PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Paladin]

It said on talksport they faced 9 charges 7 still guilty of 2 they are now not

They appealed on nine separate grounds. Seven of those grounds for appeal were dismissed, two were upheld. These weren't based on the original charges. They were based on what Everton's lawyers thought were errors in the original judgement.

I don't think we know exactly how many charges were brought against Everton. The PL charged them for failing FFP, and there were eight separate Profit and Sustainability rules in the 2021-22 PL handbook (numbered E45 to E52).

In our case, the PL accuse us of breaking each rule for each year, so E45, E46, E47, E48, E49, E50, E52 and E52 (or their equivalent in each year). That's a heck of a lot of charges when detailed individually, as they did with us.

This was sensationalism by the PL, and it has attracted a lot of attention. They could have accused City of failing FFP for each of ten seasons - ten charges for FFP. Instead they have made it appear that Everton has committed one P&S beach, whilst we have something like 45. Very disingenuous by the PL, and they accuse us of acting in bad faith.

Also, the commission looking into the Everton case found them guilty of breaking rule B15 - not acting in good faith. Everyone assumed that the PL had charged Everton under B15 also, which would have made at least two charges. However, on appeal, it transpired that the PL didn't even bring this charge against Everton. This is surprising, given that by all accounts, the PL warned Everton that they were in danger of failing P&S rules, but they carried on regardless. Sounds like bad faith to me.

So what it boils down to is we don't know how many rules Everton are accused of breaking, because they PL hasn't published a list, like they did with us.

If anyone is acting in bad faith, it seems the PL is.

 

[dadnlad]

Yea but what's it got to do with other companies ?

Who decides what's a fair price ? For example rags will always think their sponsorship should be more than little old City

Gary Neville the way he goes on about our finances

 

[KS55]

£100 million a year from Etihad will get some piss boiling and probably why the Premier League are trying to change the rules on related parties. If you look at it Etihad are getting very good exposure from their association from the club, they are posting record profits so why can’t they throw some extra money City’s way in sponsorships.

The PL will try to do their comparison to other clubs but we have a huge raft of reasons why we are worth more to a sponsor than others. Just for starters, year after year in final stages of champs league.

 

[ricky77]

Downloaded that for my trip to the NEC tomorrow. Although I'm not sure whether I'll be able to keep going in a straight line when Harris comes out with his usual bollocks.

Well according to Nick , you’re his source

 

[hello]

Downloaded that for my trip to the NEC tomorrow. Although I'm not sure whether I'll be able to keep going in a straight line when Harris comes out with his usual bollocks.

As an ADI, the predictability & repetitive unsubstantiated nature of his replies shouldn't constitute sufficient distraction to jeopardise road safety.

 

[dadnlad]

The PL will try to do their comparison to other clubs but we have a huge raft of reasons why we are worth more to a sponsor than others. Just for starters, year after year in final stages of champs league.

this is where the two other bids need submitting bull shit comes from

 

[dickie davies]

Is it right what Harris said? That the email from Simon Pearce which appeared to indicate that Etihad aren’t funding the sponsorship themselves was discovered after CAS? If so is that the issue for us?

@Prestwich_Blue , who was name checked by Harris to give himself some credibility, discovered by simple investigation that the Abu Dhabi government was covering Etihad's losses as the Abu Dhabi state owned the airline
So yes, it's very likely that the Etihad sponsorship was paid by the Abu Dhabi government
What that email did disclose though is that Simon Pearce arranged the payments, or certainly was involved when he had categorically denied this at CAS

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

In fairness to Harris, I had no issue with his behaviour on this podcast. He was giving his opinion and making points and doing so in a largely non-inflammatory manner. If he could bring this attitude across into his social media posts, instead of the sensationalist nonsense he spews to garner clicks and likes from the red mafia, he actually might almost be worth listening to on this subject.

I thought he came across as reasonable as well, and in direct contrast to the “egregious cheating” shtick and the blatant baiting of City fans that he favours on Twitter……which just goes to show what a snide twat he is. Didn’t want to make an arse of himself by adopting that same attitude on this broadcast, cos he knew Stefan would have shot him down in flames, but he’ll be back playing to the red gallery on Social Media tomorrow no doubt. Two faces…….

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Having listened to the podcast I'm with you, still worried the pl have something they can get us on, just hope I'm wrong.

We know what they have. Therefore we would plead guilty if they had us bang to rights.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Is it personal or is it profitable?

Can’t be that profitable as he’s no longer a paid journalist, barring his substack pennies.