PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Len Rum]

Last update from Tolmie was that we should know the date of the hearing by June.

Projectriver put a timeline up ages ago and my take on where it might be now is:

Hearing date announced in June

Hearing in early autumn

Judgement released around this time next year

Appeals by either party to be concluded by the end of 2025

Can't see a judgement being released 'around this time next year'.
The judgement and appeal will have to be concluded in the same season.

 

[Chris in London]

The most commercially successful football league on the planet will not benefit from the dead hand of government regulation.

What's required is genuinely independent arbitration, (CAS for example) to prevent the stitch up that might be coming our way from the 'Independent' Commission that will try our case.

Who is advocating regulation by government?

All regulators are appointed by government, thereafter they are independent.

And, while I’m asking questions, what evidence is there that the independent commission will not be precisely that?

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Can't see a judgement being released 'around this time next year'.
The judgement and appeal will have to be concluded in the same season.

You'll have to take that up with @projectriver

His timetable is longer than that and he's giving a full year for an appeal to be completed. Sounds crazy but look how long it is since we were charged and still no date for the hearing.

 

[GortonBlue62]

And, while I’m asking questions, what evidence is there that the independent commission will not be precisely that?

Neither of us know the answer to that question at this point.

Time will tell and I hope you're right.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Haven’t the PL gone back earlier than 2014?

Yes :)

Well, they are trying .....

 

[CJH]

On Nick Ferrari LBC this morning he had Jonathan Ashworth and they got onto talking about Leicester being charged (Leicester fan and MP). Of course they came out with 'What about Man City'. Had to laugh.

 

[Gordyola]

Well, yes, that makes sense. They met him once before they offered him the City job and liked him, so they offered him the City job but couldn't sign him up because of the Inter clause, so they kept him warm with a lucrative consultancy contract until they could comfortably sign him or, in Hughes's case, had to sign him because it was going tits up. The contract was continued for Mancini's tax reasons, all negotiations and contracts being handled by the club.

Sounds more than plausible to me.

Anyway, its all speculation, but I am much more comfortable with that as an explanation than the club deliberately trying to mislead the PL for reasons which aren't, at all, apparent. Balance of probability, if you will.

It's OK to disagree, though.

Wasn’t Mancini before PL FFP so why would they be trying to hide or disguise a payment as it didn’t matter?

 

[Gordyola]

Not providing full details of manager remuneration. They can’t say they continued the contract with the negotiations done by the club as that does show it was a related transaction.

A contract with a manager is not anything to do with related parties or am I missing something?

 

[BringBackSwales]

Yes :)

Well, they are trying .....

My point to the other poster was that he said he thought we had settled with Fordham in 2014; if that inferred there was a problem that was put right in 2014 and the premier league cunts were going back earlier than 2014 then might we have an issue with it?

 

[Dribble]

You'll have to take that up with @projectriver

His timetable is longer than that and he's giving a full year for an appeal to be completed. Sounds crazy but look how long it is since we were charged and still no date for the hearing.

Even crazier when you consider how long they've been "investigating" our breaches.