PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Coatigan]

We back channelled with Platini and Infantino.

We back channelled with Ceferin.

Not beyond the realms after four years of batting stuff back, we may have done likewise again?

Platini, Infantino and Ceferin were very much sympathetic but under incredible pressure.

Sound familiar?

Either that or they were happy to appear symphatetic but under incredible pressure once it became evident it was a losing battle. And that suited us too.

 

[KS55]

Again this is a fair point but the thing that amazes me is that we have never been accused of anything of this nature but as I have said on numerous occasions I certainly don’t applaud the introduction of FFP

The difference is that Chelsea have never been owned by Arab Muslims. The US owners are obsessed with that, as is Senor Teabag.

 

[terraloon]

The difference is that Chelsea have never been owned by Arab Muslims. The US owners are obsessed with that, as is Senor Teabag.

Not all been sweetness and light being owned by a Russian . Don’t forget it was Chelseas refusal to join the G14 group that bought about that cartel’s demise and that was something that many of that original group have never forgotten

 

[Centurions]

Its plausible that it isn't quite as comfortable behind the scenes in terms of us getting off the charges and admin staff are catching wind of this? I don't think this is the case, or should I say I certainly hope not but its plausible. It just seems odd that so many are going to what seem a backward step in terms of clubs as the other user has very cleverly pointed out.....

I am merely speculating of course and is likely not linked at all..... but it could be.

It could be that black is white and vice versa but it isn't, is it. I can understand the posters who are thinking you're highly suspect right now.

 

[Tomblue]

It could be that black is white and vice versa but it isn't, is it. I can understand the posters who are thinking you're highly suspect right now.

What because I have said something that could possibly be construed in me being conscious of a possible negative outcome for City? My god have a look through my posts do you see anything in them that suggests anything but sickening obsession with City?

People are allowed to say things on forums that create debate its the whole point.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

There seems to be an overriding antagonistic animosity by some towards any poster who offers a different view which engages the debate. We should welcome this, with certain caveats obviously. However without them this place is just a massive echo chamber.
I want to see and hear different views other than my own myopic needs and wants, for nothing else other than to see how the rest of the world views what's going on.
I'm all for circling the wagons when we are clearly under attack however we should not be any of
Three Wise Monkeys

 

[foggy1974]

There seems to be an overriding antagonistic animosity by some towards any poster who offers a different view which engages the debate. We should welcome this, with certain caveats obviously. However without them this place is just a massive echo chamber.
I want to see and hear different views other than my own myopic needs and wants, for nothing else other than to see how the rest of the world views what's going on.
I'm all for circling the wagons when we are clearly under attack however we should not be any of
Three Wise Monkeys

It's great in theory but the majority of rival fans think we are guilty so they might appear sympathetic or understanding from the start but as soon as their arguements & preconceptions are taken apart by people way more knowledge than I am, they revert to type.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What because I have said something that could possibly be construed in me being conscious of a possible negative outcome for City? My god have a look through my posts do you see anything in them that suggests anything but sickening obsession with City?

People are allowed to say things on forums that create debate its the whole point.

Not trying to be harsh or anything, but do you know how many "back room staff" have left this season and how that compares to previous years? You may have a point but it's impossible to tell without some comparisons.

 

[Oldham Exile]

This has been done to death earlier in the thread. Maybe we need a FAQ thread on this. This would qualify for a VFAQ. (A sort of Europa league for FAQs. You'll know all about the Europa league, being a Chelsea fan and all.)

Their case is that we have knowingly failed to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the financial circumstances of the club. So, taking the Etihad sponsorship as an example, their case is (a) HHSM/ADUG provided MCFC with funding that was in reality owner investment, but (b) this was dishonestly presented in the accounts as sponsorship from Etihad in order to circumvent FFP rules. The problem with the FA's case is that not only do our audited accounts show that this was actually genuine sponsorship income paid for services rendered, but so do Etihad's audited accounts. So they need to prove that this is not just a case of City getting one past our own auditors, this was basically a conspiracy at a very high level in Abu Dhabi that involved two major international companies presenting accounts that were known to be false. As has been made clear ad nauseam, this is an extremely serious allegation, that is tantamount to an actual allegation of fraud.

The consequence in limitation terms is this. I will break it down into paragraphs, that might help.

1. The arrangements between MCFC and the PL are essentially contractual, and subject to English law.

2. Unlike the UEFA rules, the PL rules do not include any limitation period. However, because the arrangements are subject to English law, the general limitation period of 6 years applies. See point 1.

3. The limitation period is however suspended in a case (I paraphrase in the interests of brevity) where fraud is alleged until the fraud comes to light. It is at that point that the 6 year period begins to run.

4. What this means is that if the PL can establish fraud, the 6 year period will not apply until the fraud came to light, which was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles in 2018.

5. To get over that hurdle, however, the PL needs to adduce very cogent evidence. And if they cannot, the ordinary 6 year rule will apply. See point 2.

6. For that reason, the charge of fraud is central to the case for two reasons: (a) because that is precisely what the PL is alleging, and (2) because if they cannot establish fraud, the complaints that pre-date 2017 (ie six years before the complaint was made) are time-barred.

I know that it must be frustrating for you (and others) to keep having to repeat the same points again and again

But, from one of (what I am sure is) the vast majority of fans on this thread - I just want to state how helpful and welcomed the explanations are - especially this one - which could not be clearer

 

[Chris in London]

I know that it must be frustrating for you (and others) to keep having to repeat the same points again and again

But, from one of (what I am sure is) the vast majority of fans on this thread - I just want to state how helpful and welcomed the explanations are - especially this one - which could not be clearer

Thank you.

How’s Cyprus?