PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[SilverFox2]

Thanks for that. Fair enough.

I think a year is about right from white paper to law, so that would be about right. I will be quite surprised in this case, as they have to work out what the regulator does first, and then it depends on whether it has teeth immediately in the face of any existing contractual arrangements.

Mate, even I'm not quite sure what all the charges are, so why would most opposition fans trouble themselves with the details?

As far as they're concerned, we've been accused so we're guilty. The charges & any evidence we have to refute the allegations are mere details they can't be arsed to concern themselves with.

We're guilty, so need to be hung, drawn & quartered with all our titles handed to the runners up. It's all absolute bollocks... \0/

Of course we are guilty, that's why their top man refused to give us medals and custody of the PL cup for another year.

 

[BrianW]

These 'under-the-counter' payments for staff, if true, would be highly illegal and subject to prosecution by HMRC. A heavy fine and penalties to start with, but almost certainly jail time for someone.

I find it hard to believe - nay, impossible! - that the ultra-professional people running the club would be so stupid. This is not some back-street snooker hall in Cleckheaton with a sideline in selling drugs. Sooner or later, it would come out. Some disgruntled ex-player would reveal it. And how does it fit with moving players on to other clubs? Why would the likes of Jesus, Zinchenco and Cancelo, to name but three, just quietly accept losing their bungs? The impracticality of such a scenario is blindingly obvious.

 

[adr2.8i]

Yes. I don’t know anything about this stuff. But it seems so out of character for our owners to cheat their way to succes for over ten years (or to cheat at all). And what would they gain by cheating? And it is really strange that, if the cheating was real, no one has come out as a whistleblower. And why no auditor has seen anything wrong. And the Silver Lake-investment, wouldn’t they have backed away from the investment of there was something wrong? It seems that there would be a big conspiracy between many people if the PL-charges are true.

Thats what I've been thinking. To falsify accounts/sponsorship deals, would surely mean deceiving a shitload of people including one of the biggest highest profile accountants in delloitte. Surely they would notice if something was amiss? Or are they in on it as well as the sponsers and many of our staff? Just seems a bit unlikely too me. Its obviously not as black and white as that but it's crazy that we could "deceive" that many people over so many years. That's my logic anyway :-)

It just seems like organisations are acting on some leaked/hacked and possibly doctored emails and constant pressure from some of the PL teams??

 

[M18CTID]

Apparently City should release their “irrefutable evidence” to this random whopper. Seriously, the levels of fuckwittery amongst some people is off the scale. Naturally, I responded in my usual calm and composed way when dealing with these cunts!

 

[adr2.8i]

Apparently City should release their “irrefutable evidence” to this random whopper. Seriously, the levels of fuckwittery amongst some people is off the scale. Naturally, I responded in my usual calm and composed way when dealing with these cunts!

May I commend you on your shakespherian use of the English language my good man.

 

[nmc]

Mate no one's listening. It'd be like Christine Keeler's "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?".

City's best recourse is just to do what we do & leave them to gossip & accuse. We shouldn't even credit these planks with a response.

One lesson I learned in life years ago is never try to justify yourself until the appointed time. Most involved in football believe we're cheats. They've no real idea why, but that doesn't matter anyway.

It gives the likes of ManUre, Dippers, Arseholes, Spuds & Chelsea someone to blame if they fail to reach the Champions League or win any trophies.

We're just the boogie man they need to blame for their perceived failures...

I think it was Mandy Rice Davies who said of Lord Astor denying he’d ever met her, let alone slept with her - “he would say that wouldn’t he….”.

City have a very competent legal team who will have advised the club not to comment beyond anything agreed with them. City will keep things water tight and let this play out but I do think our legal eagles will go big on us being singled out and unfairly targeted. We are clearly confident of our position but that won’t stop us attacking a clearly flawed process. the PL might think they can target us but any rules applied to us MUST be applied to all other clubs equally and that will be the PLs weakness. We could in effect threaten to take everyone else down with us.

 

[Hoghead]

general freedom

That's rather vague.

 

[nmc]

Andy Jacobs, talksport and Chelsea mardarse, said today that these 115 charges will be dropped because our owners are bigger than anybody out there and have more money and can blow the Premier League out the water.

Sounded like he was going to cry.

He is right though. This is a bunch of jealous self righteous tosspots so full of their own self importance that they have no idea who they are dealing with.

 

[bavarian blue]

Talking about it on 5 live now .

 

[nmc]

One 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.

Didn’t the CAS / UEFA case have Ernst and Young look at our sponsorships and they were all fair value and no issues were identified. Although of course E&Y are no match for the financial colossus Simon Jordan of course.