PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Decepticon]

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!

That response was the equivalent of this.

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

The kind of disservice being done to english champions and arguably the most aesthetically pleasing team in history of English football is depressing and hilarious at the same time.

Being charged isn't the same as being guilty but they've created a presumption of guilt to hide behind as some sort of solace for their teams not being able to catch city. I wonder who'd they'd blame when we're cleared.

They say sponsorship deals were inflated but in the long run it was a wonderful business decision as sponsors ended up sponsoring the best team in the planet right now, secondly every business have a right to value itself according to it's own assessment, a third party cannot question that and even if they did they can't prove that

 

[M18CTID]

I think the belief is that Everton are outside acceptable losses even allowing for covid allowance.
Everton will doubtless have claims as to why it's acceptable.

If that's true then it's still only a first offence, and should be treated as such, ie: with a predominantly financial penalty rather than a harsher one such as a points deduction that could see them relegated. Similar to us in 2014 with UEFA when we got that fine (with some deferred), a reduction in our CL squad size, and an agreement that we don't increase some of our 2nd tier sponsorship deals over a certain length of time.

 

[nellyonthewing]

I was watching again that great film Ford v Ferrari .
It’s so similar to the witch-hunt City face with the sports regulator in the back pocket of the legacy contestant ably assisted by the media.

 

[cheekybids]

They say we can’t possibly have a better commercial income than the Rags…..

We have a better playing team & judging by their leaking roof we have a far better facilities team so what makes them think their commercial team would be better than ours. They believed the hype, the empire will last forever but they got fat, lazy & taken over by the hungry, ambitious, élite professionals.

Instead of looking at what they are doing, they were convinced we’ve cheated. A gifted CEO would have seen that & rose to the challenge but instead they tried to “cheat” & lobby for us to be destroyed. City have continued to move forward by the time we are proved innocent they’ll be behind more than just us.

 

[toffee balls]

They say we can’t possibly have a better commercial income than the Rags…..

We have a better playing team & judging by their leaking roof we have a far better facilities team so what makes them think their commercial team would be better than ours. They believed the hype, the empire will last forever but they got fat, lazy & taken over by the hungry, ambitious, élite professionals.

Instead of looking at what they are doing, they were convinced we’ve cheated. A gifted CEO would have seen that & rose to the challenge but instead they tried to “cheat” & lobby for us to be destroyed. City have continued to move forward by the time we are proved innocent they’ll be behind more than just us.

So true.

 

[KS55]

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.

…….Completely subjective….AND NOT LEGAL. The PL has introduced the idea of “associated” sponsors because they know our sponsorships are not related under IAS24. But they cannot unilaterally decide that sponsorships from the country of a main owner are associated per se unless there is something else of substance. Otherwise, such action would fail in the courts either as interference with a legal contract or anti- competitive.
Note also American sponsorship of the redshirts might come back to bite the plotters . What price the (US) Marine Diesel sponsorship of the rag’s canal fleet then?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If that's true then it's still only a first offence, and should be treated as such, ie: with a predominantly financial penalty rather than a harsher one such as a points deduction that could see them relegated. Similar to us in 2014 with UEFA when we got that fine (with some deferred), a reduction in our CL squad size, and an agreement that we don't increase some of our 2nd tier sponsorship deals over a certain length of time.

Yes, I'd imagine it would be a fine, and maybe a suspended points deduction if the numbers are very bad - I don't know if it would appear this season.

 

[KS55]

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’s not wrong. Khaldoon will spend millions on legal fees, he said. BOOM.

 

[LEXSTARproject]

Last night Monday Night Football