Not sure when. A year ago? The PL purport to bind third parties by saying all sponsorship etc agreements should be expressly subject to PL Rules. I’m not sure this would stand up in court due to Privity of Contract rule. In any case, if a third party refused to offer the requested data, it seems a bit weird for the PL to punish a club for non co-operation.
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
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,626
So it isnt even 10 am and ive had a rag fan tell me that we are laundering heroin money because that is what these asian countries grow, how do you even counteract that level of stupid without resorting to violence, i just said to him way to tell me you're racist without telling me your racist
Embrace it & tell him that’s why they’ll never find a trace of the cash, all our players are paid in china white & use international breaks to distribute it. The players aren’t scouted on their ability but on the drug distribution network.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
And Standard Chartered!I can just imagine all the dodgy gambling companies that sponsor PL clubs will be delighted about opening up their accounts!
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,212
"When able to do so"Remember the club were reported to have sought confirmation that changes to the rules shouldn't be applied to previous periods? That may be why.
View attachment 121094
It's important, I think, because without that new rule, the club can provide the external counter-evidence it wants, when it wants. With that rule, the PL can ask for what it wants and the club has to present it (when able to do so) or be non-cooperative.
"We asked - they said no"
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I blame the shortage of punctuation on the war in Ukraine.Thank god for that comma - could have been a difficult read, otherwise!
Tell him we’re selling it to their players, it’s why they finished 8th and 30 points behind usSo it isnt even 10 am and ive had a rag fan tell me that we are laundering heroin money because that is what these asian countries grow, how do you even counteract that level of stupid without resorting to violence, i just said to him way to tell me you're racist without telling me your racist
Centurions
Well-Known Member
And then ask him if he knows where Pot Noodles originate from but don't explain why you're asking. That should keep him busy for awhile.Tell him we’re selling it to their players, it’s why they finished 8th and 30 points behind us
Guidance is only guidance and new guidance can't possibly be retroactive. In any event, City deny they haven't been forthcoming and the rules are pretty wide in their original form which was part of the reason they lost the High Court stuff.Remember the club were reported to have sought confirmation that changes to the rules shouldn't be applied to previous periods? That may be why.
View attachment 121094
It's important, I think, because without that new rule, the club can provide the external counter-evidence it wants, when it wants. With that rule, the PL can ask for what it wants and the club has to present it (when able to do so) or be non-cooperative.
"Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with."
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,116
It was introduced in the summer of 2022 for the 2022/23 season. Clearly aimed at their investigation into the club, and just six months before they charged us with ...... non-cooperation.Is that just now?
If it is, it suggests they've got less than fuck all on us and are punting on getting very very lucky.
Do you think its madness to even suggest it tho, companies are notoriously guarded about opening up their books even when they have to, to think that an outside entity who they have no ideas with regards to safeguarding of commercially sensitive information should just be given carte blance access to the books is madness from a business perspective especially when it is widely reported that the chief of said organisation is less than partisan in his dealings with certain clubs.Guidance is only guidance and new guidance can't possibly be retroactive. In any event, City deny they haven't been forthcoming and the rules are pretty wide in their original form which was part of the reason they lost the High Court stuff.
"Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with."