PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
I've been thinking about this the last few days. My thinking can be slow and deliberate so it can take me a few days and a lot of thinking to get my head round things properly. We don't know with certainty what the PL have got or what the specifics of the various charges are.

But there's at least two substantive charges, and we think we know they relate to Mancini's contract with Al Jazira and image rights payments to players. With respect to the former, the PL would have to prove Mancini did not fulfil that contract to provide at least 4 days consultancy per year. Conversely, we need to show he did, and we should be cleared on any of the charges relating to that.

The image rights one is more difficult to call. Those were paid by Fordham from 2013-14 to 2017-18 as far as I can see but the charges also seem to pre-date 2013. Fordham paid us for those rights in the 2012-13 financial year and we assigned the intellectual property of those image rights to them, which they then apparently paid. It's a strange, but not illegal, arrangement that I suspect was used to generate revenue in that financial year when we thought there was a chance we could escape punishment using the Annex XI provisions. I wonder if we'd have done it in different circumstances? This is the one I feel we'll be more vulnerable on than the Mancini charges.

But both of these were part of the material put out by Der Spiegel, based on the hacked emails. The question is, if these are all they've got, then there's nothing new from 2018 but neither of these came up in the UEFA charges arising from Der Spiegel articles. So did UEFA decide they weren't worth pursuing or did they try to focus solely on the sponsorship stuff that they thought was the most egregious breach? Either way, it gives me confidence.

One thing we also know from the previous battle with UEFA is that we didn't cooperate (on legal advice I might add) because we thought they were 'fishing'. I wonder if we took the same stance with the PL, who then had to resort to stuff that was known to UEFA but they didn't pursue, potentially for reasons I outlined above.

I therefore suspect there's little new in these charges and that mainly it's a rehash of the Der Spiegel stuff, and stuff that was either time-barred or that UEFA didn't pursue. And out of that, they've generated dozens of charges making things seem much worse than they really are.
Click to expand...
Many thanks Colin for this reassuring post.
 
Bez said:
Surely the PL would not accept any stolen documents from Rui Pinto? An organisation with their level of integrity?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, Rui Pinto didn't give this information to UEFA or the PL, he gave it to a European group of investigative reporters (I think after he was being investigated for hacking) which is where Der Spiegel got their information (I think that's the right way around). Both UEFA and the PL only had access to the online media reproductions of them, exactly the same way any of us have seen them. CAS only accepted them because we (eventually) supplied the originals.
 
Centurions said:
Just to be clear, Rui Pinto didn't give this information to UEFA or the PL, he gave it to a European group of investigative reporters (I think after he was being investigated for hacking) which is where Der Spiegel got their information (I think that's the right way around). Both UEFA and the PL only had access to the online media reproductions of them, exactly the same way any of us have seen them. CAS only accepted them because we (eventually) supplied the originals.
Click to expand...
Yes, I find it hard that Pinto is sat in jail there thinking of ways to "get" MCFC. He has other things on his mind. And I doubt he is in much of a position to benefit financially from the hacked documents either. It's most likely the PL only have the same info UEFA did, imo, which was not a lot.
 
Exceptionally talented is Swiss Ramble and a must to follow on Twitter . A little bit of Oasis thrown into his article to lighten the mood aswell and piss off our haters ;-) . Stefan and Prestwich Blue add their qualities to the thread aswell . Exceptional reading !
 
It's always interesting to read Swissrambles musings as he makes what can be a very dry and headache making subject, fairly clear.
 
can i ask from those that know, we know the basics of the charges which we can see on the list but why arnt the exact charges made clear, why should we have to wait when we have to prepare defence? they want our paperwork on the 23rd so why cant we have theirs on the 23rd and how can we defend something when we dont know exactly what it is were defending? only what it relates to
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.