I think we all need to relax here. Sounds like Everton admitted guilt - that's why they got turned over (very harshly) so quickly. As stated many times, our case will take years and years - our lawyers will make sure of that. Plus we have stated our innocence time and time again. By the time anything comes of this, the government will have their people in place running the show. There's no way they will allow such a cash cow to them - such as our owner - to be accused of being a criminal, especially when he isn't. There's a reason our owners and lawyer met with the government recently. We soon will be the ones with all the power instead of these money grabbing, power crazy tits in charge of the 'royalty' clubs. Lets see how they like it
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
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
City’s offences are in the main pre PL FFP and none after the changes that made it into P&S Everton are guilty as sin they claim they lost title sponsorship of a stadium that hadn’t been built a value that was far in excess of my other similar They were being funded by Usmanov disguised as his puppet Moshiri, the training ground were sponsored to the tune of $15m the first team sleeve sponsor and women’s team sponsored by another of his companies They were like a lottery winner who suddenly had lot all their money It was all owner investment disguised as sponsorshipEverton Football Club is both shocked and disappointed by the ruling of the Premier League’s Commission.
The Club believes that the Commission has imposed a wholly disproportionate and unjust sporting sanction. The Club has already communicated its intention to appeal the decision to the Premier League. The appeal process will now commence and the Club’s case will be heard by an Appeal Board appointed pursuant to the Premier League’s rules in due course.
Everton maintains that it has been open and transparent in the information it has provided to the Premier League and that it has always respected the integrity of the process. The Club does not recognise the finding that it failed to act with the utmost good faith and it does not understand this to have been an allegation made by the Premier League during the course of proceedings. Both the harshness and severity of the sanction imposed by the Commission are neither a fair nor a reasonable reflection of the evidence submitted.
The Club will also monitor with great interest the decisions made in any other cases concerning the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules.
Everton cannot comment on this matter any further until the appeal process has concluded.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
I some what doubt that, he is too busy meeting presidents PMs and the like, the minions will be doing thatKhaldoon must be on zoom meeting with the lawyers all day and all night.
Last edited:
Kazzydeyna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 3,010
Reading this thread these last few days has shown that this forum has a number of Liverpool and United fans mascarading as blues. And they’re in here deliberately attempting to wind blues up.
Im a huge free speech advocate normally, except where the club I love are concerned, so I am asking the mod team to please comb through the last 100 pages or so and issue some forum bans.
Please.
Oppostikn fans can wind us up on any thread they like except this one. This one is dealing with an existential threat to the club and we shouldn’t be allowing barely concealed gloating and deliberate inflammatory posting, especially when disguised as coming from City fans, often in the style of “IF we are guilty then does that mean…etc etc”.
Get rid of them please mods, this is a very emotive and important thread.
Im a huge free speech advocate normally, except where the club I love are concerned, so I am asking the mod team to please comb through the last 100 pages or so and issue some forum bans.
Please.
Oppostikn fans can wind us up on any thread they like except this one. This one is dealing with an existential threat to the club and we shouldn’t be allowing barely concealed gloating and deliberate inflammatory posting, especially when disguised as coming from City fans, often in the style of “IF we are guilty then does that mean…etc etc”.
Get rid of them please mods, this is a very emotive and important thread.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
City refused the requests as they deemed the information, company confidential and didn’t want it getting into the hands of rivals. They went to the High Court for an injunction which, was refused, at the time none of this was in the public realm, the judge decided the decision should be made public, which City supported by the PL appealed which was dismissed. City then cooperated and sent the information. I’m guessing but, I’m sure they have absolutely bombarded the PL with 1000s of documentsFailing to cooperate is also something that has to be proved though. Both parties may have different expectations on cooperation.
The Premier League may have asked information that City felt was private and none of their business. Again the burden of proof is with the Premier League on that one too.
30 of the charges are in relation to cooperation. I imagine a breach of cooperation is merely a fine anyway.
Last edited:
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
They are his long standing friends Some of the charges are before Soriano was I placeI would bet my bottom dollar they have not lied to Pep.
The Stockport Iniesta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 9,815
It's down to us blues to report them, something I haven't done but will from now on.Reading this thread these last few days has shown that this forum has a number of Liverpool and United fans mascarading as blues. And they’re in here deliberately attempting to wind blues up.
Im a huge free speech advocate normally, except where the club I love are concerned, so I am asking the mod team to please comb through the last 100 pages or so and issue some forum bans.
Please.
Oppostikn fans can wind us up on any thread they like except this one. This one is dealing with an existential threat to the club and we shouldn’t be allowing barely concealed gloating and deliberate inflammatory posting, especially when disguised as coming from City fans, often in the style of “IF we are guilty then does that mean…etc etc”.
Get rid of them please mods, this is a very emotive and important thread.
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,517
City’s offences are in the main pre PL FFP and none after the changes that made it into P&S Everton are guilty as sin they claim they lost title sponsorship of a stadium that hadn’t been built a value that was far in excess of my other similar They were being funded by Usmanov disguised as his puppet Moshiri, the training ground were sponsored to the tune of $15m the first team sleeve sponsor and women’s team sponsored by another of his companies They were like a lottery winner who suddenly had lot all their money It was all owner investment disguised as sponsorship
Some of the charges concern P&S apparently. Remarkably how profitable and sustainable City are after breaching rules designed to protect them
In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.
Scaring Europe to Death
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 4,213
26,000 loyalty points, but dare I suggest that rather than hide behind the bland "we'll come good in the end" City and Khaldoon could have handled this on the front foot?Reading this thread these last few days has shown that this forum has a number of Liverpool and United fans mascarading as blues. And they’re in here deliberately attempting to wind blues up.
Im a huge free speech advocate normally, except where the club I love are concerned, so I am asking the mod team to please comb through the last 100 pages or so and issue some forum bans.
Please.
Oppostikn fans can wind us up on any thread they like except this one. This one is dealing with an existential threat to the club and we shouldn’t be allowing barely concealed gloating and deliberate inflammatory posting, especially when disguised as coming from City fans, often in the style of “IF we are guilty then does that mean…etc etc”.
Get rid of them please mods, this is a very emotive and important thread.
Following on from the post from @acton28.blog detailing the charges, I've tried to summarise them below.
Some of these charges are quite ridiculous, and their inclusion can only be for the effect of making City look bad. They are deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive. Let’s have a look at them in more detail.
9 charges (2009/10 to 2017/18) that “In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.” I can’t think of anything specific we might have done relating to this, so the PL must be saying that by breaking the other rules, we have not acted in good faith to them or other clubs.
Funny that they didn’t charge Liverpool under this rule, when they found out they had hacked in to our scouting databases in 2013. The PL said in response to their decision not to take action against Liverpool, “This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.” So, the age of the alleged concerns applies in one case but not the other?
Also, nine Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs and Wolves) wrote to CAS asking them not to lift Manchester City's European ban. This seems to me very much like acting in bad faith towards another PL club, and a breach of the same rule. But none of them were charged.
40 charges under different rules in each season from 2009/10 to 2017/18, but essentially are:
- Company accounts to be registered with Companies House and the PL by 1 March.
- Submission of interim accounts to the League, if annual accounts end before 30 November in current season.
- UEFA applicant clubs to provide to Premier League upon request, future financial information including P&L and cash flow.
- Requirement to notify PL of changes in circumstances that might affect finances.
1 charge in 2009/10 relating to ticket sales to visiting clubs. Quite what they suspect us of doing, and why it has taken so long to come to light, and why it doesn’t fall within the Liverpool “age of the alleged concerns” precedent, I can only speculate on. My guess is it’s a witch hunt. I wonder how many other clubs have been investigated for ticketing irregularities back in 2009.
8 charges between 2009/10 and 2012/13 relating to manager remuneration - the Mancini contract allegations?
12 charges between 2010/11 and 2015/16 relating to player remuneration. Could this be the image rights issue?
5 charges of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, in the years from 2013/14 to 2017/18. In failing UEFA FFP, United broke this same rule recently, but they haven’t been charged by the PL yet.
25 cases of failing Profitability and Sustainability rules, from 2015/16 to 2017/18. I would say from a layman’s POV, this is really one rule, split out into nine separate clauses (eight in two of the years). But rather than saying we have allegedly broken Profitability and Sustainability rules in three seasons, it looks better for them to count it as 25. (Acting in good faith towards a member club?)
30 accusations amounting to failure to cooperate in respect of seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23, citing six rules in each season.
I’ve checked my figures over a few times using https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970 as a reference. It looks a lot like 130 charges to me, so I suppose the PL have generously rounded it down, or they can’t count.
Some of these charges are quite ridiculous, and their inclusion can only be for the effect of making City look bad. They are deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive. Let’s have a look at them in more detail.
9 charges (2009/10 to 2017/18) that “In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.” I can’t think of anything specific we might have done relating to this, so the PL must be saying that by breaking the other rules, we have not acted in good faith to them or other clubs.
Funny that they didn’t charge Liverpool under this rule, when they found out they had hacked in to our scouting databases in 2013. The PL said in response to their decision not to take action against Liverpool, “This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.” So, the age of the alleged concerns applies in one case but not the other?
Also, nine Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs and Wolves) wrote to CAS asking them not to lift Manchester City's European ban. This seems to me very much like acting in bad faith towards another PL club, and a breach of the same rule. But none of them were charged.
40 charges under different rules in each season from 2009/10 to 2017/18, but essentially are:
- Company accounts to be registered with Companies House and the PL by 1 March.
- Submission of interim accounts to the League, if annual accounts end before 30 November in current season.
- UEFA applicant clubs to provide to Premier League upon request, future financial information including P&L and cash flow.
- Requirement to notify PL of changes in circumstances that might affect finances.
1 charge in 2009/10 relating to ticket sales to visiting clubs. Quite what they suspect us of doing, and why it has taken so long to come to light, and why it doesn’t fall within the Liverpool “age of the alleged concerns” precedent, I can only speculate on. My guess is it’s a witch hunt. I wonder how many other clubs have been investigated for ticketing irregularities back in 2009.
8 charges between 2009/10 and 2012/13 relating to manager remuneration - the Mancini contract allegations?
12 charges between 2010/11 and 2015/16 relating to player remuneration. Could this be the image rights issue?
5 charges of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, in the years from 2013/14 to 2017/18. In failing UEFA FFP, United broke this same rule recently, but they haven’t been charged by the PL yet.
25 cases of failing Profitability and Sustainability rules, from 2015/16 to 2017/18. I would say from a layman’s POV, this is really one rule, split out into nine separate clauses (eight in two of the years). But rather than saying we have allegedly broken Profitability and Sustainability rules in three seasons, it looks better for them to count it as 25. (Acting in good faith towards a member club?)
30 accusations amounting to failure to cooperate in respect of seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23, citing six rules in each season.
I’ve checked my figures over a few times using https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970 as a reference. It looks a lot like 130 charges to me, so I suppose the PL have generously rounded it down, or they can’t count.