PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
And Tolstoy published the first draft of War and Peace within a year.
Click to expand...
Personally, I find how long this is all taking kind of funny.

It's a constant source of rage for these dweebs who think (as I've said before) the question of whether Mancini was paid directly by the UAE wealth fund or by Etihad Airways actually strikes at the very heart of integrity of football. (They of course don't actually care - it's tribalism disguised as "concern for the game")

NOBODY would care about this accounting nonsense had the PL not made up some ill-conceived rules to "protect clubs from bankrupting themselves" - as if City were ever in danger of that!
 
Last edited:
SkyBlueAmerican said:
Personally, I find how long this is all taking kind of funny.

It's a constant source of rage for these dweebs who think (as I've said before) the question of whether Mancini was paid directly by the UAE wealth fund or by Etihad Airways actually strikes at the very heart of integrity of football. (They of course don't actually care - it's tribalism disguised as "concern for the game")

NOBODY would care about this accounting nonsense had the PL not made up some ill-conceived rules to "protect clubs from bankrupting themselves" - as if City were ever in danger of that!
Click to expand...
Well the thing is that FFP/PSR wouldn't stop clubs bankrupting themselves, as it looks at the wrong financial indicators.

And one question I always ask people who use the "cheats" label and say we should all our trophies removed is "Do you really think that Mancini being paid just over £5m over 3 years via the Al Jazira consultancy contract, at a time when we were incurring losses that far exceeded FFP limits, made the difference to all the trophies won under Pep?"

I also still believe that when (if) we get the final verdict, a lot of the accounting charges will be over the issue of related parties. And whether or not Etihad is a related party (it isn't) it makes absolutely zero difference to the numbers. It would be just a note in the accounts.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well the thing is that FFP/PSR wouldn't stop clubs bankrupting themselves, as it looks at the wrong financial indicators.

And one question I always ask people who use the "cheats" label and say we should all our trophies removed is "Do you really think that Mancini being paid just over £5m over 3 years via the Al Jazira consultancy contract, at a time when we were incurring losses that far exceeded FFP limits, made the difference to all the trophies won under Pep?"

I also still believe that when (if) we get the final verdict, a lot of the accounting charges will be over the issue of related parties. And whether or not Etihad is a related party (it isn't) it makes absolutely zero difference to the numbers. It would be just a note in the accounts.
Click to expand...
This is more thinking about the situation than 99.99999% of the idiots who spam "115" on Twitter have ever done

You're not wrong, and to me, it's additionally bizarre how low those FFP limits were considering how fronting money and taking losses early is how it works in basically any business under new ownership that's trying to grow.

Also people acting like FFP/PSR exist to promote on-field competitive balance (they aren't) are of course engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
 
chaddblue said:
Fuck me… even when his club has suffered the most catastrophic blow possibly in their history, which could set them back 10 years and tarnish their name for even longer … the first thing he thinks about is City

We have definitely made him mentally ill
Click to expand...
“made him”…..
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Is this not something to which a statue of limitations could/should apply. It's a bit convenient to have such a restriction on start a process but nothing at the end.... Still that's what we call justice.
Click to expand...

Not exactly the same point, but from The Lawyer's last article:

"In the extreme, there might need to be a complete re-trial because of some exceptional circumstance. That is extremely unlikely, but it does sometimes happen. In 2021, the Court of Appeal ordered a re-trial following a five week High Court hearing in a case between Natwest Markets and Bilta. Mr Justice Snowden had taken 19 months to hand down judgment.

“A judgment given in a timely fashion can be assumed to have been prepared with a full recollection of the relevant evidence,” the Court of Appeal said. “However, the 19-month delay means we cannot make that assumption.

“Having subjected this judgment to the appropriate degree of scrutiny in light of the delay, we are not satisfied that the judge’s findings and conclusion on this key issue were right. We have reluctantly concluded that in fairness the judgment cannot be allowed to stand.”"

So, not an issue of time limitation, but the idea that an appeal doesn't lead to a full review of all the evidence may not be cast in stone. Depends on the nature of the appeal, I suppose.

Can you imagine a "re-trial"?
 
hilts said:
Just think Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment in under 2 years.
Click to expand...
images
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well the thing is that FFP/PSR wouldn't stop clubs bankrupting themselves, as it looks at the wrong financial indicators.

And one question I always ask people who use the "cheats" label and say we should all our trophies removed is "Do you really think that Mancini being paid just over £5m over 3 years via the Al Jazira consultancy contract, at a time when we were incurring losses that far exceeded FFP limits, made the difference to all the trophies won under Pep?"

I also still believe that when (if) we get the final verdict, a lot of the accounting charges will be over the issue of related parties. And whether or not Etihad is a related party (it isn't) it makes absolutely zero difference to the numbers. It would be just a note in the accounts.
Click to expand...
Never undersrood why mike ashley and his sports direct sponsorship of newcastle has not been looked in to ... surely thats related parties ?
 
SkyBlueAmerican said:
This is more thinking about the situation than 99.99999% of the idiots who spam "115" on Twitter have ever done

You're not wrong, and to me, it's additionally bizarre how low those FFP limits were considering how fronting money and taking losses early is how it works in basically any business under new ownership that's trying to grow.

Also people acting like FFP/PSR exist to promote on-field competitive balance (they aren't) are of course engaging in intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Good posts, but we shouldn't forget the main thrust of the allegations is about knowingly providing the PL with financial information that doesn't provide a true and fair view, characterised by most effectively as fraud allegations.

As almost all alleged breaches have a pre-FFP component, it isn't just about potentially breaching the 105 threshold.
 
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