PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

homerdog said:
Martin Samuel article in the Sunday Times today, it's pretty obvious what he thinks of Richard Masters and his co-conspirators at the PL:


What we are being asked to concede is that... Manchester City’s move from punchline to headline bringing with it some of the greatest football and footballers we have seen, plus the greatest manager, was without merit. The very thing that made the Premier League the best is being redrawn as its biggest failing.
Click to expand...

An excellent piece but I can only give 9.5 out of 10. Next to the piece about Italy qualifying for the Euros, he almost says that the decision not to award a penalty to Ukraine (which may have stopped Italy's qualification) was corrupt.
He should have followed this by saying a similar thing happened in the dipper game that would have made it 2-0 to City.
Actually on second thoughts it is a 10/10 bravo.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, and he’s made it clear, that’s he’s commented in a private capacity, but the notion he can divorce that from his political standing and influence, is utterly preposterous.
Click to expand...
When you have a job like his he can’t play the private capacity card. He takes the money that goes with the job so should keep his fucking trap shut if it doesn’t directly relate to his job
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not sure saying someone has displaced poor judgement is akin to being ‘upset’.
Click to expand...

Not saying it was you, just some of the comments on the thread felt like people where upset (and I appreciate it is a frustrating subject for us fans, especially at the moment).

FWIW I think his judgment has been fine, but respect others views.

However, I would imagine if he mentioned City there would be some people complaining why he is lumping us in with Everton when the cases are so different.
 
meltonblue said:
I’ve seen this a few times, just to be clear on CAS, it wasn’t because there was no evidence as such, as the emails were evidence. They judged that Uefa hadn’t satisfied the burden of proof as there was no evidence that any of the arrangements discussed in the emails were actually fulfilled.

I’ve always assumed the PL must have something else though and are going after the related party issue more, which wasn’t part of the CAS judgment. If they’re still only reliant on emails though, I don’t get how they can reach a different conclusion to what CAS did though.
Click to expand...

When CAS considered the emails there was no evidence of wrong doing ;)
 
Sad that the majority of clubs up and down the land and there supporters simply couldnt give a shite but sadly the PL pander down to few clubs whose only way of beating City is off the pitch.

Honestly i really hope you win now because it would be a fooking tragedy to all them clubs who are praying you lose so they can become relevant again
 
KS55 said:
If they are majoring on related parties, they have a huge obstacle to overcome. It is City’s view that we do not have any related party transactions and our accounts do not record any. Related party transactions are defined in IAS24. We had some toing and froing with UEFA on the interpretation of the provision but, in the end, UEFA have treated our view as acceptable. British authorities have never raised the issue with us or our auditors as far as I know.
Indeed the PL has introduced the doubtful concept of ‘associated’ transactions specifically aimed at City. Are they trying to retrospectively apply their new rule?
Click to expand...

I don’t think so, I’m assuming they’re challenging our view on who we consider related parties. I agree with what you’re saying about the challenges they’ll have with that.
 
KS55 said:
If they are majoring on related parties, they have a huge obstacle to overcome. It is City’s view that we do not have any related party transactions and our accounts do not record any. Related party transactions are defined in IAS24. We had some toing and froing with UEFA on the interpretation of the provision but, in the end, UEFA have treated our view as acceptable. British authorities have never raised the issue with us or our auditors as far as I know.
Indeed the PL has introduced the doubtful concept of ‘associated’ transactions specifically aimed at City. Are they trying to retrospectively apply their new rule?
Click to expand...
And the irony of us telling UEFA that we don't believe Etihad are a related party is that if they were then it wouldn't have mattered IF Mansour had funded part of the sponsorship deal! Not that he did of course
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.