PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Metalartin said:
Anyone wonder if David Conn is one of Nick's mysterious sources? Has he ever had any genuine City connections, other than once being a fan, before he decided he couldn't be anymore because City got bought by a UAE royal and "Arabs are bad"?

I think it's fair to say Nick and those like him are the journalist(so called) equivalents of Goldbridge and Terry(Football Terrace) as youtube content creators. They are monetising anti-city narratives by fully pandering to a certain audience. An audience that are hoping all the allegations are true because they can't stand City's success on and off the pitch. The only difference, is the latter are playing characters, or openly playing to the crowd at least(not trying to hide it).

Nick on the other hand is delusional(or a massive bullshitter if he isn't), he has convinced himself he's an expert and a hero figure in football coverage. It's obvious he has an agenda by how he carries himself but unless you can show he has never shown any other club other than City this kind of energy... He will still try and deny that he has any agenda against City. "I'd do the same for any other club because I care about the sport" would be his defence.

So if he's here reading this, maybe he should ask himself and answer honestly with examples. Has he made a massive fuss in the early hours about the suspected betting shell companies linked to United and Arsenal(they've both had them). Did he spend months on end fuming about the Ref bribes in Spain story. Has he talked at length about the Rwanda, Iran, Suadi sponsor links to the red cartel 3 and the human rights element of them.

There's been FFP breaches and allegations aimed at United(failed UEFA ffp, possibly the PL compliance rule by extension), Chelsea, Barca, Real and Juve(you could talk all day about the number of cheating scandals they've had) since 2018. Liverpool multiple times since 2011(still the relevant period). Has he given any of those the same level of interest, with the same emotions?

Imagine if City had written off £50m in expenses for a non existent stadium.
Imagine if City were gaining unauthorised access to another club's scouting network over a number of years, 100s of times(source on internal City investigation findings anyone?).
Imagine if a doctor involved in one of the country's biggest doping scandals named City as one of his clients.

Would he have ever bought the excuses from the club if they gave any. Or the reasons from the organisers for not persuing/investigating the matter? If the answer is "no" to all of the above(and I suspect it is), then yes he does have an obsessive agenda against City. No "that's whataboutery" wouldn't be a valid argument against that conclusion.
Click to expand...
The stupid thing is, there is a wealth of stuff to go at and you could build a good reputation attacking it properly. But no, Harris is obsessed by us, not corruption per se.
 
KS55 said:
I read the original piece you have quoted here and it convinced me; I was sceptical at first, naively believing UEFA would not stoop to such depths. We actually obeyed the rules for mitigation as they stood at the time but they applied the amended rule to our already submitted accounts.
A rare case of Stefan getting it wrong? Your explanation here of your researches is further back up.
Click to expand...

Iirc, the wording of the mitigation rule didn't actually change and probably supported the treatment set out in the 2012/13 toolkit. What is undeniable, though, is that City followed the 2011/12 toolkit and thought they had complied on that basis. By the time the 2012/13 toolkit came out it was too late to do anything about it. So I am not sure that the 2012/12 toolkit was amended to screw City, but rather it was amended to correct a mistake. Whatever. The result was the same.

Don't forget, UEFA were also challenging the fair values of sponsorship contracts (probably around 10-20 million), the calculation of the pre-FFP contract costs (31 million) and the treatment of the intangible asset sales (28 million), amongst other things. It is likely the club would have not been able to use the mitigation if any of those were upheld.

So I would say CS vs SB was a score draw, rather than a defeat for either. :)

We accountants are conciliatory.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the wording of the mitigation rule didn't actually change and probably supported the treatment set out in the 2012/13 toolkit. What is undeniable, though, is that City followed the 2011/12 toolkit and thought they had complied on that basis. By the time the 2012/13 toolkit came out it was too late to do anything about it. So I am not sure that the 2012/12 toolkit was amended to screw City, but rather it was amended to correct a mistake. Whatever. The result was the same.

Don't forget, UEFA were also challenging the fair values of sponsorship contracts (probably around 10-20 million), the calculation of the pre-FFP contract costs (31 million) and the treatment of the intangible asset sales (28 million), amongst other things. It is likely the club would have not been able to use the mitigation if any of those were upheld.

So I would say CS vs SB was a score draw, rather than a defeat for either. :)

We accountants are conciliatory.
Click to expand...
Toolkit and screw in one sentence, I see what you did there, you are Tommy Walsh and I claim my £5.
 
The charge on Mancini’s contract and him being paid elsewhere, he signed a contract in December 2009 and then signed a new contract in Summer 2012. Would he have still be receiving payments from the consultancy role he was doing in the UAE with this new contract or did they stop when the extension was signed in 2012?

Even if he was if the limitations act comes into play the Der Spiegal hit piece came out in November 2018. Which puts that charge outside of the 6 year timescale if this is a civil case, which when you look at everything points exactly to that.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think there is a problem with a fudged non-proven ruling and that is that City may well refuse to accept it. We have been led to believe that our club is certain that we have done nothing wrong and a fudge by the PL may well convince the government that the PL can't regulate itself and is risking alienating an important strategic ally to satisfy a bunch of profiteers. Looking for a football club which is closest to government idea on how clubs should behave, we don't need to look beyond the Etihad and yet how many attempts are there going to be to ruin it.... Not proven won't do! Guilty or innocent?
Click to expand...
The hearing is of a civil nature, so guilty or not guilty are not terms that can be used. Strictly speaking, there are no “charges” rather claims that we broke some rules. We refute those claims and the dispute is settled by arbitration. It’s either “The PL has not proved their case on the balance of probabilities” or the opposite. Criminal law whether Scottish (!) or English does not come into it.
Incidently, the Grauniad (who else?) ran a whole piece based on CAS’s failure to say “not guilty” suggesting CAS thought our case was weak, despite saying 11 times “There is NO evidence that….”
 
halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the wording of the mitigation rule didn't actually change and probably supported the treatment set out in the 2012/13 toolkit. What is undeniable, though, is that City followed the 2011/12 toolkit and thought they had complied on that basis. By the time the 2012/13 toolkit came out it was too late to do anything about it. So I am not sure that the 2012/12 toolkit was amended to screw City, but rather it was amended to correct a mistake. Whatever. The result was the same.

Don't forget, UEFA were also challenging the fair values of sponsorship contracts (probably around 10-20 million), the calculation of the pre-FFP contract costs (31 million) and the treatment of the intangible asset sales (28 million), amongst other things. It is likely the club would have not been able to use the mitigation if any of those were upheld.

So I would say CS vs SB was a score draw, rather than a defeat for either. :)

We accountants are conciliatory.
Click to expand...
I Agree. The amended rule was more sensible, it’s just that applying it retrospectively in effect was wrong.
Score draw indeed as we got satisfaction on sponsorship issues. UEFA treated our AbuDhabi connected deals as not related thereafter. So, of course the PL had to invent their ludicrous “associated” category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.