PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[waspish]

If the Premier League investigators convince the independent panel that it happened, it's very bad.

Could you point me in premier rule book that that method is not allowed?

Don’t you think City would now if it was against the rules or not knowing our books are looked at continually for any misdemeanours!

 

[domalino]

How do they need convincing if they have the same info as above?

Well the process is like a trial, you have to convince the judicial panel of your version.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Yes, I think if it were proven to be the case, it would satisfy the really high bar for proving dishonest behaviour that @projectriver talks about.

The club packaged up a loss making part of the company, sold it to another ADUG controlled group for £25m and then went to great lengths to disguise it though a shell company in the British Virgin Islands

Sadly I don't know enough about this stuff to know what the outcome is, I'd have thought the club would have employed the very best to ensure we don't fall foul of rule breaking. That's what I'm hoping.

 

[Dribble]

In one of the emails, Simon Pearce writes to Jonathan Rowland promising that ADUG will fund Fordham with £11m per year.

Was it only a "promise" or were payments actually made & received?

 

[domalino]

Is this fact?

Well Der Spiegel have internal documents detailing the corporate structure and emails between the Rowlands and Pearce discussing it.

So the only hope for this not being real is if it was just talked about and never happened.

But we know Fordham was created because IIRC it's appeared in club accounts.

 

[domalino]

Was it only a "promise" or were payments actually made & received?

We don't know. We know there's emails promising money, we know the discussed company was created, but that's it. Hence why I said "If the PL can convince the judicial panel it happened...".

 

[HelloCity]

Well Der Spiegel have internal documents detailing the corporate structure and emails between the Rowlands and Pearce discussing it.

So the only hope for this not being real is if it was just talked about and never happened.

But we know Fordham was created because IIRC it's appeared in club accounts.

So when you talked about ‘disguising it all’ that was just your view and not a confirmed or factual statement?

 

[Dribble]

We don't know. We know there's emails promising money, we know the discussed company was created, but that's it. Hence why I said "If the PL can convince the judicial panel it happened...".

So at best it's conspiracy, but with this not being a criminal case, clear evidence will be needed.

Are you saying there is none? OR were UEFA/G14/PL/Hateful Eight putting these accusations to City & asking City to prove their innocence, but City retorted "No, you prove we've got a case to answer & we'll answer it accordingly"?

 

[domalino]

So when you talked about ‘disguising it all’ that was just your view and not a confirmed or factual statement?

What do you want?

If you want to inhabit a world where only things that have been explicitly stated by the club in a public statement are "factual statements" then you should probably just leave this thread and come back in 18 months when there's a verdict, because the only factual statement so far is the PL and City statements from last monday. The other 14,450 posts in this comment are opinion and discourse.

In the meantime, the rest of us are probably going to keep discussing the possibilities using what we have in the public domain and trying to figure out what the club is fighting.

What we know is that City's internal documents involve putting 4 random companies between ADUG and Fordham, 4 companies who do nothing, have no business plan, and involve routing things through the BVI.

Feel free to offer another theory why the corporate structure was like that if you don't think that's someone disguising it. Or don't, because it won't be a fact.

 

[Gordyola]

The club’s stance is that we *have* provided it.

Problem is, the EPL acts as a kangaroo court. It has no legal power or standing, no judges nor a jury, and as an organisation itself it is only made up of it’s own member clubs.

It’s press releases contradict our press releases, only one can be accurate. But who gets to decide that? Not the league, aka the very same clubs making the accusation, surely?

An independent commission