PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[blueste41]

I don't know who you are or what you are trying to get at but, if you are genuine, you must know from this thread that there are people who know what they are talking about and people who don't. Pay attention to the first group and ignore the ranting and venting. If you don't, you may as well listen to Talksport.

All the answers to your questions are in the replies in this thread from the right people if you spend the time to look at them.

It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

 

[jamielowndes]

It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

View attachment 100504

Personally speaking, for the reputational damage we've received, as the phrase "115 charges" is basically now synonymous with our name, its pretty terrible that the actual specific charges are not publicly available.

 

[JASR]

the €30 fine was reduced to €10, a fine that was due to the club’s considerable resources

I thought the original 30m fine imposed by UEFA was thrown out completely by CAS.
Ie City were completely exhonerated on all charges brought by UEFA and considered by CAS, and this includes the oft spouted ‘time barred’ bollox - CAS specifically mentioned it was ‘time-barred’ BUT would have exhonerated City on it, in any case.

CAS gave out a new 10m fine for city’s lack of cooperation. (Caused by City not trusting the sieve like biased leaking of confidential proceedings).

It is an important nuance, uefa charges completely thrown out, and CAS imposed a different fine.

Unless I’ve misremembered stuff over the past 3 years… it’s easy to be mislead/misremember with the constant spouting of bollox by media/talking heads/rival fans drowning out actual facts with their half arsed hopes and wishes what it really was.

We’re seeing the same thing play out with the 100 112 ‘115’ spouted out all the time, no other club had their PL charges numbered , it was all ‘xyz was charged with…’, it’s become a lazy trope repeating ‘115’, when hardly anyone of the people saying it knows they are basically 5 specific things x how many years for each of them, and as for the 5 things… geez it’s utter bollox the crap spouted about ‘financial doping on an industrial scale’ - they are hardly earth shattering alledged by amounts compared to the very real facts of being 1b in debt (united) , or having 1b+ in soft loans (Chelsea) wiped out.

Edit: Pointed out that the fine wasn't completely thrown out, it WAS reduced. As mentioned, things get muddied after so many years of bollox

 

[bluemonkey71]

I thought the original 30m fine imposed by UEFA was thrown out completely by CAS.
Ie City were completely exhonerated on all charges brought by UEFA and considered by CAS, and this includes the oft spouted ‘time barred’ bollox - CAS specifically mentioned it was ‘time-barred’ BUT would have exhonerated City on it, in any case.

CAS gave out a new 10m fine for city’s lack of cooperation. (Caused by City not trusting the sieve like biased leaking of confidential proceedings).

It is an important nuance, uefa charges completely thrown out, and CAS imposed a different fine.

Unless I’ve misremembered stuff over the past 3 years… it’s easy to be mislead/misremember with the constant spouting of bollox by media/talking heads/rival fans drowning out actual facts with their half arsed hopes and wishes what it really was.

We’re seeing the same thing play out with the 100 112 ‘115’ spouted out all the time, no other club had their PL charges numbered , it was all ‘xyz was charged with…’, it’s become a lazy trope repeating ‘115’, when hardly anyone of the people saying it knows they are basically 5 specific things x how many years for each of them, and as for the 5 things… geez it’s utter bollox the crap spouted about ‘financial doping on an industrial scale’ - they are hardly earth shattering alledged by amounts compared to the very real facts of being 1b in debt (united) , or having 1b+ in soft loans (Chelsea) wiped out.

Point 335, page 89

Reduced it

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

 

[bluemonkey71]

It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

View attachment 100504

Look at @Prestwich_Blue post history on this thread and @projectriver

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's pretty difficult to find the right replies from the right people within 3400 pages. Could you post the usernames of those better informed? Has anybody ever reproduced the 115 charges into a document that explains each charge beyond the nonsensical rubbish below? I've tried but found it impossible to find the handbook for the year to which the charge relates to interpret it.

View attachment 100504

I can only tell you who I pay attention to. On the legal side: @projectriver, @petrusha, @Chris in London. I have annoyed each of these with my questions over the last ten months and they have been as gracious as you can expect any lawyer to be :). On the financial side: @Prestwich_Blue, of course.

I feel I have added occasionally to the debate on the financial side and others have also contributed useful information, of course. Apologies to anyone if they feel they have been left out. And feel free to add anyone else you think has been useful.

If you would like, I could try to summarise the breaches from each of the handbooks. Sometimes it is obvious which breaches in each year are, effectively, the same. Sometimes less so, of course.

 

[JASR]

I can only tell you who I pay attention to. On the legal side: @projectriver, @petrusha, @Chris in London. I have annoyed each of these with my questions over the last ten months and they have been as gracious as you can expect any lawyer to be :). On the financial side: @Prestwich_Blue, of course.

I feel I have added occasionally to the debate on the financial side and others have also contributed useful information, of course. Apologies to anyone if they feel they have been left out. And feel free to add anyone else you think has been useful.

If you would like, I could try to summarise the breaches from each of the handbooks. Sometimes it is obvious which breaches in each year are, effectively, the same. Sometimes less so, of course.

@Pablo ZZZ Peroni

 

[halfcenturyup]

@Pablo ZZZ Peroni

And some guy in the stands at Goodison Park called Eugene, iirc.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

But still seeing my guy this evening...

Did you see him and if so is he still insisting that Liverpool and others are now in our corner and all charges will be dropped before the end of the season?

It seems quite a stretch to me but I suppose miracles do happen....

 

[WRicko]

Why would they have to? This isn't a criminal court. There is no criminal conviction at the end of the PL process. They may choose to, but I would doubt it.

If we are guilt of all of the most serious charges then we are guilt of cooking the books and it would also be criminal. Not that I believe any of it in fact I am not even sure the Premier League believe we have done what they are alleging if they did they would have referred it to the NCA and HMRC