PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

Partly. No there aren't 3, there are 5. But that's semantics, my point is broader than that.

'Issues', is a good word. I've read your posts, and I totally get your logic, and you have been careful with your language.

However it has somehow created a bit of false impression, that other posters have run away with a bit. And that's what I am really responding to.

In that a number claim there are only 3 charges, and 112 either don't matter, have been dismissed, are irrelevant, or whatever other version of taking that away.

There are 5 'groups' of charges, or issues, sure. But there are still multiple charges. If we are found guilty of any one of those groups, whatever number is in it will be the scale of the verdict, and will be shouted feom the roofrops. Likewise, clearing a group clears a whole bunch, and the scale should be noted.

The group/issue with the non-cooperation is probably the most subjective one.

I see your point. It's definitely not a case of there being only 3 real charges and 112 we can safely ignore. That is definitely the sort of view that some have been propagating without genuinely understanding the background.

There are five groups of charges and the first of those relates to inaccurate accounts due to sponsorships. Another to payments to players and managers.

We're not totally clear on the sponsorships one but there's no mileage in attacking the Etihad one; we'd knock that right out of the park easily enough. There's a good chance it's the Etisalat one in the early years of the current ownership, and which predates both UEFA and the PL's own FFP rules.

Those are the three but there are, as you say, two others. But they relate to both the PL and UEFA FFP rules, which rely on the submission of accounts. If the charges related to the three substantive issues charges are dismissed by the panel, then those other two automatically have to be dismissed as they're solely a consequence of the other three.

And of course there is the non-cooperation charge, which is the one most likely to stick but has no impact on the accounting ones.

 

[CC1]

Which pretty well sums up most of the media (both) and red-shirt fans (just thick).

But seriously, that full post is spot on. Everton, despite working with the PL, refused to curtail their spending, breached an already generous limit, then advanced some incredibly specious arguments in an attempt at mitigation.

The penalty is excessive I think, and a transfer ban in reaction to overspending would have been more appropriate under the circumstances, but no one seems to have thought of that. It was a points deduction or a fine.

I'd say a maximum 6-point deduction and a 2 year transfer ban, plus an agreed plan to get their finances under control, would have been the appropriate penalty. What the panel have done is the equivalent of sending someone to prison for 6 months after getting 12 points on their driving licence. It's worrying that the panel so easily acceded to the PL's demand for that deduction. And we know what the PL were doing in requesting that.

Exactly. That’s why many on here are worried

 

[give it to gordon]

I’d rather win because we’re innocent- not because of threats to the government by our owners

So would I




But I couldn't careless, the other clubs, UEFA, pl havent played by the rules, just hacked cut n paste emails. So fuck em

 

[lonestay]

This talk of fraudulent accounting needs knocking on the head. City are audited by a reputable firm of auditors, not some little cowboy outfit.

The auditors know what damage could be done to their reputation if City were found guilty of certain charges. They are likely to have contributors to City’s defence and may have gone back to double check some of their prior work. I would also expect them to have resigned from their position if they had doubts about City’s honesty etc but they have remained in place.

But thats the whole point no fraudulent accounting has ever been done because we use highly reputable accountants and the fact the inland revenue are happy with our accounts to date , Its only the Prem and the media that think they are fraudulent as they cant see how we have become so big and so successful in a relatively short space of time so it must be dodgy right ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Exactly. That’s why many on here are worried

Quite. It's clearly a message. Whether aimed specifically at us or a general "Look how tough we are" aimed at the government it's hard to say though.

 

[lonestay]

I’d rather win because we’re innocent- not because of threats to the government by our owners

A wins a win

 

[OB1]

What about defamation ?

Not sure. That applies to individuals doesn’t it?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What about defamation ?

I'd prefer defenestration for some of the cunts pushing this and their lickspittles in the media.

 

[Chi-town blues]

Not sure. That applies to individuals doesn’t it?

Not sure either but the idea that anyone can go on a free hit without any consequence is pretty wild and unfair .

 

[Coatigan]

I see your point. It's definitely not a case of there being only 3 real charges and 112 we can safely ignore. That is definitely the sort of view that some have been propagating without genuinely understanding the background.

There are five groups of charges and the first of those relates to inaccurate accounts due to sponsorships. Another to payments to players and managers.

We're not totally clear on the sponsorships one but there's no mileage in attacking the Etihad one; we'd knock that right out of the park easily enough. There's a good chance it's the Etisalat one in the early years of the current ownership, and which predates both UEFA and the PL's own FFP rules.

Those are the three but there are, as you say, two others. But they relate to both the PL and UEFA FFP rules, which rely on the submission of accounts. If the charges related to the three substantive issues charges are dismissed by the panel, then those other two automatically have to be dismissed as they're solely a consequence of the other three.

And of course there is the non-cooperation charge, which is the one most likely to stick but has no impact on the accounting ones.

That's really it, your first paragraph sums it up. It might be more a language than a logic issue, in a lot of cases.

Note it was not your posts I was really arguing, but the subsequent takeaways of it. Albeit with a poster that most likely gets it too, and did at least qualify it to an extent. There have been many others though, and you can bet on the back of that one there will be a few more.

The rest of that, yeah sure, I get and see all that.