by more than half.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've also said that if you look at the Mancini contract and Fordham stuff in context, there's nothing there.

For the former, he was being paid £1.45m a year under the Al Jazira contract, at a time when we were making huge losses. And we were paying him a lot more officially as his contract was heavily incentive based. Does that sound like an attempt to cook the books? It was far more likely an attempt to give him some tax advantage in some way.

The Fordham stuff was actually about bringing revenue INTO City in 2012/13, rather than hiding payments going out. The only real issue in that case was if we failed to declare those payments to UEFA as part of player remuneration. As UEFA were clearly aware of the arrangement, because they discussed it with us in 2015, and didn't charge us when we were still under sanction after the 2014 settlement agreement, I'd say that doesn't suggest any great wrongdoing.

And as far as the sponsorships are concerned, I've also said that I suspect a large part of that will be the accusation that we didn't declare those payments to be related party transactions. That will almost certainly fail but even if they were RPs, the charges would have to show that they weren't fair value, whereas UEFA had already accepted they probably were. If they were fair value then there's no issue as our revenue won't have been affected.

If they're going after us on the basis that Sheikh Mansour funded the bulk of these, then they're going against the most respected sport arbitration court in the world, where we showed that wasn't the case.

As I said to Didsbury Dave, this case is based on scraps. That's why I'm confident. I also struggle to believe that the hearing didn't comprehensively demonstrate that this was a flimsy set of accusations, hence that the broad outcome has been known for a while, even if the formal verdict hasn't been handed down.
Click to expand...
How important is the amount tho as the accounts would still be wrong and the true nature of everything not reported to the premier league ?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've also said that if you look at the Mancini contract and Fordham stuff in context, there's nothing there.

For the former, he was being paid £1.45m a year under the Al Jazira contract, at a time when we were making huge losses. And we were paying him a lot more officially as his contract was heavily incentive based. Does that sound like an attempt to cook the books? It was far more likely an attempt to give him some tax advantage in some way.

The Fordham stuff was actually about bringing revenue INTO City in 2012/13, rather than hiding payments going out. The only real issue in that case was if we failed to declare those payments to UEFA as part of player remuneration. As UEFA were clearly aware of the arrangement, because they discussed it with us in 2015, and didn't charge us when we were still under sanction after the 2014 settlement agreement, I'd say that doesn't suggest any great wrongdoing.

And as far as the sponsorships are concerned, I've also said that I suspect a large part of that will be the accusation that we didn't declare those payments to be related party transactions. That will almost certainly fail but even if they were RPs, the charges would have to show that they weren't fair value, whereas UEFA had already accepted they probably were. If they were fair value then there's no issue as our revenue won't have been affected.

If they're going after us on the basis that Sheikh Mansour funded the bulk of these, then they're going against the most respected sport arbitration court in the world, where we showed that wasn't the case.

As I said to Didsbury Dave, this case is based on scraps. That's why I'm confident. I also struggle to believe that the hearing didn't comprehensively demonstrate that this was a flimsy set of accusations, hence that the broad outcome has been known for a while, even if the formal verdict hasn't been handed down.
Click to expand...
I never understood the Mancini stuff. He came in before FFP and where we was spending money like it was going out of fashion (because we was allowed) so why would we have felt the need to try and hide a million or so elsewhere? It makes no sense? Unless it is being accused when he signed his contract extension with us? Which didn't even last a year?
 
foggy1974 said:
Thats hilarious

You're quite happy to take the word of 2 high ranking premier league executives as gospel when they say they are confident & City don't have a leg to stand on but when Jack, a journalist with well known connections to City, said what he did, its unsubstantiated
Click to expand...
He didn’t take their word on the likely outcome. He was very clear about that.
 
supercity88 said:
The poorly drafted initial letter from the PL bringing the charges was evidence to me that they hadn't spent a lot of time on the matter and had just hastily pulled something together. The looming announcement about an independent football regulator might have had something to do with that.

A call from Mr Levy and his pals to say "we are going to have to back this IFR if you don't take action" was probably enough to provoke it.

The only doubt I have ever had is simply down to the 2-1 vote from CAS. That shows we don't have irrefutable evidence and that UEFA did convince one judge to agree with their case, and we failed to convince them otherwise.

Will it be possible for the PL to twist that 2-1 in their favour? Probably not, but it has been the only nagging doubt I have had.

What I would say, is the fact CAS did ultimately clear us is substantial evidence at our PL hearing. Judges don't tend to undermine one another, so they would need a lot more convincing to shift positions on matters CAS were ultimately comfortable with....not sure what your thoughts are on this?
Click to expand...

I reckon Levy’s emails will resemble Trumps truth social rants….

Richard: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done, Warrabout Citeh…….

IMG_0582.jpeg
 
supercity88 said:
The poorly drafted initial letter from the PL bringing the charges was evidence to me that they hadn't spent a lot of time on the matter and had just hastily pulled something together. The looming announcement about an independent football regulator might have had something to do with that.

A call from Mr Levy and his pals to say "we are going to have to back this IFR if you don't take action" was probably enough to provoke it.

The only doubt I have ever had is simply down to the 2-1 vote from CAS. That shows we don't have irrefutable evidence and that UEFA did convince one judge to agree with their case, and we failed to convince them otherwise.

Will it be possible for the PL to twist that 2-1 in their favour? Probably not, but it has been the only nagging doubt I have had.

What I would say, is the fact CAS did ultimately clear us is substantial evidence at our PL hearing. Judges don't tend to undermine one another, so they would need a lot more convincing to shift positions on matters CAS were ultimately comfortable with....not sure what your thoughts are on this?
Click to expand...
if judges don't want to undermine each other, why do we bother with appeal courts and a supreme court ?

different judges put different interpretations on evidence based on their own experience
 
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