PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[dickie davies]

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.

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

 

[DJBusinesscake]

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

If it wasn’t for the 115 shit, that CAS stuff would also be long forgotten by now.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

tbf you flagged your 'hot take' to everybody else ;)

I don’t recall flagging anything to any specific posters at any point during my posts that day, but if I’m wrong - let me know.

There were quite a few of them in the end, granted!

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

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

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.

 

[supercity88]

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.

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?

 

[Norbiton]

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

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.

 

[WRicko]

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.

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 ?

 

[Centurions]

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.

So you agree that CAS found us guilty ;)

The posters point is that is how it is portrayed online via various muppets, both "professional" and not.

 

[AK45]

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.

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?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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

He didn’t take their word on the likely outcome. He was very clear about that.

 

[eastmanc]

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

We were found innocent by CAS.

 

[cheekybids]

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?

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…….

 

[dominicgrimes]

Sounds like a right utter ****

Baroness Dido Harding has entered the chat

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The mancini stuff feels like we've been accused of stealing a penny chew from the sweet shop whilst everyone else is robbing the tills and getting away with it.

How the media can't admit how skewed some of these accusations are shows how skewed they are.

 

[dickie davies]

We were found innocent by CAS.

Why was the club fined millions of pounds then?

 

[dominicgrimes]

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?

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

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Why was the club fined millions of pounds then?

Non cooperation. Like the PL investigation they want us to reveal the smoking gun that makes us guilty which the club couldn't provide.

Why do you think we were fined?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Why was the club fined millions of pounds then?

 

[The Colonel]

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?

The Uefa selected judge who ignored the fact that there was “no evidence”. A weird one to say the least. What’s different here though is that this is a deep dive into City’s accounts rather than relying on senior employees statements.

 

[Sleeping_Easy]

I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.

Sounds like the average position of any rag you meet in the street. I mean the people at the PL btw not the poster. Bullish position and an immediate dismissal of any credibility in the clubs defence. Anyone claiming to know the outcome or even have had a tip off is talking rubbish. First time the outcome leaks, it'll be leaked to the press in a heartbeat. Obviously people who work for the premier league are going to be confident, you don't think their highly paid barristers came back and said "well that was a shit show, lets get to the pub".