PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

is @projectriver on twitter?

https://twitter.com/slbsn?t=W9CCqpom4bpKg-u4o8eOlw&s=09

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I thought that Everton were ruled out for a takeover, as with Liverpool, because of the uncertain situation of Anfield and Goodison at the time?

Everton, like Newcastle, were stupid and wouldn't sign the NDA/Confidentiality agreements that Amanda Staveley wanted them to sign. I've seen some of the emails. There's one where Staveley (and I can't remember the exact words) says something like "How do these people not understand that this is a standard thing in these situations?"

Everton were one of the original five clubs who tilted the playing field in favour of the "big" clubs by demanding the ending of sharing gate money.
Everton (& Sir Philip Carter) were one of the main movers behind the PL.
Everton didn't want an owner who would have transformed them.
Everton wanted FFP.
Everton couldn't grasp that continued spending would see them fall foul of PSR.
Fuck Everton.

 

[Coatigan]

If there is an agenda behind the decision, I cannot see how it benefits the league to issue us with any punishment. It raises a huge cloud over the PL over the past decade. They’ve said they wouldn’t issue retrospective punishment or take away trophies but you’d have constant calls for the record books to be amended. You’d have never ending stories about how the whole competition had been nullified and moving forwards you’d have the same cynicism around it. It threatens the future growth and revenue of the PL as the premier domestic football competition and in simple terms just doesn’t do it any good!



Finding us innocent of all charges just leads to a bunch of whinge bag fans and journalists who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, claiming corruption. The same thing they do now anyway. It wouldn’t change things at all from that perspective in my opinion.


The majority of football fans think we’ve got 115 charges in the same manner as Everton and if they got 10pts deducted for 1 charge we should have 1150 points deducted. They think we’ve lied about revenues and inflated sponsorship and that we still do today. You still see question marks around our revenue despite the success we’ve had. They’re clueless and to be honest most of them probably expect us to get away with it, as in their eyes we have for so long anyway. So the PL might as well find us innocent. The red shirt clubs will be fuming, but they’ll get over it as long as the rules keep preventing Newcastle/Villa and whoever else from a sustained period challenging their position in the CL.

Which begs the question, why conclude that 4 year investigation, with charging us with over 115 items. That was the time for the PL not to wedge themselves between a rock and a hard place, but in they squeezed.

And round and round we now go.

 

[KS55]

Forfar 4 Manchester City 115

Away to Cowdenbeath, what a treat.

 

[M18CTID]

Yes, that was my point really. UEFA was determined to get City on FFP in 2014 even if it meant changing their rules at the last minute. My question was why would they want to do that? And I think the answer is concern over City opening up a "tap" of Abu Dhabi sponsorships, and making up the shortfall with two very convenient intangible asset sales. Both of which were addressed in the settlement, and both which could be described as accelerating income to which, maybe, Harris is referring. None of which is illegal or "fraudulent", by the way. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. The ****.

Exactly. There’s no smoking gun on City’s side regarding the 2014 settlement agreement. And loads of clubs entered into similar settlement agreements at the time and have done since (funnily enough, I don’t see Harris going after any of them and calling them cheats).

Harris is re-hashing a decade old story and sensationalising it because he knows all his brain dead followers who suck his cock and hang on his every word will fall for it.

 

[Dribble]

I've no idea what you're taking about, but I've liked it anyway.

I thought it was just me, but I liked it anyway just for the effort put in & the general gist of it. :-)

 

[Gingers Dad]

Probably deciding if there will be barms or muffins with the chips at lunch breaks.

That will depend on whether the chips are potato or chocolate

 

[Coatigan]

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.

Yes, but by the other end of that is, if there is any form of punishment, then we must be guilty.

And before I get tons of shit from the bravado wankfest, I mean just that logic, not that I think we are just to be clear.

 

[M18CTID]

Yes, but by the other end of that is, if there is any form of punishment, then we must be guilty.

And before I get tons of shit from the bravado wankfest, I mean just that logic, not that I think we are just to be clear.

So you think we’re guilty then? ;)

 

[KS55]

Everton, like Newcastle, were stupid and wouldn't sign the NDA/Confidentiality agreements that Amanda Staveley wanted them to sign. I've seen some of the emails. There's one where Staveley (and I can't remember the exact words) says something like "How does these people not understand that this is a standard thing in these situations?"

Just another example, PB, of the poor standard of management in the PL. You can hear Amanda’s frustration there. She must think it’s like dealing with children.