Centurions
Well-Known Member
Ahh, yes I misread that and presumed it was asked after the punishment came out, but the wanting to sit in on it would make no sense after the fact.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Dribble
Well-Known Member
It's understandable I suppose. Nothing's certain either way, so in City's management we must place our trust.The vast majority of this thread and posters on it are unduly pooing themselves, mate.
They've rarely let us down so far...
WestGorton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 11,603
The moment we bought Robinho they decided to try and stop us. It hasn't worked so far and hopefully good will prevail over evil again.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
In March 2013 we were £3m inside FFP when we presented our interim accounts.This would be very interesting to know, when we initially failed Uefa's FFP regulations we were hit with a £50 million fine, squad reductions and our books open for investigation.
As far as I recall we thought we were within FFP using Uefa's own tool kit before they moved the goal posts.
Without having the figures to hand lets say we failed by £100 million, in that case we were fined 50% if the overspend, by the same logic the Rags would have overspent by £500k, would they really go through the process over a £500k Overspend? Very doubtful.
Something stinks.
We submitted our verified accounts 4 weeks later, but unbeknownst to us UEFA had shifted the monitoring period back by 12 months, to include the wages of Carlos Tevez. We went from £3m under the FFP limit to £3m over & were fined £50m.
We then had a £50m per season transfer limit placed on us, & our CL squad was reduced from 24 to 20, to include the full complement of 8 Association/Club trained kids.
Bent bastards!
Last edited:
abu13
Well-Known Member
Absolutely key, this balance of probability may well work in our favour. If the evidence against us is at best circumstantial but we have audited accounts, statements under oath from high ranking officials then on this basis the balance of probabilty falls on our side.We have ten or more years of audited accounts plus other evidence such as a sworn statement under oath by the CEO of Etisalat. Even on the balance of probabilities, that requires the PL to have some pretty powerful evidence of false accounting. They haven’t got it.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
gills finger prints all over itWe were £3m inside FFP when we presented our interim accounts.
We submitted our verified accounts 4 weeks later, but unbeknownst to us UEFA had shifted the monitoring period back by 12 months, to include the wages of Carlos Tevez.
We went from £3m under FFP to £3m over, were fined £50m.
We then had a £50m per season transfer limit placed on us, & our CL squad was reduced from 24 to 20, to include the full complement of 8 Association/Club trained kids.
Bastards!
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,528
Charge #1 appears to involve breaching rule B.13 in season 2009/2010.
Why was this charge not brought by the Premier League in 2010? Have they been investigating it for 13 years? Or did they only realise in 2018 following publication of hacked emails in Der Spiegel? They've only been investigating it for 5 years then?
It's absolutely mental and completely surreal.
Why was this charge not brought by the Premier League in 2010? Have they been investigating it for 13 years? Or did they only realise in 2018 following publication of hacked emails in Der Spiegel? They've only been investigating it for 5 years then?
It's absolutely mental and completely surreal.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Agreed, but all PL clubs agree to these rules to play in the league. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯Fair enough.
Doesn't seem right to me that an appeal panel verdict cannot be challenged if it is considered to be unlawful ( not the same as disagreeing with it).
But if that's the case so be it.
nellyonthewing
Well-Known Member
Surely the legal eagles at City must have an argument ready to launch that the EPL are damaging the clubs reputation and business with these false claims . Massive damages against the EPL would be a bonus..
That may be the reason for the 'hateful 8' letterThats the point I was making, the 5 clubs made their complaints before the IC hearing on EFC. It appears there is a process that has to be followed. Clubs seeking compensation need to establish the right to pursue before hand. The ruling was kept in house by the PL until yesterday. Presumably if EFC were exonerated it would have been buried.