PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the PL in our case has gone straight to a panel, so it is up to Rosen, or the chair if the panel if appointed, to send the complaint to the club. The complaint should list the rules breached, the facts behind them and copies of any documentation supporting those facts. I imagine that has happened. Then the club has 14 days to deny the charges with an answer that must include reasons and copies of relevant documentation. This 14 days can be extended by agreement, and I would imagine it has been.

After that there is a directions hearing to set the thing up, during which both sides can give more information and lists of witnesses and such like are agreed .

Then the chair of the panel sets a time, date and place for the hearing. If you believe the press (and why shouldn't we, they always seem well informed), we are at that stage now.

May all be bollocks :)
Click to expand...
Thx and based on that we haven't kicked it in the long grass as is constantly reported in the press.
 
Cityfan1977 said:
the difference between how Everton who with out a doubt cheated and us are talked about is staggering. When Everton scored the second goal against Newcastle it was such a tail (fairytale) how the are saving them selfe from the harsh penalty but every City titles are tainted, even it is not proven we are guilty.
Click to expand...
Just mentioned the same to the missus
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
Just curious after hearing you on Talksport, and the sense that such a lengthy delay helps neither City nor the Premier League.
City will never win a Media War, but what would have happened if we had deliberately leaked any "irrefutable proof of innocence" on the day of the charges being announced?
Similarly, I seem to recall you suggesting that the PL had made things far more difficult than they should have been.
Would they have been better to stick to one specific charge and then, if proven, argue that this offence cascaded to the following season and beyond?
Click to expand...
Is this still available anywhere on talkSPORT etc
 
Chi-town blues said:
Key here” conflict of interest “ and this case can be dragged on forever.
Also what is the process of picking pl governing bodies ? Is it a voting system or cherry picking appointee ? post covid i think pl revenue grew almost 20% .Who conducts audit for pl ? Sky is one of the biggest sponsors, how much influence do they have ?
Click to expand...
Sky will definitely have considerable influence. If city were for example relegated then it could be argued by Sky that their £7bn broadcast rights package is suddenly not worth £7bn anymore.

It does potentially open us to being sued by many different clubs and parties. That however comes down to legal process and I can't see the government allowing it to get that far over what is really a sporting fairness issue. If we're found guilty then indeed it may be unfair but there is a bigger picture.

It has to be considered that any negative result for city would involve serious reputational damage for Abu Dhabi and Abu Dhabi could threaten retaliation such as stopping future investment in the UK... If that happens or is threatened then mark my words this problem would be nipped in the bud very quickly.

I'm not saying that this is morally right but either way this is going to go away because we're a very big cog in a football machine that is completely driven by money, and we have more of it than anyone else. I'd imagine that even if the worst happens we'd be able to settle the issue quietly and all of this would end tomorrow. This might seem again morally wrong but morals have never existed in football.
 
Strange you consider all the options of us being guilty and the potential ramifications of counter actions for damages by other clubs including Abu Dhabi applying political pressure through withdrawal of investment but not the distinct possibility of the PL not proving their allegations and what should then be an intense spotlight shone upon Masters and the puppetmasters who brought the whole clown show to town. Allow me.

I will go as far as to interpret the fact they took 4 years to investigate as a sign that they were unable to find the "smoking gun" they were looking for in any documentation we have provided them with or been able to aquire elsewhere. I think it's a reasonable leap of faith, although we won't find out until we read the judgement.(March 2026). Will anyone be surprised if all they've got is the emails?

The double jeopardy of the UEFA charges and resultant CAS hearing will have enabled the PL to target more specifically what they want to investigate further where UEFA failed to either prove their case or even supply any evidence at all including acting ultra vires their own rules.

The fact we sought an injunction to their requests is likely to indicate they went on a huge fishing expedition in a scattergun approach to obtain that smoking gun and despite the courts finding in their favour, which I suspect means we have to supply anything they ask for no matter how seemingly inconsequential or sensitive, charges of none co-operation means, in my opinion, they believe we are withholding stuff they've asked for which might not even exist.

The fact Mancini or his company or agent has not been approached yet his remuneration forms a number of the charges is also surprising. Likewise Toure and the infamous City hating Selyuk, where i believe under the table payments have been alleged forming some of the player remuneration charges, although the general assumption is that these are more to do with Fordham and the image rights issues. Even though UEFA looked at these and didnt include them in their charges.

They will try and hide behind a genuine "case to answer" as was stated at CAS based on the "emails" as this was the trigger for the commencement of the investigation.

For consideration of time barred items they will need to adequately demonstrate fraudulent actions or practice by City execs and even if the IC allows those matters substantial evidence has already been proffered although not considered for judgement at CAS.

i dont believe they have the goods to adequately prove their case. I dont believe sufficiently cogent evidence even exists to counter Citys evidence. I believe this because I have faith in our owner and directors and our executives when they say they didn't do the fraudulent things they have been accused of by the PL. Its a pity more of our fans don't seem to and are easily able to more readily accept the thought of "what punishment will be handed out" and discuss relegation and expulsion and options on political interference. I was hoping for more backbone from the City family.

When this is all over I'm not sure how Masters can survive or what will be the fallout, no matter what the result but none of it will be good for the PL or English football.

If this Independant Commission finds against us on the serious charges without any additional evidence to that considered at CAS surely that will be a perverse finding and worthy of challenge.

My personal opinion is they cannot prove to the required standard the alleged fraud or any of the serious charges. I don't believe we did anything wrong regarding player or manager remuneration either to any degree that wasn't manipulation of accountancy practices to maximum benefit.

It seems the none co-operation is an open goal and one were willing to take. There will therefore be no sporting sanction and a fine, the size of which will be determined by the level of none co-operation, yet to be determined and no doubt argued to the hilt by both advocates. It will be enough for our detractors in the media and the red shills to spout endless nonsense in pursuit of clicks and to continue their pitiful handwringing at our successes.

Is that a win? I don't know but its a result I'd bite your hand off for.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Strange you consider all the options of us being guilty and the potential ramifications of counter actions for damages by other clubs including Abu Dhabi applying political pressure through withdrawal of investment but not the distinct possibility of the PL not proving their allegations and what should then be an intense spotlight shone upon Masters and the puppetmasters who brought the whole clown show to town. Allow me.

I will go as far as to interpret the fact they took 4 years to investigate as a sign that they were unable to find the "smoking gun" they were looking for in any documentation we have provided them with or been able to aquire elsewhere. I think it's a reasonable leap of faith, although we won't find out until we read the judgement.(March 2026). Will anyone be surprised if all they've got is the emails?

The double jeopardy of the UEFA charges and resultant CAS hearing will have enabled the PL to target more specifically what they want to investigate further where UEFA failed to either prove their case or even supply any evidence at all including acting ultra vires their own rules.

The fact we sought an injunction to their requests is likely to indicate they went on a huge fishing expedition in a scattergun approach to obtain that smoking gun and despite the courts finding in their favour, which I suspect means we have to supply anything they ask for no matter how seemingly inconsequential or sensitive, charges of none co-operation means, in my opinion, they believe we are withholding stuff they've asked for which might not even exist.

The fact Mancini or his company or agent has not been approached yet his remuneration forms a number of the charges is also surprising. Likewise Toure and the infamous City hating Selyuk, where i believe under the table payments have been alleged forming some of the player remuneration charges, although the general assumption is that these are more to do with Fordham and the image rights issues. Even though UEFA looked at these and didnt include them in their charges.

They will try and hide behind a genuine "case to answer" as was stated at CAS based on the "emails" as this was the trigger for the commencement of the investigation.

For consideration of time barred items they will need to adequately demonstrate fraudulent actions or practice by City execs and even if the IC allows those matters substantial evidence has already been proffered although not considered for judgement at CAS.

i dont believe they have the goods to adequately prove their case. I dont believe sufficiently cogent evidence even exists to counter Citys evidence. I believe this because I have faith in our owner and directors and our executives when they say they didn't do the fraudulent things they have been accused of by the PL. Its a pity more of our fans don't seem to and are easily able to more readily accept the thought of "what punishment will be handed out" and discuss relegation and expulsion and options on political interference. I was hoping for more backbone from the City family.

When this is all over I'm not sure how Masters can survive or what will be the fallout, no matter what the result but none of it will be good for the PL or English football.

If this Independant Commission finds against us on the serious charges without any additional evidence to that considered at CAS surely that will be a perverse finding and worthy of challenge.

My personal opinion is they cannot prove to the required standard the alleged fraud or any of the serious charges. I don't believe we did anything wrong regarding player or manager remuneration either to any degree that wasn't manipulation of accountancy practices to maximum benefit.

It seems the none co-operation is an open goal and one were willing to take. There will therefore be no sporting sanction and a fine, the size of which will be determined by the level of none co-operation, yet to be determined and no doubt argued to the hilt by both advocates. It will be enough for our detractors in the media and the red shills to spout endless nonsense in pursuit of clicks and to continue their pitiful handwringing at our successes.

Is that a win? I don't know but its a result I'd bite your hand off for.
Click to expand...
"It seems the none co-operation is an open goal and one were willing to take."

I don't think we would take that, we did for the UEFA enquiry and we came out of that still with a lot of media skepticism and rumor.

After the club have stated "irrefutable evidence" only a complete not guilty verdict followed by legal action and compensation on our behalf with be enough.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
...

It seems the none co-operation is an open goal and one were willing to take. There will therefore be no sporting sanction and a fine, the size of which will be determined by the level of none co-operation, yet to be determined and no doubt argued to the hilt by both advocates. It will be enough for our detractors in the media and the red shills to spout endless nonsense in pursuit of clicks and to continue their pitiful handwringing at our successes.

Is that a win? I don't know but its a result I'd bite your hand off for.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that we're willing to take the non-cooperation charge even, but time will tell.

Re. the Fordham "allegations", without going back and purely from memory didn't we agree to not go ahead with that as UEFA(?) told us we couldn't do that? That's why it was wound up, so all monies were accounted for?
 
Bald fraud said:
I thought he was invited over to watch us play. We were playing shite so he was offered the job at half time by khaldoon. Who then text Hughes to tell him he was sacked and to clear his desk after the game? Well that’s the way the media portrayed it anyway!
Click to expand...
One of the newspapers said that Mancini was in the stadium, the journalist who made the allegation was forced by City to apologise which was printed in the rag
 
Centurions said:
I'm not sure that we're willing to take the non-cooperation charge even, but time will tell.

Re. the Fordham "allegations", without going back and purely from memory didn't we agree to not go ahead with that as UEFA(?) told us we couldn't do that? That's why it was wound up, so all monies were accounted for?
Click to expand...

The Premier League going after image rights and Mancini’s contract on top of related party sponsorship is interesting as it’s not what Uefa went after City for initially. The length in duration of the charges over nearly a decade feels like this is a desperate attempt at a dragnet by the Premier League to try and extract as much information as possible in view to finding something really juicy to fuck is over with. Perhaps they should have gone after one part of the charges over a smaller period of time, they will come to regret this scattergun way of trying to charge one of their stakeholders.
 
Isn't our 'irrefutable evidence' our audited accounts?

We think they prove that everything was above board but the PL (as Uefa did) don't?

I think the thing that worries most is the 'Independent Commission', we trusted CAS to be truly independent whereas this isn't the case with the IC.
 
Cityfan1977 said:
the difference between how Everton who with out a doubt cheated and us are talked about is staggering. When Everton scored the second goal against Newcastle it was such a tail (fairytale) how the are saving them selfe from the harsh penalty but every City titles are tainted, even it is not proven we are guilty.
Click to expand...
I even heard the commentators say something about the crowd being noisy, pretty sure it was "it shows have injustice can bring people together"
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
I even heard the commentators say something about the crowd being noisy, pretty sure it was "it shows have injustice can bring people together"
Click to expand...
You heard correctly.
A club that admitted breaking the rules gets punished and the media's narrative is 'injustice'.
Compare that to a club who admits to doing nothing wrong and the narrative swiftly changes to 'guilty' and 'throw the book at the cheating bastards'.
Strange one that
 
Centurions said:
I'm not sure that we're willing to take the non-cooperation charge even, but time will tell.

Re. the Fordham "allegations", without going back and purely from memory didn't we agree to not go ahead with that as UEFA(?) told us we couldn't do that? That's why it was wound up, so all monies were accounted for?
Click to expand...
This might help:

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

We would have to be aware of that when signing. You can't just amend a contract after it's been signed In the PL rules, clubs and the League shall " behave towards each other with utmost good faith" Do you think certain clubs and the PL, have acted towards City "with utmost good faith" What...
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
 
Claytop said:
Isn't our 'irrefutable evidence' our audited accounts?

We think they prove that everything was above board but the PL (as Uefa did) don't?

I think the thing that worries most is the 'Independent Commission', we trusted CAS to be truly independent whereas this isn't the case with the IC.
Click to expand...
The Premier League for years signed those audited accounts off as being legitimate now they don't think they are, why is that?
 
projectriver said:
The PL don’t sign off accounts. They rely on them to be true and fair. If they aren’t it’s the clubs fault
Click to expand...
You learn something new everyday. On a serious note Stefan, am I right in thinking that no accountant worth their salt would sign off on any account they believed to be fraudulent and it would be a very hard thing for the Premier league to prove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top