Rushed!!
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
- 15,000
If I had to guess (ie DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A GUESS) even if the PL lose, the judgment will say that despite finding for City, the PL were entitled, if not obligated, to bring the charges. Unless the case is truly hopeless.
Fair enough, sounds sensible. Fwiw, I have always thought the PL didn't have much choice but to proceed.
genuine question now and not sniping at all, these charges were brought at the behest of a few emails that were obtained unlawfully by a public source, why were they so thoroughly investigated, if a concerned supporter or group of supporters were to highlight failings within other clubs or specific dealings which dont seem entirely on the up and up, would the pl be obligated to investigate the claims so thoroughly?If I had to guess (ie DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A GUESS) even if the PL lose, the judgment will say that despite finding for City, the PL were entitled, if not obligated, to bring the charges. Unless the case is truly hopeless.
While i tend to agree i dont think the evidence and claims made by der spiegel warranted a forensic investigation into our accounts spanning 15 years.Fair enough, sounds sensible. Fwiw, I have always thought the PL didn't have much choice but to proceed.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,000
While i tend to agree i dont think the evidence and claims made by der spiegel warranted a forensic investigation into our accounts spanning 15 years.
We just don't know the process involved, do we? Investigations can snowball once they are started, especially in one like this where, for example, the leaked Etihad allegations can easily be applied to other years if no convincing counter-evidence has been provided to the investigation to refute it (as I suspect is the case).
Anyway, we will find out soon enough, I suppose.
If I had to guess (ie DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A GUESS) even if the PL lose, the judgment will say that despite finding for City, the PL were entitled, if not obligated, to bring the charges.
Haha. Well in terms of guesses, I think that the IC not completely humiliating the PL and declaring them a bunch of corrupt idiots is on fairly safe ground mate.
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 10,304
- Team supported
- Manchester city
So what is your gut feeling about the verdict then and has it changed since the end of December 24.We just don't know the process involved, do we? Investigations can snowball once they are started, especially in one like this where, for example, the leaked Etihad allegations can easily be applied to other years if no convincing counter-evidence has been provided to the investigation to refute it (as I suspect is the case).
Anyway, we will find out soon enough, I suppose.
Champions again in 2012
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2012
- Messages
- 1,209
- Location
- I'm not really here
- Team supported
- Is there any other team?
Unlike the panel writing up the findings from the hearingRushed!!
The PL investigate complaints. If City or other clubs complained about other clubs, the PL would investigate. No complaint, no investigation. I suspect City have never complained about other clubs in this context.genuine question now and not sniping at all, these charges were brought at the behest of a few emails that were obtained unlawfully by a public source, why were they so thoroughly investigated, if a concerned supporter or group of supporters were to highlight failings within other clubs or specific dealings which dont seem entirely on the up and up, would the pl be obligated to investigate the claims so thoroughly?
While i agree but by the pls own rules when liverpool were caught hacking our database they said it was too far in the past to be investigated at this point and we should just take the fine and let it go, so they arent following the same rules they followed during that investigation and from the perspective of us not providing convincing counter-evidence, how could we? Our evidence is audited accounts that we have submitted believing them to be on the up and up, if the pl are proposing they are false what evidence could we possibly submit to the contrary apart from saying here our the audited accounts AGAIN.We just don't know the process involved, do we? Investigations can snowball once they are started, especially in one like this where, for example, the leaked Etihad allegations can easily be applied to other years if no convincing counter-evidence has been provided to the investigation to refute it (as I suspect is the case).
Anyway, we will find out soon enough, I suppose.
So this investigation is at the behest of other clubs then?The PL investigate complaints. If City or other clubs complained about other clubs, the PL would investigate. No complaint, no investigation. I suspect City have never complained about other clubs in this context.
Micky Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2024
- Messages
- 1,522
- Team supported
- Man City
I found his email address on the city website once, it was on a page to attract investment.He only survived because John Wardle (despite his many other qualities) was an ineffective chairman. Shinawatra saw through Mackintosh straight away.
I witnessed an incident where he told a large shareholder a barefaced lie and we were able to easily demonstrate it was false. He told people what he thought they wanted to hear and he lied to the Stock Exchange about having discussions leading to potential investment. The Takeover Panel were taking an active interest and asking some awkward questions about this just before Shinawatra came along, which saved him.
He also clearly flouted the Corporate Governance code in a number of areas, including being simultaneously de facto Finance Director, the CEO and one of the two members of the Audit Committee.
He certainly seems to have done a good job at Fulham but I suspect the Khan family keeps him on a much tighter leash than Wardle did.
I used to email him, including once submitting my CV for the managers job when we were linked to Neil Warnock.
I also emailed him asking about the takeovers.
To his credit he always replied, was always very courteous and could take a joke.
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 18,291
I could be wrong, but i think the PL rules say clubs should come to an amicable settlement on issues if possible before complaining to the PL. City and Liverpool did this so the PL wouldn't get involved. I think it was the FA, not PL that said the hacking was too long ago for them to investigate?While i agree but by the pls own rules when liverpool were caught hacking our database they said it was too far in the past to be investigated at this point and we should just take the fine and let it go, so they arent following the same rules they followed during that investigation and from the perspective of us not providing convincing counter-evidence, how could we? Our evidence is audited accounts that we have submitted believing them to be on the up and up, if the pl are proposing they are false what evidence could we possibly submit to the contrary apart from saying here our the audited accounts AGAIN.
ah my mistake then, thanks for that.I could be wrong, but i think the PL rules say clubs should come to an amicable settlement on issues if possible before complaining to the PL. City and Liverpool did this so the PL wouldn't get involved. I think it was the FA, not PL that said the hacking was too long ago for them to investigate?
Centurions
Well-Known Member
There was no "fine" in respect of the hacking case as City and liverpool resolved it between themselves which is why the PL (or was it the FA?) decided not to proceed, neither side wanted it raked over again.While i agree but by the pls own rules when liverpool were caught hacking our database they said it was too far in the past to be investigated at this point and we should just take the fine and let it go, so they arent following the same rules they followed during that investigation and from the perspective of us not providing convincing counter-evidence, how could we? Our evidence is audited accounts that we have submitted believing them to be on the up and up, if the pl are proposing they are false what evidence could we possibly submit to the contrary apart from saying here our the audited accounts AGAIN.
Makes you wonder why the fa didn't investigate, when simon Mullock reported on a premier league hacking another premier league, he couldn't say who as Liverpool had took out a court injunction, but wrote about shortly after Liverpool had paid usI could be wrong, but i think the PL rules say clubs should come to an amicable settlement on issues if possible before complaining to the PL. City and Liverpool did this so the PL wouldn't get involved. I think it was the FA, not PL that said the hacking was too long ago for them to investigate?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,000
So what is your gut feeling about the verdict then and has it changed since the end of December 24.
Been the same since the summer of 2023: not enough evidence to prove the serious allegations to the standard required; Mancini time limited; any questions on ownership, related parties (if indeed there are any) not going to succeed; not sure on things like Touré, Fordham and non-cooperation because I don't know enough about the actual allegations or likely counter-evidence, but I am minded to believe Khaldoon on those.
I am not at all worried about the amount of time it is taking. We just have to wait. Even if takes much longer than everyone thought, we won't know if it's good or bad for either party. I am more worried by our defence on the pitch than the club's defence off it :)
On the other hand, my gut is pretty unreliable these days with all this spicy food.
Ah okay i thought the 1m payment was a fine was that simply decided between the clubs?There was no "fine" in respect of the hacking case as City and liverpool resolved it between themselves which is why the PL (or was it the FA?) decided not to proceed, neither side wanted it raked over again.
Yes, part of the settlement, including NDA’SAh okay i thought the 1m payment was a fine was that simply decided between the clubs?
Don't thibknwe will ever know. I personally don't think it is though.So this investigation is at the behest of other clubs then?
The PL HAD to investigate, or be seen to investigate, once Der Spiegel published such a public claim. As did Uefa. Particularly once Uefa them charged us. Complaints or no complaints the perception was there and had to be addressed.
What happened After the CAS verdict though, the PL could easily have taken another few months, and brought it to their own conclusion that could have aligned with the CAS verdict, and the perception would have been at the very least, consistent.
They didn't. They took another 2 years to come up with the charges.
People seem to think this is in response to pressure from some clubs, or may have been complaints etc.
I think they genuinely did/do think they found something worth pursuing and charging us with. With or without such pressure/complaint.
Hopefully, they turn out to be wrong, either way.