City launch legal action against the Premier League

[cheekybids]

I'm always uneasy with clubs doing 'deals' like this.

Imagine if the dips had done something to a minor club which could have a major effect on other clubs and they took a couple of million pay-off.

Illegalities should be looked at by the Prem no matter if the clubs agree to settle.

Liverpool financially benefited which disadvantaged other clubs which is their argument against us. The premier league should have still investigated.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs

Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original RPT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?

 

[citizen_maine]

Liverpool financially benefited which disadvantaged other clubs which is their argument against us. The premier league should have still investigated.

Seem to remember that he PL rules specify that clubs in dispute should agree a settlement themselves as the first option

 

[Ste68]

Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs

But will disproportionately impact City the way its being applied.

In effect every deal that is struck with a gulf state is open to scrutiny and review as the majority owner happens to be from the Gulf and deemed to be in a position of influence. Every US owner (or owner from practically any other nation) can strike a deal with a company from there own nation state without the same level of scrutiny.
Given the constant attacks on Arab ownership I think its reasonable as an owner to be concerned at the way this rule would be applied, with a level of bias against deals from those countries as the benchmark for FMV is going to be what ? and decided by who ?

If you take the Chevrolet deal as an example , it was a really poor deal for Chevrolet to such an extent they dismissed the guy who did the deal. An amercian company agreeing a deal that was in reality deemed by the company themselves as well above the market value but that would never be a deal that was assessed under these rules - so generous deals between american companies and american owners would pass but not Arab owners and arab states in the same way.

We have a mad set of rules that were always going to blow up in the faces of the PL.

If the PL were looking to bring in a set of financial rules to a) ensure a certain level of competition and b) safeguard clubs future then a universal cap on squad spend I think is the only workable fair rule (although likely to be challenged as may be detrimental to the league in the long run if not set high enough). Would require any spending above a certain level to be made through equity investment and should also ban leveraged buyouts.

Every rule brought in so far seems to be to stop investment and maintain the ability for club owners to profiteer without any effort or skill but by limiting competition.

 

[dadnlad]

Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original APT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?

He can see it but on wind up
Ignore him

 

[halfcenturyup]

Other way round. Would have to be very good reason not to demand 2 way disclosure. Only the case where those emails sought by City to be considered irrelevant

:) Appreciate everybody's efforts in trying to educate me. I get most of it, but I am still not seeing how this large disclosure is relevant to the 115 case, other than very obliquely. In fact, i would say it is irrelevant. It must just be me. Probably why accountants are always being screwed by lawyers :)

 

[cheekybids]

Seem to remember that he PL rules specify that clubs in dispute should agree a settlement themselves as the first option

& we did but once it became common knowledge that a club illegally hacked & profited then surely it’s a far bigger concern than Mancini being paid by another club.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

& we did but once it became common knowledge that a club illegally hacked & profited then surely it’s a far bigger concern than Mancini being paid by another club.

Not as far as the PL were concerned, especially as the dippers were the offenders.

Better swept under the carpet and filed as as matter resolved !

 

[VOOMER]

Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs

Sniff, sniff, sniff

 

[GortonBlue62]

Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original APT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?

Agree with everything you wrote but want to make a point about when you say he is not 'City oriented'.

I know a couple of older blues who completely buy the MSM bullshit and are of the opinion that City are guilty because there's no smoke without fire.

I spent a frustrating couple of hours before the cup final trying to explain to one of them why there's a good chance we are innocent. I patiently explained the UEFA case and CAS judgement and the circumstances around the PL charges, all to no avail.

I fear the media has done such a good job demonising us, that innocent as I believe us to be, much of the muck thrown at us will stick.