PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Colin Bells Boots]

Surely, you can’t be serious about including Spurs in the Sky Six…you mean Sky Five…unless you include the best team in the world, it can’t be six ;)

by including Spurs he was putting all the bitter and jealous cunts into the same bracket.

 

[flb]

I was lucky enough to see Best play in his prime. Definitely, he was one of the best players I’ve ever seen play the game. To suggest otherwise is just silly.

He was no better than Kinkladze. He was just in the right place at the right time

 

[train man]

It's not equity funding because they got the money back. It's short-term financing if it's anything. In effect, selling a receivable at the worst.

As I understand it, Etisalat couldn't pay the amounts because the renewal contract signature was delayed while some issues were ironed out. Until that happened, the parties were working under an MOU. Services were performed under the MOU and Etisalat's liability under the MOU recorded. Invoices were issued.

I imagine the club had budgeted the cash from the renewed contract and needed it to meet payments. So, until Etisalat could pay under a signed contract, ADUG advanced the money. When the contract was signed, Etisalat paid the sponsorship money to ADUG. In fact, when the contract was signed, it stipulated that money should be paid to ADUG.

There are some questions around all this, I only have the information from CAS, but in my opinion, it is in no way equity funding.

Did any money actually have to move until the sponsor was ready to settle?
If we had invoiced Etisalat and booked a receivable, and they accrued an equivalent payable, why would that not be a normal practice to correctly reflect books at each end, and remove what is now perceived as this cloak & dagger 'payment' that the media is stoking everyone up to get excited about (again!).

 

[dadnlad]

What permantly pisses me off is the very one-sided coverage this gets and the farce of it all.

Whatever City are or are not guilty of; all our owner has ultimately done is invest in his club for success.

Has anyone added up what the sums invovled in the alleged breaches amounts to and compared it to what has been invested overall and where City's turnover stands now?

I expect the amounts are not particulalry significant through that window. And why does the media not question more what right / expertise the football authorities have to set limits on investment. What is a fair amount? Haven't city proved beyond question that their investment has been finacially sound?

City don't lead the pack just because of significant investment, they do so because they are so well managed.

IF City did bend the rules, other complain it's not fair and it's wrong because they got an advantge others didn't because they stuck to the rules but did they really? Have other big clubs activities been looked into cloesly enough?

do as i say not as i do

clear n obvious

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Those der spiegel articles and leaked emails. Once they were out, Uefa reacted by opening their investigation. As soon as they did, the PL opened their own investigation as well.

I honestly thought once CAS closed that episode, the PL would follow suit and use that. It would have been quite easy for them to close it out and claim, consistent with the CAS findings, they conclude the same.

But they didn't, they took another 2.5 years, investigating books right back to 2009 before even uefa's ffp came about. Which is why I don't buy this they are only doung it to appease pressure. I'm sure there IS pressure, and they are trying to appease it. But if that was all, they could have fallen in line with the CAS findings and closed it and still been able to say they tried.

Re doing it in reverse as you mention, I don't think pressure alone is enough. There has to be a big enough public thing to make them have to be seen to act. I.e You can't just request they look into a club for a laugh. Unfortunately, ours was thatnder spiegel leaks which clained to have actual evidence of wrongdoing and put it out in public.

Nobody is putting pressure on them. The red shirts are in charge at the PL and it they who want to screw us and hence the reason this is carrying on. The PL needs a totally independent body to run it and not one run by the clubs.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If any of you sewer dwellers bothered to read the charges you would know it’s 131 separate offences we are charged with. Research & read before swallowing cesspit click bait bollocks unfortunately needs to be a life skill these days.

It's actually 5 offences, or 6 if you treat the Mancini and image rights payments as separate incidents.

 

[Gingers Dad]

Everton a being done over for recording losses of £371 million. The didn’t just fail financial fair play they exploded it and this is nearly a decade after the rules were introduced, not for the period before FFP and the very early years of it when clubs were looking at how to interpret them. Where is the clamour to have them relegated to the national league and branding them cheats?

Everton don't win anything

 

[Xhavenjoe]

He was no better than Kinkladze. He was just in the right place at the right time

George Best was better than Kinkladze.
I saw both of them play on several occasions.

 

[give it to gordon]

No one is saying 115 charges equates to 115 rule breaches. The media refer to 115 charges so not unreasonable to use that number. I’m unaware of a betting scandal in 1915. Can you enlighten me?

 

[hello]

It's actually 5 offences, or 6 if you treat the Mancini and image rights payments as separate incidents.

Absolutely but found it curious as to why the media went with 115 & not 131. They used per breach per rule for most to get 115 but then pooled a few together over multiple seasons. It’s like a Diane Abbott maths student listed them incorrectly as 115 and the rest of the media were too lazy to work it out themselves and just copied and bleated “115”