PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[blue b4 the moon]

PL meeting on Tuesday about voting of the new anti-Newcastle loan rules will be fun.
really wonder the ration of the votes, if it will be close to not passing (I guess need 14 votes to pass) or actually it will be something like 19-1 or 18-2 maybe.

this would be the chance of starting a little group, the likes of Castle, Chelsea, Everton, City but hard to see who else would want to join and Chelsea, Everton can be two faced fuckers too.
Wolves also had FFP issues in the past, they also had to sell a lot this summer not to fail again.

Trouble is if teams jump on the toon side of the line it puts a target on their backs and we all know how the redshirts move within shadows and have zero accountability.

 

[M18CTID]

Its pure speculation and I am not sure anyone outside the club is aware what we have been charged with.

True, but I think that the fact that the charges go back to 2009 is an indication that Mancini’s contract is one of the things that’s being looked at, given that 2009 is the year he was appointed.

What makes me laugh is why haven’t they gone back further to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned the club? Are they trying to say that he was squeaky clean?!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Let’s rebuild Maine road fuck the tourists off and the bald fraud and be everyone’s 2nd favourite team again, what’s Brian Horton up to nowadays

We'll need all the boozers opening up too!!!!

 

[John Wayne]

Looking at the timescales involved, it is almost certain that the independent regulator will be in post before our case is heard. The reasons for the appointment of an independent regulator are because of a widely-held view that football is incapable of governing itself. This was fully endorsed by Tracey Crouch's findings. Football's failings include matters of a disciplinary nature and certain clubs being allowed to vet the appointment of the PL CEO. I attach significant weight to Suzanna Dinnage's comments about certain clubs exercising too much influence, hence her very short-lived tenure as PL CEO. With this in mind, I would fully expect City and any other club with an ongoing disciplinary matter to petition the regulator to have a full re-examination of the facts of their respective cases. I have a growing belief that the charges against City might not even reach an independent commission.

 

[Paladin]

Regarding UEFA, I recall the PL offered up a scenario that it's not the PL clubs who're licenced to UEFA, it's the PL themselves & through that we're licenced to UEFA.

Their take on it is if you breach UEFA's rules, you automatically breach the PL's rules too.

HOWEVER, if you don't qualify for European football, the UEFA facet doesn't apply. Everton didn't qualify, but City did, hence the additional charges.

Essentially if you breach UEFA's FFP & qualify for Europe, you get stiffed twice by both UEFA & the Premier League.

Evidently double jeopardy doesn't apply on Planet Premier League or Planet UEFA. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

That's not correct. Clubs have to apply for their UEFA licence, and there are specific rules in the PL Handbook referring to this. This won't have affected Everton in recent seasons.

There is a specific PL rule that says clubs must comply with UEFA FFP rules, and we have been charged with five instances of breaking that PL rule. This is ironic, because we haven't been proven to have broken their rules (CAS), yet the club that has broken UEFA FFP (United) had not been charged by the PL. The PL has said it is investigating Chelsea though.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thanks for that. Don't answer this if you are busy, I don't want you to waste your time educating me, but isn't the filing of accounts that don't give a true and view due to fraud/ concealment (which, as far as we know, is a number of the charges) a criminal fraud rather than a civil fraud?

The civil and criminal acts of fraud amount to the same thing. They are an intention to dishonestly make a representation in order to make a gain or make someone subject to a loss.

The differences are the court setting, the standard of proof, rules of evidence, the legal person bringing the action and the scope and purpose of the sanction against the offending party.

Edit: intention to make a dishonest representation is possibly tautological!

 

[Gingers Dad]

It's all a load of bollocks anyway. FFP.

People acting like City have paid off refs for decisions. City are literally being punished for their owners spending money to try and better them, whilst United owners are being leeches. FFP is a load of crap.

Same with Everton

 

[M18CTID]

I see the hatchets are out, & freshly sharpened regarding the 115. After a lull for a few months, I expect all the regular outlets will be ramping up their “Yes, But City’s 115” argument ad nauseum.
The 10 point deduction for Everton seems incredibly harsh, & it seems to more of a bully boy tactic & setting a precedent for future actions. We all know they’ve been after City for years, this stinks of sending a message, a footballing horses head in the bed.

I’ve been thinking about the Everton one and to be honest, I don’t think it’s necessarily a precursor for hitting us hard if they find us guilty. It’s my own belief that Everton - like us - are on the receiving end of pressure exerted on the Premier League by rival clubs. In our case, it’s United, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Tottenham. In theirs it’ll be the likes of Burnley, Leicester, and Leeds. They may well have told the PL that if they don’t come down hard on Everton then they’ll take action, not just against Everton but against the PL themselves.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The civil and criminal acts of fraud amount to the same thing. They are an intention to dishonestly make a representation in order to make a gain or make someone subject to a loss.

The differences are the court setting, the standard of proof, rules of evidence, the legal person bringing the action and the scope and purpose of the sanction against the offending party.

Fair enough, thanks. Consider me educated. I have other questions, of course, but enough for one day. :)

 

[Gingers Dad]

I’d draw the line on this penalty:

Was right behind the goal. The ball seemed to be in air for ages for the equaliser. Great celebration but got the shit kicked out of me outside Stanley Park.