PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Alan Harper's Tash]

When can we expect any sort of a decision

No-one really knows. It could be tomorrow, or it could be 2030.

 

[Gordyola]

The only way Harris can make money is off these digs at City. Nobody is giving him work in good faith as they know he’s bonkers.

An average tweet of his writing nonsense about City might get say 5000 impressions on Twitter. Once some weirdo reposts it on here it jumps to 50,000 impressions.

He then goes to the Mail on Sunday with his 50,000 impressions about City and if the KAM is low on their monthly targets they give him an article to bump up their numbers off City fans. He gets £500 if he’s lucky, The Mail make £5k and none of it possible if weirdos would just stop reposting his shite.

So why does he block so many, there is no logic as that reduces his interaction

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Its fairly simple to see how Harris operates - his tweets about anything about except City are basically ignored. Normally gathering between 10 and 30 likes from his 150k followers.

When he tweets his regurgitated weekly snide City thread ( normally around midnight on a Friday or Saturday ) he gets 10 x his normal interactions.

That’s why he does it - to keep himself relevant.

Meanwhile back in the real world he has an article in the Mail today about watching the new TNT coverage of the Arsenal game. That’s his level these days ! Being tossed scraps which could and should be written by an intern for free.

He’s an absolute embarrassment

 

[Brendan110_0]

When can we expect any sort of a decision

When Manchester City stop “dragging it out” apparently. Even that’s our fault, though we have virtually no control over proceedings.

 

[balotellishaircut]

When can we expect any sort of a decision

That Masters reckons sometime this year

 

[cheekybids]

So why does he block so many, there is no logic as that reduces his interaction

I can only assume it’s to stop the truth being communicated on his timeline.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This thread is mad. 25,000+ posts on pretty much no information.

The charges probably galvanised us to win the treble.

We've seen a list of the charges and Stefan and Colin have done their best to spell out what they believe they relate to, without certainty as no information is in the public eye.

Even when the panel meets, we will not have any information until a decision is made.

Will it make 100,000 posts before a decision is made?

This is a great thread. In fact, if you have a moment, it's a huge rollercoaster of a thread in four hundred sizzling chapters.

SB and CS and many others have managed to calm down the debate from the blind panic of the first hundred pages to a generally well-informed debate on the issues. I would say that this thread makes City fans as informed as possible about what is going on from the little we know. Certainly better informed than most other people who comment on it.

If it takes 100,000 posts to keep us calm and informed on what is, after all, a critical issue, I say bring them on.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I’ve read it. The two posters calmed peoples’ nerves months ago. Nothing new has happened. The rest is people reacting to posts on Twitter (X) that have no new information in them.

Ad nauseam.

It’d be far better to have Stefan and Colin’s detailed and succinct analysis of the situation stickied to the top of every page. Nothing else of note has happened since then.

Edit: I shouldn’t really have responded to you as you probably meant something completely different to what your words suggest. I won’t be responding further.

Apologies to the board.

Funnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.

He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.

We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.

To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.

The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Re the Chelsea theory PB, Banks and Insurance companies were factoring in regulatory fines back in the day, knowing their sales practices and products were dodgy. I assume it still goes on.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Funnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.

He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.

We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.

To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.

The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.

Ah, you saw my post before my edit. I changed it as I didn’t want a to and fro with the other poster. Might as well reply to you now though!

The other fundamental difference is that Chelsea don't seem to care in breaching the regulations, whereas we seem to care vehemently and want to clear our name.

Ultimately, though, Chelsea’s FFP issues don’t change where we’ve been since February.

There are a lot of suppositions in what is in our accounts and how reports meld to the charges laid out. You and Stefan have done sterling work in making it as clear as you have done, but we don’t know what evidence that the PL/independent panel actually have, so its mostly going to be a waiting game until a decision is made.