PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[kippaxwarrior]

Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.

What the fuck has Mancini and his Inter sacking got to do with this?

He was sacked by Inter in May 2008. He took them to court for unfair dismissal for €16M. Mancini and Inter settled for €6M in October 2009. He became our manager in December 2009.

Chelsea wanted him for the 2008/09 season but he couldn't join them due to the court case

 

[cheekybids]

Obrigado sensei (That's all the French I know).

I had thought about writing three detailed articles about the settlement, UEFA/CAS and the PL/IC. But the longer and more detailed it is the drier it becomes. So I may leave it there.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Pretty punchy stuff from Tolmie again tonight.

It’s gone for me what does it say pls?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It’s gone for me what does it say pls?

 

[wolviedinho]

Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.

I am all for contradicting accounts but this slam dunk business and guilty as charged already doesn’t fit in with the premier leagues own narrative. If it’s a slam dunk then why have we not been formally charged before the case even got to a tribunal? 4 years of digging with slam dunk info and nothing.

like many, you want us guilty. A club that has done nothing wrong will litigate every single accusation.

The culture of guilt before facts is now a social media phenomenon.

City won’t have it. So why don’t you slam dunk your way over to Rawk. Differing opinions is great for debate but this constant angle of guilt you are imposing on the club based on nothing factual is fanciful at best.

 

[silva_is_gold]

I am all for contradicting accounts but this slam dunk business and guilty as charged already doesn’t fit in with the premier leagues own narrative. If it’s a clam dunk then why have we not been formally charged before the case even got to a tribunal? 4 years of digging with slamming info and nothing.

like many, you want us guilty. A club that has done nothing wrong will litigate every single accusation.

The culture of guilt before facts is now a social media phenomenon.

City won’t have it. So why don’t you slam dunk your way over to Rawk. Differing opinions is great for debate but this constant angle of guilt you are imposing on the club based on nothing factual is fanciful at best.

Is this div even a City fan?

 

[RodneyRodney]

With an emoji wink at the end, just to boils some more piss.

And some fireworks

 

[wolviedinho]

Is this div even a City fan?

Haven’t a clue mate but he is certainly a div -:)

 

[wolviedinho]

Once Masters gets the boot I nominate Mike Summerbee for the top job -:)

He had them pegged on Sky from the start.

 

[HelloCity]

Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.

I’ve had a good look through your post history and the vast majority of your posts are negative about City and City fans.

This classic included:


You talk utter shite and tbh, I’m doubting if you even support City. Something stinks about your posts - they drip with insincerity and I don’t think it’s a coincidence you turned up when the charges dropped.