PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gordyola]

Sky obviously hold a lot of power with the premier league.
I bet they are pissed off from a sky bet perspective as they don't know who will be deducted points so will likely lose money on people betting on relegation.

Sky and Sky Bet are not the same company anymore
Sky Bet is owned by the Flutter Entertainment previously Paddy Power group Sky originally sold 80% then when Comcast bought Sky they sold the remaining 20%

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In retrospect that’s a very odd list of clubs.

City
Villa
Southampton
Swansea
Fulham
West Brom

And Reading abstained.

I find it hard to accept that Reading’s abstention was entirely unilateral. Seems such an unusual step for such a fundamental subject that would have been driven by selfish, financial motives.

 

[spacecadet]

I have never forgiven Reading, hope they go down again this season.

 

[Claytop]

Fucking Reading.

Although I imagine Gill, Parry etc would have lobbied for another vote on it in recent years.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

it was on 6 oclock news lol when everyone used to watch news

I think he was a bit unlucky. Must have been hard fucking up your old man’s legacy in the blink of an eye. Shows you how events can take on a momentum of their own.

 

[bluwes]

Who's the £80m knobhead. ??

Des he mean kava what’s his name. The one who said the rags were getting an £80 million van de Beek for £40 million

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

We haven't been "charged with 100 offences." City have been accused of presenting misleading accounts on multiple occasions. It is the same group of allegations spread over a long period. As many have pointed out on here. Essentially five alleged offences repeated over a decade.
The words used are important. The way the case has been reported has been distorted by the BBC (and others) from day one. The briefing to the media from the PL has consistently stressed the "115 charges" narrative. The Times apparently got the information even before City were told. It is dishonest and so are most the so-called journalists who are covering this story. They have just repeated the narrative they have been supplied with.

It's actually two offences when you break it all down.

1. We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.
2. We didn't declare payments made to Mancini, via the Al Jazira contract, and to players, via the Fordham image rights arrangements.

That's it. The rest is just window dressing.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It's actually two offences when you break it all down.

1. We used artificially inflated sponsorship agreements to overstate our revenue, which led to us knowingly filing incorrect accounts.

Happy to stand corrected. It makes the media coverage even more distorted than I thought. Words mean everything. The constant repetition of "115 charges" as if it is a criminal trial are designed to damage our club and I think it is important they are rebutted as much as possible. Let's hope our enemies have to eat their words like UEFA did after Ceferin's "we have a concrete case" briefing against City!

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Another absolutely clueless report from Dan Roan so called leading bbc football pundit on the news just now. No explanation of the charges City face, no explanation of the difference between City's charges and the situation with Everton and Forrest. And no explanation of why FFP is loathed by a large % of football fans and the restrictions it wrongly places on clubs and the unfair benefit it gives to others. What on earth has this fella ever done to get into the position that he is. An utterly useless reporter.

Remember him outside the Leicester City ground when the owners helicopter went down.

The heat of the helicopter engine hadn’t even cooled before twaty Dan Roan was accusing the dead owner of having an affair with another victim of the plane crash.

What a used tampon the fucker Roan is.

 

[domalino]

I find it hard to accept that Reading’s abstention was entirely unilateral. Seems such an unusual step for such a fundamental subject that would have been driven by selfish, financial motives.

I think it’s probably legit. Remember If they’d lost the vote the matter isn’t settled, they’d just have redrawn the rules slightly and put it to another vote 6 months later.

Villa, Southampton, Fulham and Reading were all very close to getting relegated at the time so they’d know they’ll likely get different clubs involved at a second vote.