I'm hoping that £10 billion of trade with a lot more to come goes someway to ensuring we get a truly IR.We will keep quiet on others’ peccadillos until our case is resolved. Then it’s:Dear Independent Regulator we thought you might be interested in these emails which fell into our possession.
I could be wrong on this, but it was phrased something like "the time that has elapsed, plus the settlement...." etc, is why they dropped it. So not a time barred situation, but more they were willing to let it go due to the settlement being in 2013 etc. More of a subtle/similar language thing.Is it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?
If asked/needed.Assume you’ll provide all of your evidence to the club when required, as ever great work Gary
CheersI could be wrong on this, but it was phrased something like "the time that has elapsed, plus the settlement...." etc, is why they dropped it. So not a time barred situation, but more they were willing to let it go due to the settlement being in 2013 etc. More of a subtle/similar language thing.
I don’t think you’re understanding me or maybe I am not getting you. I am not saying there is anything dodgy or need to hide it but the and I certainly understand image rights to be normal though the sale might not be but allegations seem to be that. The price was to high presumably the premier league are going to argue it is a related party. Chevrolet paid United too much but that’s not an issue as they are not related party that’s just there own stupidity though I do believe the guy who did the deal got sacked not proper sign off or just incompetent. Non related parties don’t over pay there in it to get the best deal possible.It was said by Ian Cheesman on one of his podcasts. There was a finance guy identified I hadn't heard of who was named a couple of times, I can't remember his name, but it doesn't really matter. City provided all the documented evidence to the EUFA inspectors and the CAS judges, and CAS found in our favour.
If CAS could see the error, why was it so elusive to the EUFA inspectors? Hence the comment, I suppose.
No, there was nothing other than the contractually agreed payments between the club and the players taking place.
For whatever reason, the EUFA inspectors couldn't reconcile an accounting function that took place between 2009 and 2018 when the payment of image rights was handed over to an outside company.
City were obliged to pay the players the agreed amount stated in their contracts, and they honoured their commitments.
Image rights payments are an accepted part of the game, and there is nothing dodgy about them. There is no need to try and hide them.
The hack on our computer systems was a 'data breach' which is very serious stuff. For allowing it to happen - which clearly & obviously did, we are wide open up to a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover - whichever is greater - for infringement of any of the data protection principles or rights of individuals. That is why we had no choice to accept a paltry £1m and let Liverpool off scot free.I could be wrong on this, but it was phrased something like "the time that has elapsed, plus the settlement...." etc, is why they dropped it. So not a time barred situation, but more they were willing to let it go due to the settlement being in 2013 etc. More of a subtle/similar language thing.
Not sure if posted but..
Big Sam has waded in..
Sam Allardyce:
"Of course there is jealousy – all clubs will be rubbing their hands together wanting to be found guilty..."
"It seems like owners want City kicked out of the PL which isn't the right thing to do. I hope they are not found guilty and come out on top..."
yep the age of the offense was considered very old to be investigated. That and the pay off we received stopped the FA from looking into the case. Even though it was a clear case of industrial espionage and not treating other clubs with respectIs it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?