PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I’m not wetting my pants. Just interested in a view from someone qualified to interpret them - I’ve no idea if they are a threat but after all this time I suspect they’re nothing new
Sorry I didn't mean to say you personally was wetting your pants, my bad and my bad interpretation of it.

I meant some on the thread are taking it as gospel.

Apologies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
I guess we will get an idea of how confident the club is 're the charges during the summer transfer merrygoround , any new signings will surely ask for assurances before signing long term contracts.
 
I am totally confident that we will be cleared of the vast majority of the charges, sure we will get saddled with a few for none co-operation and a fine but other than that i feel we will be cleared.

I just fail to see how they can prove that we have done anything wrong, the club state that we have irrefutable evidence to counter the charges. We have never swayed from this stance.

I have to admit that when the charges were raised a part of me suspected that they must have found a smoking gun somewhere, this being the case then surely there would have been some form of leak by now.
Likewise if we were bang to rights then I am sure we would have been trying to agree some form of settlement and trying to manage the narrative, instead we are spending money developing the stadium and infrastructure. Add in that our main sponsor is going public and opening up their accounts and all I can see is the club being extremely confident.

I feel there is a good chance of things developing over the coming weeks now that the season has ended, I can see a situation where the PL back down and stories to this effect start to be leaked.

Of course no matter if the charges are proven or not we will still be labelled as cheats.
The old saying sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me comes to mind. I don't give a FF what other fans think once we avoid serious punishment from all of this. At this stage we just have to accept that some people have made up their jealous minds and take their venomous utterings on the chin.
 
I’m not wetting my pants. Just interested in a view from someone qualified to interpret them - I’ve no idea if they are a threat but after all this time I suspect they’re nothing new

If that is a example, it's nothing incriminating is it? Even if the funding turned up as discussed, it doesn't mean anything untoward was happening. Same nonsense as at CAS.
 
Sorry I didn't mean to say you personally was wetting your pants, my bad and my bad interpretation of it.

I meant some on the thread are taking it as gospel.

Apologies.
No problem- I knew it wasn’t directed at me!!! I can understand why many are now worried again because nobody knows whether this guy is genuine or not. its just f****** annoying to see more negativity in the media
 
None at all. The investigation has finished. Allegations have been referred. Even if there were new incriminating emails, they wouldn't be part of this case.

I think the guy has just been regurgitating the DS emails for dramatic effect. Not read it, though, I have better things to do. If anyone hears to the contrary (from someone reliable), let me know :)
They did, possible theres more coming even if not admissible

 
No problem- I knew it wasn’t directed at me!!! I can understand why many are now worried again because nobody knows whether this guy is genuine or not. its just f****** annoying to see more negativity in the media
Was always going to happen after 4 in a row and especially after Saturday.
Let them have their 15mins of fame blowing hot air.
 
Having worked in business for many years - thankfully I am no longer in the corporate sphere these days - there was internal correspondence between key stakeholders that included proposals/suggestions/ideas which then had to be tested from a compliance point of view via the usual specialists before being implemented - obviously some proposals would be stopped in their tracks and go no further because of this. To use a crude example, a senior business leader might say to HR via an email I would like to dismiss Mr Magic Hat - clearly, this is not a wise thing to put on email, but the email itself does not mean that Mr Magic Hat would actually be sacked or that the dismissal would be unfair - This type of correspondence happens from time to time. When I worked in a really big company, there were loads of proposals/ideas/presentations relating to sales campaigns that had to be checked with the compliance team due to the company in question being in a regulated industry. I am pretty sure if you looked at some of the presentations in isolation (with no context) they could have been in breach of specific regulations (if implemented), but again, a presentation or an email does not mean something ultimately happened. In an organisation like City, under heavy scrutiny since the early 2010s from UEFA, there is no way they would actively look to breach specific regulations. I remember when UEFA created the FFP rules, I saw it reported that City actively engaged with the advisers that helped create the regulations for UEFA with the sole aim of being compliant with them. I cannot remember who the advisers for UEFA were, but they were one of the big hitters in the industry at the time. So, why would we do that and then go and implement something in breach of the regulations - sounds counter intuitive to me. If anything, like in any business, because accounting is a black art as opposed to a science, there are creative ways to present specific transactions/activities, this does not mean these transactions are in breach of any rules. That does not mean the regulating body are not going to challenge them or that they don't like them (e.g. Fordham the case of City via UEFA). It does not mean that they are in breach of the rules though. Anyway, back to Magic Hat, if City have done the things this individual is suggesting, City have managed to deceive a lot of very intelligent and capable people, which I find very hard to believe on the basis that we have been under scrutiny by UEFA since the early 2010s.
 
90 minutes of reading time with more emails that can be misinterpreted!! Such as:


View attachment 120459
We know the good Sheikh paid for the Etisalat sponsorship while the terms of renewal were finalised and was then reimbursed don’t we? These emails might be related to those arrangements? Which would be nothing new or incriminating
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1

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.