PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[nmc]

On balance I think we need Burnham in our corner and he does seem to have the PL on the run re this sanctions policy. Far from using Everton to demonstrate that an Independent Regulator wasn’t required the PL have once again made an overwhelming case for its introduction! Master’s does not look a smart operator.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I understand that but it doesn’t answer that he could challenge the narrative. Martin Samuel has done it.

Maybe so, but he didn’t comment on Everton until after the verdict had been announced.

Samuel, correctly, goes after FFP as a concept, rather than comment on our case in any detail, as he, like us, has very little to go on.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

If I remember correctly the PL's rules - now known as Profitability and Sustainability Regulations - were proposed by Manchester United and only accepted because already relegated Reading chose to abstain. The rules do not see debt as a threat to sustainability but instead see owner investment as the major threat. It was not difficult to see why a particular club proposed them and others supported them, one of which, I believe, was Everton! It is not open to doubt that Everton has broken the regulations they voted for because they spent more than they had coming in from "legitimate" revenue streams! They cannot, therefore, complain when some sanctions are imposed. The PL, though, have behaved with their customary incompetent bias. There are obvious doubts about the independence of a commission of inquiry that includes the lawyer of a club which may sue Everton for damages after their own relegation and the finance director of another PL rival, involved in a relegation battle last season and possibly this. The sanctions imposed were also worryingly close to those demanded by the PL and the statement issued to justify these sanctions - that their wealthy owners could simply pay any fine - appears to show that sustainability was not part of the reasoning which led to the introduction of these rules. As we can see, the real justification was to limit spending to those revenue streams dominated by certain clubs, of which Manchester United were at that time the most obvious. Everton are paying a ridiculously high price to allow the Glazers et al to sleep at night.

City's case is different. It is obvious that we have not "overspent" but have always operated within the rules. We must simply show that our accounts are a true and full picture and that there has been no enormous, eleven year long conspiracy. CAS were convinced by the club's evidence and City were exonerated, not because there was just not enough evidence, but because there was NO evidence. The question of recordings of PL officials not wishing City to win another title are irrelevant to the charges and will only be relevant to any change in PL governance if it can be shown that improper means to prevent our winning the title again are/were used.

 

[meltonblue]

Poor judgement by Burnham, given where his professional duties lie, and his silence (I think) on the subject of City, the 115 charges, and the benefit the club brings to the area within which he is elected.

I don’t think so, ultimately what the owners have done for Manchester is irrelevant to the charges. If he were to talk about it, that really would be political interference.

I’d expect him to say something post the judgment if he has an issue with it, like he has done with Everton.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Would you advocate elected people commenting on live cases?

I believe there’s no lawful reason he can’t, as long as he doesn’t descend into defamation. It’s a civil action, not a criminal trial. They aren’t even any ongoing court proceedings. Moreover, commenting on the benefit the club brings to his electoral area is extraneous to the charges. No reason he couldn’t make that point in a way that didn’t expressly reference the charges, but impliedly did.

However, my point was more aimed at the fact he publicly commented on Everton (in a private capacity). Given he hasn’t commented on City, then commenting on Everton at all is questionable, given where his particular duties as an elected politician lie, and what interests he has been elected to advance.

It would be akin to the MP for a constituency with a car factory in it writing to the Secretary of State expressing about the closure of a car factory in another constituency because he drove that car.

Like I said, poor judgement at the very least.

 

[Ric]

Poor judgement by Burnham, given where his professional duties lie, and his silence (I think) on the subject of City, the 115 charges, and the benefit the club brings to the area within which he is elected.

He did say he would support City too "if and when the time comes" tbf.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

The big picture is always relevant.

Look forward to a new broom in the Torygraph sports department

 

[cheekybids]

Maybe so, but he didn’t comment on Everton until after the verdict had been announced.

Samuel, correctly, goes after FFP as a concept, rather than comment on our case in any detail, as he, like us, has very little to go on.

He’s not prejudicing anything as he’s only the Mayor of Manchester. However, he’s trying to influence & I find it startling that everyone calls out City when complaining about Everton unless they are questioning the unjust process. You’d think as a politician he’d think fuck me I should maybe consider my own voters.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don’t think so, ultimately what the owners have done for Manchester is irrelevant to the charges. If he were to talk about it, that really would be political interference.

I’d expect him to say something post the judgment if he has an issue with it, like he has done with Everton.

Maybe you’re right, but it doesn’t change the point I was advancing, namely he shouldn’t have commented on Everton, even in a personal capacity, given where his political duties lie, and the charges against City.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I believe there’s no lawful reason he can’t, as long as he doesn’t descend into defamation. It’s a civil action, not a criminal trial. They aren’t even any ongoing court proceedings. Moreover, commenting on the benefit the club brings to his electoral area is extraneous to the charges. No reason he couldn’t make that point in a way that didn’t expressly reference the charges, but impliedly did.

However, my point was more aimed at the fact he publicly commented on Everton (in a private capacity). Given he hasn’t commented on City, then commenting on Everton at all is questionable, given where his particular duties as an elected politician lie, and what interests he has been elected to advance.

It would be akin to the MP for a constituency with a car factory in it writing to the Secretary of State expressing about the closure of a car factory in another constituency because he drove that car.

Like I said, poor judgement at the very least.

Fair enough. I disagree. He has commented on our owner’s benefits to GMR in the past. The region, not the radio station.

He, like all of us, don’t have the information to comment with authority on our case, so why would he?

He didn’t comment on Everton until their case had been heard and is doing the same with us.

I’m not particularly his biggest fan, but whether he says anything or not is pretty moot in the grand scheme of things, barring maybe we, as City fans, being able to say “Well fucking said” to our mayor.