PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Yes and that to be said too is a load of bollocks
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Would they?

I remember not long after this whole thing started that Tolmie was posting stuff about being told "95% of the charges have been wiped off the table" etc. And that's no disrespect to Tolmie so please don't take it that way, and apologies if that wasn't the exact quote...but that was the gist of it.

No demand for names, source or confirmation...just pages and pages of people hypothetically jumping for joy.
Click to expand...
It's always the way with this thread mate - posting positive "info" is fine and it doesn't need to be questioned but post some negative "info" and the pitchforks are out. I got the same treatment last year when I posted something that I thought was worth sharing - even though I ultimately didn't believe it - because it came from someone who is a well known name amongst City fans.

As such, it would be totally wrong for me to say that @Nicholas van Whatsisface has made it up. I believe he's simply posting in good faith as I and others have. I would add that I wouldn't get too worried if people on the PL's side are expressing confidence. Tony Evans said the same about UEFA just before the CAS verdict came out and look what happened there.
 
M18CTID said:
Think you're getting mixed up with the APT rules?
Click to expand...

The APT rules are part of the PSR rules. I thought. It is a mechanism of assessing towards the psr rules.

The end result is still the same, as I see it. We accepted the APT rules are valid, but then the overall PSR rules are getting scrapped, including APT.
 
M18CTID said:
It's always the way with this thread mate - posting positive "info" is fine and it doesn't need to be questioned but post some negative "info" and the pitchforks are out. I got the same treatment last year when I posted something that I thought was worth sharing - even though I ultimately didn't believe it - because it came from someone who is a well known name amongst City fans.

As such, it would be totally wrong for me to say that @Nicholas van Whatsisface has made it up. I believe he's simply posting in good faith as I and others have. I would add that I wouldn't get too worried if people on the PL's side are expressing confidence. Tony Evans said the same about UEFA just before the CAS verdict came out and look what happened there.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate.

You hit on the point that the ‘hard of reading’ seem to have misinterpreted in my original post, which is that these guys weren’t saying ‘the PL has won, City are fucked’, or claiming they’d seen the judgement yet.

They weren’t claiming to be sharing a confidential legal decision not yet in the public domain with me.

What they did do was dismiss City’s position as being a load of hot air which didn’t adequately demonstrate our innocence on the main substance of the charges, and which was perceived (by the PL) as lacking credibility.

They were also generally very confident the PL’s position would be upheld in the final judgement.

But they gave no indication that the judgement was in - so my read was that this wasn’t based on anything more than the internal impressions of the process so far at the PL.

But the PL have consistently been guilty of overconfidence bordering on arrogance through a series of embarrassing and damaging judgements over the last few years, so this doesn’t need to be read as any different from any of that.

Which is the point you’re making.

People seem to be misconstruing my message as saying these guys were sharing the result of the judgement with me - which I never, ever claimed.
 
So safe to say that both sides in a legal tribunal are confident that the outcome will be favourable to themselves. Like both boxers claiming victory at the final bell.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Thanks mate.

You hit on the point that the ‘hard of reading’ seem to have misinterpreted in my original post, which is that these guys weren’t saying ‘the PL has won, City are fucked’, or claiming they’d seen the judgement yet.

They weren’t claiming to be sharing a confidential legal decision not yet in the public domain with me.

What they did do was dismiss City’s position as being a load of hot air which didn’t adequately demonstrate our innocence on the main substance of the charges, and which was perceived (by the PL) as lacking credibility.

They were also generally very confident the PL’s position would be upheld in the final judgement.

But they gave no indication that the judgement was in - so my read was that this wasn’t based on anything more than the internal impressions of the process so far at the PL.

But the PL have consistently been guilty of overconfidence bordering on arrogance through a series of embarrassing and damaging judgements over the last few years, so this doesn’t need to be read as any different from any of that.

Which is the point you’re making.

People seem to be misconstruing my message as saying these guys were sharing the result of the judgement with me - which I never, ever claimed.
Click to expand...
Burden of proof lies with the PL though. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of the charges are ‘not proven’ which means we can not face any sanctions but can still get pilloried by the usual suspects. It’ll never end…
 
Coatigan said:
I guess us accepting the rules were valid and binding in the settlement was for the limited time till they got scrapped.
Click to expand...

Sounds like okay I'll say your memecoin is legit for a week provided you discontinue it in 2 weeks.

The PL execs might as well be running meme coins.
 
Man_City_Loyal said:
look at the sad twats and their comments underneath
Click to expand...
what's laughable about most of them comments, is they seem to think it's proof we can bribe the Premier League, without considering that if that was the case why would we let any of this happen in the first place and have our name dragged through the mud for years!
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Thanks mate.

You hit on the point that the ‘hard of reading’ seem to have misinterpreted in my original post, which is that these guys weren’t saying ‘the PL has won, City are fucked’, or claiming they’d seen the judgement yet.

They weren’t claiming to be sharing a confidential legal decision not yet in the public domain with me.

What they did do was dismiss City’s position as being a load of hot air which didn’t adequately demonstrate our innocence on the main substance of the charges, and which was perceived (by the PL) as lacking credibility.

They were also generally very confident the PL’s position would be upheld in the final judgement.

But they gave no indication that the judgement was in - so my read was that this wasn’t based on anything more than the internal impressions of the process so far at the PL.

But the PL have consistently been guilty of overconfidence bordering on arrogance through a series of embarrassing and damaging judgements over the last few years, so this doesn’t need to be read as any different from any of that.

Which is the point you’re making.

People seem to be misconstruing my message as saying these guys were sharing the result of the judgement with me - which I never, ever claimed.
Click to expand...
You'll be expecting people to read an entire post next before going off on one, let alone actually thinking about the content. You are so needy ;)
 
Coatigan said:
I guess us accepting the rules were valid and binding in the settlement was for the limited time till they got scrapped.
Click to expand...
If a domestic version of UEFA's Financial Sustainability Regulations were to be introduced – which is actually logical – there would also be a framework around related party transactions and fair value assessment, so in principle APT would not disappear.
 
Keith Moon said:
If a domestic version of UEFA's Financial Sustainability Regulations were to be introduced – which is actually logical – there would also be a framework around related party transactions and fair value assessment, so in principle APT would not disappear.
Click to expand...

Sure. A new iteration of rules would have a new version of ATP.

But this set that the dispute was about, would.
 
I don’t think the change from PSR to aligning with uefa rules is a new thing.

This was talked about happening a while back and as far as I was aware clubs had been working to try to ensure they was inside the percentage needed for when the prem changes.
 
Centurions said:
I'm puzzled as to why we'd set ours at 85% if UEFAs is 70%? Surely you need to go for the 70% or end up doing a Crystal Palace (sort of) and getting banned if you qualify?
Click to expand...

Maybe an effort to give the clubs outsode the CL places an advantage, to balance lut clubs in the CL having access to more revenue. Possibly.

Not saying I think anything of it as an idea, just trying to imagine the implications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top