I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:Can someone explain how the 115 charges can be rounded down to 5? and what they are?
Apologies for being in the dark.....Cheers
I listened to @projectriver podcast again today and I think it's this:
1. Providing false accounts for 9 years.
2. Mancini contract partly paid by Abu Dhabi company, Yaya Toure agent fees
3. Breaching UEFA FFP
4. Breaching Premier League sustainability rules
5. Non Co-operation
We should name one of the corporate areas the 115 suite.The building of the extension, hotel, City Square and shop and to the South Stand is the biggest and best FU to the PL you could ever imagine. This is what we think of your 115 charges.
I think so, also some multiplied by the 9 years in question, same rule break every year.Thanks,so the other charges are minor points within the main ones?
If the PL judge the sponsorship by Etihad Airways as artificially inflated they will be accusing the airline implicitly of an extremely serious financial crime. Are the PL going take on Ethihad Airways in the courts ? Because they would have an excellent case to sue the PL for reputational damage, and that could have very serious financial consequences for the PLOne trope repeated constantly in the MSM is the validity of the UAE sponsorships. They can NOT be invalidated solely because of country of origin as that would be blatant discrimination against the UAE.
So let’s say a PL investigator requests from MCFC all the communications, correspondence, emails etc between MCFC and Sponsor A, circa 2010. The intention being to ascertain that commercial negotiations took place and that a formal contractual relationship was agreed and entered into and it included market values. This could be confirmed by subsequent financial transactions ie for sponsorship services rendered. nb The PL has no jurisdiction over sponsor A what so ever. If MCFC said sorry we don’t have any supporting documentation but we can supply retrospective informal evidence by individuals involved, that would be very damming . On the other hand if they said we have all the documentation but are not prepared to disclose in the public domain because of confidentiality agreements with Sponsor A, that would be acceptable.
To me, non legal, it seems binary, either Sponsor A was valid or invalid, it should be possible for MCFC to prove all 4 sponsors were valid once and for all.
However, what if the PL consider Sponsor A “dubious”, is that guilty of a charge ?, that’s where a biased non objective judgement could stray into the political. If the PL claim the market value was artificially high, will the panel agree with them or dismiss the charge as being completely subjective.
Have a generous round of applause on those early weekend kickoffs, at 1.15.We should name one of the corporate areas the 115 suite.
Rubbish, either your geography is suspect and you don't know one arab country from another. Or you have never taken the trouble to find out that Abu Dahbi is one of the most progressive Arab countries with rights for women and general freedom that others can only dream of. Third option is that your knowledge of British history is suspect.Just read any of the daily/weekly papers.
Takes one to know one.Winston Churchill was once quoted as saying "It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than speaking up and removing all doubt"