You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
You know - I forgot all about that. Yep, Conn unwittingly exonerated us ha ha!Wasn’t it PB who discovered that it was the Abu Dhabi Executive Council, not ADUG, who’d provided Etihad with funding towards the sponsorship? Information which David Conn repeated without attribution or realising its significance?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Two of the PL charges are to do with not complying with the UEFA rules, presumably the non-compliance part. As we've already been found guilty of that by UEFA and it was ratified by CAS AND we've been punished (£10 million fine) then it's something we certainly are guilty of.Presumably they can't find the club guilty of not obeying UFA's rules, only UEFA can do that surely, but they could find us guilty of providing falsified or misleading information to UEFA, if that is indeed the case?
Edit: part of the contract between the PL and the clubs is to comply with both FIFA & UEFA rules.
Allnightlong
Well-Known Member
no, the club, but it was in response to another poster saying do we know what the PL have so that there is no smoking gun."We" as in the fans or the club?
You can't honestly think that City haven't had a hell of a lot more from the PL than that little statement?
Lots have people have mentioned this. If this is the case and and we, the club, know exactly what the PL have, then why is anybody worried?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Beats me bud, I've not been even a tad concerned since the statement came out.no, the club, but it was in response to another poster saying do we know what the PL have so that there is no smoking gun.
Lots have people have mentioned this. If this is the case and and we, the club, know exactly what the PL have, then why is anybody worried?
dave_blue12
Well-Known Member
I’ve seen it mentioned several times on here that City are the only top 6 club in favour of an independent regulator. Has anyone got a source for this?
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
Good post.And I think I'm right in saying they had been edited for publication, with the originals being very different.
I wouldn't give them a single document even it was specifically related to something they got wrong. Make them work for everything. Make them detail every single charge, with everything they have (or don't have). Even if we have comprehensive and conclusive evidence, don't produce it until the last minute to torpedo them - cannot trust the slippery fucks. Don't rush to disprove something when they may ask us later for something we can't disprove, and look guilty because of the precedent we set.
I'm not sure they have subpoena power, so just like with UEFA, let them do all the work and then if all they are left with is 'failure to cooperate' that's a big loss for them, especially as we would spin it as 'wouldn't cooperate with a witch-hunt'. Then hopefully sue them for damages (or more likely store it up as leverage later) and get it in front of a more legitimate court/tribunal.
That trumped up charge list must be padded with things we refused to cooperate over, so they are "charging" us to try and get to the evidence they think might exist, but can't be sure. There is no way they have evidence for everything they are claiming. It's a shock and awe fishing expedition. Fuck them.
I really think we'll pretty much own the league when this is over.
Do you think they will ask us to change our kit to red? -:)
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
Didn’t City say in their annual report that the PL’a investigation is based on the leaked emails? That’s coming from City themselves. If they have got any new evidence, then surely it’s documents they’ve already been through years ago and they perhaps think they’ve missed something?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.
Not strictly true. Helpful in negotiations but if youre sat across a table from khaldoon or ed woodward I know who i’d want to negotiate for meThe most logical and simple reasoning is far less difficult to process. Biggest TV & Prize revenue = highest commercial revenues in every other league…
Manchester_lalala
Well-Known Member
I think Leterme sort of hints that they’ve been speaking with the PL about their investigation. He said the PL’s evidence is a lot more solid, or something along those lines.I have often wondered if Uefa have given the premier league the CAS files? Or to be more precise, the files they could not prove against us. Especially the issues either time barred or issues that Uefa did not deem sufficient enough to charge for what ever reason. Now the premier are zoning in on those issues. Thinking they can trip us up with no time limit.
Does that make sense?
Sneaky bastards.