PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[balotellishaircut]

Isnt having a money laundering gun running bank sponsor against PL rules ? I mean if a owner cant put as much as he wants into his business. How can money laundering gun running banks be allowed ?

Does sponsorship have different rules to ownership ?

 

[SilverFox2]

It was probably not an obvious cooperative at the time - Hicks & Gillette had just bought Liverpool, Arsenal had split ownership, and ENIC/Lewis/Levy hadn't got sole control of Spurs either (I think).

Do you feel Sheikh Ms takeover actually catalysed the cartel formation then?
I know via this forum from early days FFP was proposed but was hastily modified in its original form to make investment the villain of the piece rather than debt.
I often thought Mr McCawber would have cringed at such a distortion of proper practice.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

100%

Didnt team viewer go bust ?

No they haven’t gone bust, they sponsored United a large percentage of what the company was actually worth. They’ve realised it is commercial suicide continuing paying United the money they should have.

 

[willipp]

I totally agree with Liam Gallagher and that's the point how is it legal to investigate only one club ?

That's the bit I dont understand, dippers money laundering gun running bank, why isnt that investigated ? Or Leicester sponsorship ?

I dont understand how the charges against City can be taken seriously when the pl ignore the hateful 8.

Time to sign off I think I'm going round in circles lol

I honestly think that's the best bet mate. You will drive yourself mad for the next few years or however long it takes thinking about it, but the reality is there are no answers until something official. Lets get back to enjoying the football as all this negative stuff really does drag you down.

 

[Keeper!]

Does sponsorship have different rules to ownership ?

Depends who the owner is!

 

[terraloon]

Isnt having a money laundering gun running bank sponsor against PL rules ? I mean if an owner cant put as much as he wants into his business. How can money laundering gun running banks be allowed ?

Cities main Bankers are Barclays.

Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC

As Barclays have reported in their Regulatory News Service announcement, the High Court has today ruled against the SFO’s application, seeking to reinstate the charges previously dismissed in the Crown Court.

www.sfo.gov.uk

Just like Liverpool, indeed just like most clubs they deal with institutions, with sponsors that almost certainly aren’t squeaky clean I am far from sure that we really need to get into guilt by association

 

[Centurions]

Still nothing to do with those who remain on our payroll

They’re dippers now

Three had already left, the one whose log in details they were using, was still there until at least 8 months later. This is presuming that City revoked the log in details of anyone who left the club. Whether he/she is still there I have no idea.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Do you feel Sheikh Ms takeover actually catalysed the cartel formation then?
I know via this forum from early days FFP was proposed but was hastily modified in its original form to make investment the villain of the piece rather than debt.
I often thought Mr McCawber would have cringed at such a distortion of proper practice.

FFP is a strange one. I thought that the PL version was a follow-up to the UEFA version - that very definitely was neutered from the original proposal against debt (Platini's version, I think?), to the actual enforced one which is all based on income.

I don't think we catalysed the euroCartel, although we may have hastened it slightly - I think Abramovich was the original trigger and then PSG/City came along a few years later, threatening that others might do the same. The aim was to make it less attractive by protecting the establishment - PSG basically ignored it and took the lumps, we dived through the trapdoor before it slammed shut and got hit on the way through. But we got through.

As we'd got through, we took a seat at the CL cashpit, by which point more US owners had come in and those affected got together to form a pressure group. FSG didn't get the transfer price cap they'd been all but promised, and the US sports owners view their model as better for the owners. For a domestic cartel, I guess we did partly drive them together as the access to CL loot is essential to anyone whose owners won't fund stadium rebuilds.

The recent claims about Liverpool/MU having a secret interview with PL CEO candidates and the disastrous plan from those two clubs have lifted the curtain on the need for regulation, and the latter and the ESL fiasco have weakened their claims that football can regulate itself. Greed eating itself.

 

[Centurions]

So why hasnt someone gone though these millions of emails on other clubs ? Surely the dippers would emails about hacking our pc's.
Why just City that in itself is clearly wrong and makes the case weak in my eyes.

Pinto (or whoever) hacked our email servers, not Liverpool's.

He also hacked Benfica's, Bayern Munich's(?), Doyen Sports (hence the Ronaldo alleged rape emails), a bank in the Cayman Isles, the Portuguese police team investigating him plus one of the judges in his case and many, many others.

That doesn't mean he's hacked the entire world.

 

[SilverFox2]

I think from day 1 the group of powerful history clubs have always had their scapegoat people to purge should things get tough for them.
From FIFA to UEFA their hubris ruled and still does to some extent.
Is it possible the PL rules have been too smart in making themselves the only port of call for Appeal?

I think extreme hubris allowed them to exclude the possibility of UK Gov interference into a purely UK Organizational set of business rules.