Centurions
Well-Known Member
As far as I can tell, yes. We might get away without another non-cooperation charge though, that's the silver lining ;)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,019
I don’t understand. Did we suspend co operation for items post 2018? If so why?
The investigation started late 2018, so the PL are saying the club never fully cooperated.
Which is strange because the courts rejected our concerns over providing information and told the club to cooperate (if I understand it right) and the club itself said they had complied fully.
So I conclude the club gave the PL everything they thought they were required to, but witheld information to which the club thought the PL weren't entitled.
My guess is third party information for a few reasons.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Given his allegiance to City, I doubt GDM would take the case on.Can you imagine the Premier League in court, some overweight prick in a cheap suit representing them, just pointing over to our representatives shouting they're guilty, it's them, they've fiddled books, they've ran out of chips, their grass is too long, arrest them arrest them.
I think the odd thing is why the pl thought they were even entitled to third part info, do they think they can just rock up anywhere and ask any company to open their books, they would be told politely to fuck right off and rightly so, the pl in this instance and in most instances overestimates the power that it has by an absurd amount.The investigation started late 2018, so the PL are saying the club never fully cooperated.
Which is strange because the courts rejected our concerns over providing information and told the club to cooperate (if I understand it right) and the club itself said they had complied fully.
So I conclude the club gave the PL everything they thought they were required to, but witheld information to which the club thought the PL weren't entitled.
My guess is third party information for a few reasons.
To be honest the prosecution they would like to make is , look at them they are brown obviously they are guilty, only white money is good for the game, isnt that obvious to you people but they would have a hell of a time making that stick."..the PL are just making it up as they go along.."
Nailed it in one sentence.
Can you imagine the Premier League in court, some overweight prick in a cheap suit representing them, just pointing over to our representatives shouting they're guilty, it's them, they've fiddled books, they've ran out of chips, their grass is too long, arrest them arrest them.
The Premier League, as I've said before, have got absolutely nothing on us, not one iota of evidence. And like I've said a million times, I'll hold my hands up and say yeah it's a fair cop when I turn my TV on and see HMRC and the fraud squad leaving our premises with files, hard drives, pc's, paperwork and anything else that shows us committing fraud, until then I shall sit back, relax and continue to be entertained by rival fans suddenly turning into lawyers and sports finance analysts.
Crack on.
He's a jerk off...He’s the brother of Charlie Chianti.
True, SPORTS, not corporate finance...The PL’s lawyer is THE leading sports KC. He doesnt wear cheap suits.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,019
I think the odd thing is why the pl thought they were even entitled to third part info, do they think they can just rock up anywhere and ask any company to open their books, they would be told politely to fuck right off and rightly so, the pl in this instance and in most instances overestimates the power that it has by an absurd amount.
They changed the rule in the 2022 handbook (actually a guideline to the cooperation rules iirc) so that a club must make its best efforts to obtain third party information, if requested.
It's pretty clear to me that change was made in respect of the PL City allegations. I am guessing the club told the PL to do one and wanted to apply the old rules. Hence the non-cooperation allegations.
Why is that a problem? Because the PL know we can get the external information, because they did for CAS. The club just said fuck off to the investigation, we don't need to do that - we will do it in front of the independent panel ..... (like the club did with UEFA / CAS).
I havent but he seems to be just spouting shit for clicks. And I think he's caught onto the City hatred gravy train. But he so obvioously hates City. And Newcastle. He's one of those reporters that pokes the fanbase then cries when they bite back.
£20m for a youth footballer.
Wonder if he’s ever heard of Wayne Rooney?
Yep we’re breaking ground here and ruining football.
I had to go back to refresh my memory on what we're alleged to have done.
Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:
1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.
2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.
3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.
4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.
5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.
So, if I've got this right:-
1. Cooked the books in regards to sponsorship and perhaps Fordham?
2. Mancini
3. Failing UEFA FFP? Obviously(?) can't be right?
4. Failing P&S
5. Failure to cooperate
Am I well wide of the mark on any of that?
That's pretty much how I understand it too, re your 1-5.
5 is open to interpretation regardless and is not really linked to the others.
If we can show 1 and 2 are fine, 3 and 4 fall apart by default. To prove 3 and 4, they have to prove 1 and 2 first. 5 can be used as needed really, probably be found 'guilty' of that one way or the other.