Think they might be a bit bigger world wide though than a non discript on line betting company ?
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
Cobbled together charges that look bad but with not a lot on context but all done to tarnish are brand ! It's the way businesses try to devalue rival companies ! Growing rumours City have been gathering evidence about certain other clubs that is far more damming only hope its true !Clearly that's based on the Mancini Al Jazira contract and I assume they're saying we falsified the accounts by keeping that £1.75m off the books. In the first full year of Mancini's tenure that was about 1% of our turnover, plus we lost nearly £200m.
Even in the event that the commission find that was a dodge, so what? It's completely insignificant. But why would we even try to hide £1.75m in the context of that scale of losses? It's hardly on the Enron scale of fraud.
I presume the PL rule they're citing however is the one where we have to give full details of the manager's remuneration, hence the charge. But they'd need to show that Mancini (and City) had no intention of him fulfilling that contract.
Whats fun about this, as someone who is a big PGA Tour fan and been following the LIV Golf stuff closely, is that in order for the heads of the PIF to not have to be deposed in a PGA/LIV lawsuit, they claimed diplomatic immunity status that the PIF is an arm of the Saudi royal family and thus not subjected to US laws, but that is the opposite of what they claimed to the PL in order to get the PL to allow the purchase of Newcastle. I have no idea if there is precedent to allow one thing in one country and the opposite in another but I estimate that the LIV lawsuit gets dropped real soon to potentially protect their PL investment. (also because theyre gonna lose that lawsuit)
the talisman
Well-Known Member
Your not a football scout are you?I got a warning that the website is impersonating 188 and trying to steal my personal or financial information ?
Better case against the dippers
meanwhile this is the website:
It doesn't even exist!
What were the odds on 7-0 and no red cards lol
These companies are Philippines Offshore Gambling Organisations, whose main business is accepting bets fron Asian individuals who live in countries where gambling is illegal. I assume they sponsor Prem teams as their potential customers watch English footy.What were the odds on 7-0 and no red cards lol
Sorry, response was for @slbsn
Last edited:
I think he can both be a minister and Newcastle not run by the Saudi StateWhats fun about this, as someone who is a big PGA Tour fan and been following the LIV Golf stuff closely, is that in order for the heads of the PIF to not have to be deposed in a PGA/LIV lawsuit, they claimed diplomatic immunity status that the PIF is an arm of the Saudi royal family and thus not subjected to US laws, but that is the opposite of what they claimed to the PL in order to get the PL to allow the purchase of Newcastle. I have no idea if there is precedent to allow one thing in one country and the opposite in another but I estimate that the LIV lawsuit gets dropped real soon to potentially protect their PL investment. (also because theyre gonna lose that lawsuit)
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,257
I agree. But when Mark Hendrick MP uses a phrase like “City have been targeted by the red-shirt cartel” it makes you think. He is very well connected in football governance circles.
Like I say, I think you are probably right, and Mark Hendrick MP seems to agree. But the evidence that the PL has actually been pressured into bringing unwarranted charges against is is (AFAIK) nonexistent.
Thanks for this clarification.
Who decides what is relevant information to a particular investigation, and who checks if all information has been disclosed?
Take for example the Al Jazeera contact. Would we just give them a copy of the contract and Mancini's calendar for the dates in question, and the financial entries to back them up? Or do we have to give them every email that mentions Al Jazeera too? Or can we go through the papers and be selective in what we give them?
The process, as I understand it, goes like this.
1. The PL decides to open an investigation. There will generally be some reason for them to do so, like a complaint being made that we have broken the rules, or (as in this case) something coming out in the media that, if true, would suggest that we have broken the rules.
2. As part of their investigation, they ask us for the documents they think are relevant to that investigation.
3. The PL rules say we have an obligation to provide those documents, but if there is some reason not to, eg they are not relevant to the investigation, we can choose not to.
4. The PL then decide whether to issue a disciplinary complaint about that, as they did in this case. If so, it goes to an independent panel. The panel then decides whether the information requested should be provided, because it is relevant to an ongoing investigation, or whether the club was justified in refusing to provide it.
So the answer to the question 'who decides' is ultimately an independent panel, but there are several stages in the process before you get there.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 9,915
Like I say, I think you are probably right, and Mark Hendrick MP seems to agree. But the evidence that the PL has actually been pressured into bringing unwarranted charges against is is (AFAIK) nonexistent.
The process, as I understand it, goes like this.
1. The PL decides to open an investigation. There will generally be some reason for them to do so, like a complaint being made that we have broken the rules, or (as in this case) something coming out in the media that, if true, would suggest that we have broken the rules.
2. As part of their investigation, they ask us for the documents they think are relevant to that investigation.
3. The PL rules say we have an obligation to provide those documents, but if there is some reason not to, eg they are not relevant to the investigation, we can choose not to.
4. The PL then decide whether to issue a disciplinary complaint about that, as they did in this case. If so, it goes to an independent panel. The panel then decides whether the information requested should be provided, because it is relevant to an ongoing investigation, or whether the club was justified in refusing to provide it.
So the answer to the question 'who decides' is ultimately an independent panel, but there are several stages in the process before you get there.
So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
If only it was that simple, play in red....get another 7 clubs to sign a letter with us etc we'd have a chance.So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.