PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bobmcfc]

Beautifully put Danny

 

[Rhapsody in Blue]

Am I reading too much into this, or isn’t this a strange article to put up by the PL after throwing all sorts of shit at us?

”Defending champions”
”Set up a massive match for the title”

Man City set up huge title head-to-head with Arsenal

Defending champions defeat Aston Villa and can go above Gunners if they beat them on Wednesday

www.premierleague.com

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Would previous titles really, I mean really be stripped? That would be difficult to take.

The rest is unfortunate and can be turned around quick but that's just wrong.

Won’t happen. Anyway it’s beyond the PL’s powers to do that. They can expel us from the PL but would suggest there’s little to no chance of that expulsion happening.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Beautifully put Danny

Poetic

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Am I reading too much into this, or isn’t this a strange article to put up by the PL after throwing all sorts of shit at us?

”Defending champions”
”Set up a massive match for the title”

Man City set up huge title head-to-head with Arsenal

Defending champions defeat Aston Villa and can go above Gunners if they beat them on Wednesday

www.premierleague.com

Maybe Sir Humphrey has given them a call.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Am I reading too much into this, or isn’t this a strange article to put up by the PL after throwing all sorts of shit at us?

”Defending champions”
”Set up a massive match for the title”

Man City set up huge title head-to-head with Arsenal

Defending champions defeat Aston Villa and can go above Gunners if they beat them on Wednesday

www.premierleague.com

The sponsors will still want hype!

 

[petrusha]

I'm not sure that I'd seen that; I'm certainly not inclined to argue with you (given your background), and had had the impression that others couldn't see how fraud could have been committed.
If that impression is wrong, then I retract and have learned something.

I also had no intention of referring to you as 'hard of thinking', but was viewing use of those terms as being directed at the target audience of the uninformed who want something to hang onto.

I trust that makes sense, and had no intention of saying such a thing about you.

Thanks. I probably shouldn't have used word resent as it really wasn't a big deal. I just wanted to point out that there's an intellectually respectable view to the contrary.

Anyway, a pleasant evening to you and all other Blues. At least we have the satisfaction of a win to bask in - it was important to take the three points today.

 

[Chris B]

Too many posts to check if this has been mentioned, but in regard the incorrect references in the initial charges. Apparently these were correct references for old(er) revisions of the rules.

Does this not suggest these charges were compiled some time ago ? only to be pushed out now ?

I think the references are from the latest version of the rules, and posters here have looked back to the correct set of rules in force at the time and noticed the references are wrong. To me that suggests the opposite to your proposition, and that the charges have been brought up now and hence use the current references.

I’m not sure if the incorrect list of charges is just from a statement, where perhaps the references have been restated to the latest rules for the ease of understanding, and the actual charges have been properly stated to City, or not. Either way it’s confusing.

 

[nmc]

No time bar in Premier League

I think it depends who’s accused…. Time barring only applies to teams in red.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's a possible implication, depending on the amounts, the frequency and how that relates to acceptable accounting standards, but it's possible to have broken the PL rules (e.g. by misrepresentation to them), but not have broken UK law (fraud).

What it is is an easy tag to use for the hard of thinking.

Had this discussion with the legal eagles on here. My pov was that there is a valid contract in place between Etihad and the club, for example. The services under the contract were provided and the services were paid for by Etihad in full. So irrespective of how Etihad came across the money to pay the club, even if it came from Mansour's petty cash, the accounting fundamentals in the club's accounts were correct.

Their conclusion was that, for the alleged breaches to have occurred, assuming the same issues as at CAS plus maybe one or two others, then they would be implying fraud, whether they actually state it or not.

CAS even stated (something like) accepting UEFA's case on the Etihad transactions, for example, would involve a conspiracy between the management of the two companies, their directors and auditors and the experts called before CAS (I am paraphrasing here because I can't be bothered to look it up) and, presumably Mansour himself. That was one of the reasons they couldn't find for UEFA.

On the other hand UEFA also explicitly said they weren't disputing Mansour's evidence that there was no hidden funding.

So I guess it's a legal thing, which I don't really understand, and this, after all, is a legal procedure.