PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[nmc]

So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.

No, because when it suits them they say it’s out of time…..

 

[Centurions]

So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.

Yes, although like 99.99% of them, nobody outside the concerned parties will be aware of it, as it's kept confidential.

 

[dario2739]

Their just operating in Asia unfortunately doesn't mean they've gone bust but seems a con to advertise in a country that your punters can't put bets on so why waste money sponsoring a club in that country ? Perhaps the scousers are under contract to do this but seems very dodgey need to see their agreement and when it began !

They're also a betting partner/sponsor of Bayern Munich... nothing to see here

 

[cheekybids]

Yes, although like 99.99% of them, nobody outside the concerned parties will be aware of it, as it's kept confidential.

Starts & finished within 10 mins.

 

[Centurions]

Starts & finished within 10 mins.

Quite possibly, we'll never know and I'm on the fence whether that's a good thing or not.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Better case against the dippers



meanwhile this is the website:

https://www.188bet.com/

It doesn't even exist!

I did think when Liverpool fans got very excited about that that they wouldn't like it if people started pulling the thread of football and dodgy gambling/crypto organisations.

 

[terraloon]

This is the point I was trying to make, but Chris made it so much better.

My understanding is that if the Al Jazira contract was the only thing that had been revealed in the Der Spiegel articles, then the PL (or anyone else) couldn't come in and say "Well we think you've cheated on this so we're going to investigate all your sponsorships as well." And I believe we would be within our rights not to hand over anything that wasn't connected to the Mancini/Al Jazira issue (although that net could be wide). They have to be investigating a specific, formulated allegation, not 'fishing'. I'm keen to understand this specific point.

Hance why I've previously described this investigation as UEFA's sloppy seconds, which was the time-barred sponsorship contracts, the Al Jazira contract and the image rights payments. That last one was the only one that worried me initially but once it was clear that UEFA already knew about this back in 2015, and let us know they weren't happy with it, plus Fordham was hardly a secret as they were referenced in our Companies House entry, I was more confident it was nonsense.

The arrangement was seemingly wound up in 2018 and Fordham is now in liquidation. Martyn Ziegler thought that this was some sort of revelation the other day, proving journalists don't do any original research, and it made me think. If UEFA told us in 2015 that they were't happy about this arrangement, what happened between 2015 and 2018? My guess is that we then included the Fordham payments in our FFP submission, with the payments coming back in-house in 2018/19. No money went into Fordham after an allotment of shares of nearly £60m in May 2016. If it was so egregious, and we'd carried on with it, despite UEFA's concerns, then they'd have charged us back in 2019.

Sorry but I think part of your thinking is not correct.

1) UEFA may well have accepted the sum paid for image rights but UEFA, as far as I am aware, don’t set the rules on what is or isn’t in players contracts so would not have jurisdiction to rule on the method of payments.
FIFA sets the broad ground rules but each association then in conjunction with the relevant tax authorities will state what is and what isn’t acceptable

2) In relation to the Mancini’s second contract it may well have been minimal in terms of turnover but that isn’t the point .

3) I keep going back to the CAS ruling they didn’t rule on many of the issues some as we know were time barred, others were dismissed “ if that’s the word” because UEFA didn’t cover all the bases.

 

[Paladin]

So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.

Yeah, or The FA receive information through other means. Contrast and compare Liverpool hacking incident in 2013.

"The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns."

 

[cheekybids]

Yeah, or The FA receive information through other means. Contrast and compare Liverpool hacking incident in 2013.

"The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns."

& that’s why lobbying is part of the US dna, keep going until you’ve manipulated the situation to your own good.

 

[Centurions]

Yeah, or The FA receive information through other means. Contrast and compare Liverpool hacking incident in 2013.

"The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns."

I've no idea how the FA rules compare to the PL's but one of the factors considered would be the fact that we accepted a one off payment of a million quid. There is no comparison TBH.