Another one, FFS. Learn about the rules of evidence.
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
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,785
If I recall correctly, the advisers engaged by City because they drew up the FFP rules were Deloittes.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.
No. Read @Bez at #57,586 post above.The content in at least some of the leaked emails seems to suggest we previously carried out the same suggested actions "as per previous quarter" etc.
Whilst that's not a cast iron proof of guilt in itself, wouldn't it swing the balance of probability in favour of the PL without a very plausible explanation of why these emails were written if they indeed were never carried out?
Last edited:
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Sorry, the latter.No, I am wrong? Or no, the alleged breaches don't mention youth player rules?
Either is fine. I have been known to be wrong once or twice.
:)
Just been catching up with this 'Magic Hat' garbage from today.
From memory (and it was 50 years ago during my first degree studies, so bear with me!) the concept of the 'Magic Hat' was a literary device used down through the ages and in almost every society on the planet to either:
(a) suggest the wearer had mystical powers of shape-shifting, or of invisibility or even of invincibility of knowledge/powers or
(b) to indicate the hat wearer was actually a deceitful, lying and untrustworthy person.
I think you might be getting my drift..
To be fair, though, I might add a third interpretation here. It could be 'Magic Hat' is jokingly suggesting that City has all of those mystical powers and is, indeed, being deceitful and untrustworthy. Oh my, how we can all laugh at this fellow's (lady's?) cheeky-chappy, waggish sense of humour!
Whatever game this person is trying to play, I certainly don't intend to give it any credence and I'm content to wait until the Independent Commission has completed its investigation process and reported its findings.
And of course, I'll continue to take the word of our owner/senior managers that we have nothing to fear from that process. If that makes me one of those 'ardent City fans' defending City, dear 'Magic Hat' old son, then so be it..
From memory (and it was 50 years ago during my first degree studies, so bear with me!) the concept of the 'Magic Hat' was a literary device used down through the ages and in almost every society on the planet to either:
(a) suggest the wearer had mystical powers of shape-shifting, or of invisibility or even of invincibility of knowledge/powers or
(b) to indicate the hat wearer was actually a deceitful, lying and untrustworthy person.
I think you might be getting my drift..
To be fair, though, I might add a third interpretation here. It could be 'Magic Hat' is jokingly suggesting that City has all of those mystical powers and is, indeed, being deceitful and untrustworthy. Oh my, how we can all laugh at this fellow's (lady's?) cheeky-chappy, waggish sense of humour!
Whatever game this person is trying to play, I certainly don't intend to give it any credence and I'm content to wait until the Independent Commission has completed its investigation process and reported its findings.
And of course, I'll continue to take the word of our owner/senior managers that we have nothing to fear from that process. If that makes me one of those 'ardent City fans' defending City, dear 'Magic Hat' old son, then so be it..
projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,376
Been public for yearsHow does he get access to new emails?
IIRC, Etihad was specifically dealt with by CAS thus: ‘The first email was written before there were any ffp regs and so owner funding would have been ok at that time. There is no evidence that owner funding continued after ffp was introduced.‘ Hope I have not misremembered that.A quick word of advice. Don't get bogged down in all the detail that is suddenly appearing from suspect sources, even if it reliably reconstitutes what is publicly available.
No-one knows what the detail means if they don't know what the counter-evidence is. And we have been here before with UEFA. They only had the publicly available "evidence" and it all looked pretty incriminating until it suddenly didn't.
Bottom line. They still won't have access to any substantial evidence that proves the most serious charges and, by that, I mean Etihad. Without that, the true and fair issues go away and so do the FFP issues. Nothing substantial left after that.
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 2,781
- Team supported
- Manchester City
A sample of Magic Hats work:
He has stated in his epic X thread that we will be 'crushed' and that we are 'totally fucked' in his opinion.
So once you get beyond the camouflage of legalistic verbiage you can see it is agenda driven rather than a considered piece of work by a professional.
He has stated in his epic X thread that we will be 'crushed' and that we are 'totally fucked' in his opinion.
So once you get beyond the camouflage of legalistic verbiage you can see it is agenda driven rather than a considered piece of work by a professional.
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 7,350
My favourite bit was where he praised the integrity of the IC panel chair. If we are cleared let’s see how long that view lasts!A sample of Magic Hats work:
He has stated in his epic X thread that we will be 'crushed' and that we are 'totally fucked' in his opinion.
So once you get beyond the camouflage of legalistic verbiage you can see it is agenda driven rather than a considered piece of work by a professional.