PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Also, we were fined by UEFA and had a restricted Champions League squad, in around 2012/13. UEFA obviously barred us from Europe later, we went to the highest sporting appeal chamber in CAS and won. So if the PL are going to revisit some of that we’ve got a precedent to reference.

It’s got really annoying, why don’t the Premier League micro analyse the Dippers and the £50m they wrote off for the mythical stadium. There has to be costs shown in their accounts, not one spade in the ground, £50m for what? It’s impossible and it’s time we hired an investigative journalist, Finance expert and Architects to do some digging around.
Even if the proof was put in front of these hacks,that utd and l.pool had been up to wrongdoing,..it would just get ignored because they are all complicit with this agenda.Just like the terminator,..they will never stop!
 
Even if the proof was put in front of these hacks,that utd and l.pool had been up to wrongdoing,..it would just get ignored because they are all complicit with this agenda.Just like the terminator,..they will never stop!
It's what corners of carpets are for! They are in debt because of all the yard brushed they need!
 
Even if the proof was put in front of these hacks,that utd and l.pool had been up to wrongdoing,..it would just get ignored because they are all complicit with this agenda.Just like the terminator,..they will never stop!
I agree, however that would be false accounting and could and should be reported to HMRC.
 
I can understand why some people fear a stitch-up, but it's going to be a long 18 months or so if you start heading down that rabbit hole. That way madness lies. Until we see anything to suggest the contrary, I'm going to assume that the panel will be independent and that we will get a fair hearing. Otherwise, what's the point in any of this? Personally, I think there is far too much at stake, on numerous levels, for the panel just to hand out some arbitrary punishment to us in order to appease certain parties. The fallout from a guilty verdict will be huge, so they'd need cogent evidence that holds up to extensive scrutiny.

18 months? Thought it was this November?
 
No one has answered me about this point so here goes:
Can someone tell me why the charges go back to 2009 when PL FFP came into force in 2014?
Is it trying to blacken our character so other lesser charges can be seen in a worse light?

The rule requiring annual accounts that show a true and fair view goes back way before 2009, so the alleged breach of not providing such accounts is valid even if FFP didn't yet exist.

I imagine, though, a defence will be, what was the point?
 

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.