PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

We sold them in 2013, just about the time we sacked Mancini (although there's no connection between the two events). IIRC, we sold them for £24.5m but I've no idea if there was a specific term for the contract. Fordham paid the image rights and seem to have been reimbursed by ADUG but I really don't know how Foirdham exploited those apart from that. They only filed small company accounts, so you could only see the balance sheet and not the P&L.

We would still have used those rights and accumulated the benefit from them and I'm guessing ADUG paid for the right to use them.

Fair enough. Thanks. Still some stuff on that that isn't clear, then. I had always assumed the funding from ADUG was some sort of loss underwriting. I suppose we will find out after the verdict.

No need to worry, everyone, it's not enough to change the true and fair opinion on the accounts, or to change the FFP position. Just an accountant trying to understand wtf is going on. :)

 

[KS55]

Actually there might be something in that.

Should a team that is in the premier league for just 1 year in the last 10 have the same voting rights as an ever present like Everton? Maybe, maybe not.

Should Everton get relegated should they lose all voting rights immediately?

Maybe it should be proportional. Maybe you get 1 vote for each of the rolling last 10 years you were in the premier league. So City, Spurs, Chelsea, Everton, Newcastle, Palace would all currently get 10 votes each whereas Burnley would get 8 votes and Forest would get 2 votes.

Not sold on that idea, but it's still the case that no one team gets more than 1/20 of the total vote.

PL teams are shareholders. As a shareholder you get the number of votes your holding warrants, nothing to do with how long you have had them. Each club has one share. Go figure.

 

[Shaggy]

This guy deserves a savage beating...

Me or this dopey plastic rag maggot ?

 

[Shaggy]

Like to see the truth come out haha when it does, you ain't going to believe it, unless were found guilty u absolute fooking dipstick lol

Me or that arse brained plastic rag cock spanner ?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

All part of the mental and magical journey we’ve been on, mate.

Whatever happens, I wouldn’t swap it for anything. What a team, what a club.

 

[Kinkybyname]

Social media though which dwarfs the printed press nowadays

your own fault for reading it!

 

[Coatigan]

Correct.

Let's not be silly. A proven case of multi-year false accounting creating 10 years or more of sporting advantage with severe aggravating factors (deliberate concealment) would obviously end in relegation either by expulsion or by 100 point deduction. This is not an answer about City - it would apply to any club before or after Everton. And it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

I am not sure many or any are suggesting otherwise. But let's acknowledge that it is a very black or white view based on an ultimate all or nothing verdict.

There could I would assume be greys or different extents there though, with outcomes reflective of that.

 

[KS55]

Totally agree. Swales was a big problem. When Swales bought Steve Daley for £1.4m that was totally madness. Malcom Allison during his 2nd stint has a lot to answer for too. He sold some fantastic players and bought mostly garbage.

Two narcissists working together is never a good scene.

 

[bluemanchester]

Twat.

He seems to like publicity so will say anything to get it. A bit like Michael O Leary at Ryanair when he announced they were considering standing on flights or charging to use toilets on planes. Just as an aside what hs the PL got to do with Parry, I thought he had left.

 

[petrusha]

Would this also apply to time barring notwithstanding that if fraud is proven then TB can be overridden?

It means that the issue of time-barring is dealt with in accordance with the provisions applicable under English law. Accordingly, the rules relating to the limitation period apply as set out in the Limitation Act 1980.

Under those rules, the standard limitation period in a case like this is six years. However, if the PL wasn't aware that it had a cause of action owing to fraud or deliberate concealment on City's part, the limitation period starts when the PL became aware of the relevant circumstance (or when it could have done so with "reasonable diligence").

Obviously, a large number of the PL's accusations against us would appear to be outside the limitation period under the 1980 Act. One presumes, therefore, that the PL's intention is to prove deliberate concealment on the club's part in relation to those charges.

One further presumes that they'll say they became aware of the facts through the Der Spiegel revelations in November 2018. That would thus be the point at which the limitation period starts to run, so they'll be within it if their argument is accepted.