PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chi-town blues]

It's the length of the grass that's got us isn't it!

Where’s Pellegrini when you need him?

 

[M18CTID]

No, City didn't prove it came from anywhere. Pearce said what he said in the email wasn't true, and UEFA couldn't prove otherwise.

Seriously, I think you've got this wrong mate. I seem to recall that a person mentioned in some of the e-mails who I think was referred to as His Highness (and presumed by our accusers to be Mansour) turned out to be somebody else - Sheikh Tahnoon:

Man City vs Uefa court case details revealed by CAS

The long-awaited reasons for the over-turning of the Uefa ban have been published

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

"The leaked emails also made mention of “His Highness” which was assumed to mean City owner Sheikh Mansour.

But City’s team said that this in fact referred to Sheikh Tahnoon, chairman of the Abu Dhabi Tourist Authority – the CAS panel said there was no reason to believe that was untrue."

 

[mattcity5]

We missed out on players when we were punished by UEFA. Di Maria was one of them from what I remember. Think we were restricted to spending £50m or around that figure.

Don't know about Di Maria, but it certainly allowed the others a free run at a few players that probably wouldn't ha e happened otherwise.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I hope our legal team are all over this.

Ex-UEFA chief says Premier League has a STRONGER case against Man City

The Premier League has a considerably stronger case against Manchester City than UEFA had just three years ago, according to the governing body's former chief investigator Yves Leterme.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A stronger case than some context-free emails?

I can believe that!

He's actually quoted as noting that there's no time-barring or CAS appeal route, so the case is stronger by virtue of not having the limitations. That seems reasonable as a statement, and the Mail have twisted it to get their headline - it says nothing about the strength of evidence.

 

[the blue panther]

We missed out on players when we were punished by UEFA. Di Maria was one of them from what I remember. Think we were restricted to spending £50m or around that figure.

Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten about that. It was a minor setback at the time. We'd cope again with that, I'm sure.
Dodged a bullet there with Di Maria!

 

[Lavinda Past]

Not keen on singing a song better suited to Millwall. I don't like our billion in the bank song but it seems apt right now.

I think we're a lot less liked than Millwall at the moment.

 

[01cravend]

Honestly buzzing for the moment the temperature in the UK rises by a few degrees from the nationwide, simultaneous boiling of piss when we get a small fine and a slap on the wrist.

 

[oddfellows]

Of course. I’m sure if the premier league did the same investigation into every other club they’d be guilty of things too

Will it happen though ?

It's discriminatory otherwise, one rule for one and all that

 

[chickaroon]

This is making me seriously consider dosing myself up on Sunday with extra painkillers to get to the Aston Villa game to make sure that I can beard some of those alleged journalists in their seats at the back of 125! I used to exchange a bit of banter with some of them but it won’t be banter now!!
This is our club they are trying to destroy and I haven’t been supporting them for over 60 odd years for that lot to tear them down now!
THIS IS THE BEST TEAM IN THE LAND AND ALL THE WORLD!!

Go and jump in the lake whoever is behind this. Make sure the water is freezing because you will need to be ready for the freezing out from City as they beat the flaming, stupid, mindless, unintelligent excuse for human beings into submission.

Sorry for the rant but I’ve lost my calm and reasonable nature and I’m becoming Ms Angry 2023!!

Love it Eccles.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

I think, in simple terms, you have to look at who's who. This - the Premier League - is a private club and City, as a member, are accused of not complying with the club's rules. It isn't criminal to disobey a private club's rules. They can only take action against us under the rules of the club. These are disciplinary proceedings under the club's rules.
If, as things unfold during the proceedings someone becomes convinced that something criminal has happened, they can report it to the police, serious fraud office, or the inland revenue if they wish. Then, one of those authorities would investigate and decide whether they felt that there had been some criminal intent, and whether the club, or any directors or officers of the club had been complicit in the criminal behaviour.
There is no allegation of criminal behaviour yet because that will invite City/whoever to sue the pants off whoever makes such an allegation WHEN we successfully end these present proceedings.
Unless City win quickly, this is going to run and run for a very, very long time - years - and we are a long way from any potential criminal prosecution.

I understand this piece. Much like FFP states you can lose X amount in Y period. You lose too much in the set period, you have broken an FFP rule and are punished as per the rules of FFP. FFP isn’t a law of the land, so it remains within “the club”. No issues there.

However, some of the accusations pre-date FFP and seem far more akin to breaking a law of the land, than they do breaking a club rule. This is where I am still lost.

Shite analogy incoming…

You foul someone on a pitch, you give away a free-kick, get carded etc. All covered in the club rules. End of it. You stab someone to death on the pitch, it might have happened within the club, but I don’t think it ends with the PL putting a panel together to determine if you should receive more than the usual 3 match ban for violent conduct.

I am just struggling with an accusation of falsifying accounts coming out and it being dealt with inside “the club”.