PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keith Moon said:
Well, there are different depths of hell.

1.“Will be able to / Expects with certainty”
2. “Is confident that”
3. “Expects that”
4. “Has a reasonable expectation that”
5. “Believes that”
6. “The Directors consider that the Group has adequate resources”
7. “The Directors consider the going concern basis to be appropriate”
8. “No material adverse impact is expected”
9. “May be impacted / Could affect”

1–3: Very strong confidence – the Board signals a high level of certainty
4–6: Normal/acceptable risk – continued operation is considered reasonable
7–9: Cautious tone – uncertainty is acknowledged, no assurances are given
Click to expand...
Sounds like the BBC gossip section about every player the rags have ever looked at.
 
TKSG said:
i agree your logic but in any court case case ever, whatever the charge, if the prosecution make an allegation you should always make them prove it, stay silent however how innocent you are else every single word out of your mouth will be used against you. Let them shoot themselves in the foot instead with their nonsense. They have to prove guilt, we dont have to prove innocence. If they wish to waste millions of pounds chasing a ghost leave them to it. An innocent party has nothing to prove to anyone.
Click to expand...
I suspect his suggestion that they consider each charge one at a time was a little tongue in cheek, but who knows, it could be right. If the PL decided there were 115 charges and not half a dozen then surely the club have a right to say "OK then let's go through them one by one and see what you've got" - if only to drag it out to piss them off and push the bill up.

I had a similar thing happen to me in a legal case over property. The other party kept going back to his solicitor with another question or claim, usually a month or so apart and the case went on for 18 months when it should have been done and dusted in a month. The outcome was no different than anybody expected, he only did it because he knew the longer it went on the higher my bill would be and he had a lot more resources than I did. There's a fair chance the same could be happening here. I actually doubt it, but it could be. There must be some reason it's taken so long.
 
coolcity said:
I suspect his suggestion that they consider each charge one at a time was a little tongue in cheek, but who knows, it could be right. If the PL decided there were 115 charges and not half a dozen then surely the club have a right to say "OK then let's go through them one by one and see what you've got" - if only to drag it out to piss them off and push the bill up.

I had a similar thing happen to me in a legal case over property. The other party kept going back to his solicitor with another question or claim, usually a month or so apart and the case went on for 18 months when it should have been done and dusted in a month. The outcome was no different than anybody expected, he only did it because he knew the longer it went on the higher my bill would be and he had a lot more resources than I did. There's a fair chance the same could be happening here. I actually doubt it, but it could be. There must be some reason it's taken so long.
Click to expand...
It was definitely tongue in cheek.

I pay others to do the clever talking when I'm in trouble. :-)
 
yarny101 said:
I'm not sure if anyone has posted this over the last few days:
www.cityam.com

Manchester City v Premier League battle set to drag on beyond season

Manchester City face another lengthy wait to discover their punishment if found guilty of breaching the Premier League’s financial rules.
www.cityam.com www.cityam.com
Click to expand...
Notice how the bastards always suggest the negative view, i.e. "wait to discover their punishment if found guilty" rather than something like "wait to see if their claims of innocence are validated".
 
foggy1974 said:
The club no longer see it as a risk or uncertainty. Although I know nothing about book-keeping, this seems quite significant
Click to expand...

That's a positive. But the fact they are implying the case could have an effect on the ability of the club to continue as a going concern for the next twelve months (when it apparently couldn't in previous years) is ..... weird. Not concerning, really - because as I said, if management and auditors were really concerned about it, it would have been handled in the notes to the accounts completely differently, I think. Just weird.

It isn't even built into the going concern note in a particularly coherent way. It's just bolted into the middle of the previous years' wording. Which led to the initial confusion by the OP that the "reasonable expectation" was somehow related to it.

It's just poorly thought through and poorly drafted, imho. But what the fuck do I know? I haven't been in this game for thirty years.
 
coolcity said:
I suspect his suggestion that they consider each charge one at a time was a little tongue in cheek, but who knows, it could be right. If the PL decided there were 115 charges and not half a dozen then surely the club have a right to say "OK then let's go through them one by one and see what you've got" - if only to drag it out to piss them off and push the bill up.

I had a similar thing happen to me in a legal case over property. The other party kept going back to his solicitor with another question or claim, usually a month or so apart and the case went on for 18 months when it should have been done and dusted in a month. The outcome was no different than anybody expected, he only did it because he knew the longer it went on the higher my bill would be and he had a lot more resources than I did. There's a fair chance the same could be happening here. I actually doubt it, but it could be. There must be some reason it's taken so long.
Click to expand...

I don't see they have much option but to go through the allegations one at a time, but the evidence would've presented in batches, presumably. One external report for all the years showing no payments received by Etihad from Mansour, for example.

Unless, as you say, the club really wants to make a point and present one external report countering each point on each allegation for each year. In that case, the award may never get finished :)
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
That's a positive. But the fact they are implying the case could have an effect on the ability of the club to continue as a going concern for the next twelve months (when it apparently couldn't in previous years) is ..... weird. Not concerning, really - because as I said, if management and auditors were really concerned about it, it would have been handled in the notes to the accounts completely differently, I think. Just weird.

It isn't even built into the going concern note in a particularly coherent way. It's just bolted into the middle of the previous years' wording. Which led to the initial confusion by the OP that the "reasonable expectation" was somehow related to it.

It's just poorly thought through and poorly drafted, imho. But what the fuck do I know? I haven't been in this game for thirty years.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for your views and dissection of the approved wording.

Like yourself but in a different sector I am well out of date but I am finding that first impressions are a really good guide because of the value of years of experience.

Handling uncertainty when legal documents are expected must be difficult for Auditors because they have always seemed to imply that they don't make the news all they do is print it.
 
The Premier League's internal rulebook and judicial system provide the framework for how the case is conducted.

What's more, the independent commission judging the case against Manchester City was appointed by Murray Rosen KC, the independent chair of the Premier League's Judicial Panel.

The commission is composed of three members, who were selected by Rosen to hear the charges and are independent of the Premier League and its member clubs.


Just to highlight something, it is the commission, that was appointed by the Premier League and not by City, that is taking forever to complete their work.

And to highlight that the entire framework for the case was laid out by the Premier League.


My point?

No-one should be blaming City when complaining about how long this is taking. It's all on the Premier League.

Yes we may have spun out our defence but our involvement was over after 10-12 weeks.
 
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