PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

daveoswald said:
Yes that's the narrative, the facts are only five clubs have spent more time in the top division than city, we truly are one of the "BIG SIX".
Click to expand...

I’ve explained we went from the 3rd tier to 9th in the prem without a pot to piss in & then spent a billion to go from 9th to 1st & it’s the latter part people find unbelievable…….
 
Canter said:
I absolutely agree with you.
Like all these other online red top social media fools, he’s chasing clout off the back off our alleged charges.
There’s literally dozens of Twitter accounts out there who only comment about us, it’s like an OCG… it’s fucking toxic out there.
Click to expand...
When articles about City appeared on the MSN web site here in NZ some clown always commented "115". After about the fifth occasion I replied, "Do you actually know what the charges are?" Hasn't commented since!
 
Bluekiwi said:
When articles about City appeared on the MSN web site here in NZ some clown always commented "115". After about the fifth occasion I replied, "Do you actually know what the charges are?" Hasn't commented since!
Click to expand...

It's part of football folklore now, it isn't going anywhere the media have ran with it and we are guilty EVEN if we are exonerated.

It's our job as City fans to disregard them as we keep on winning.
 
Not sure if the correct thread but I hope Liverpool fans read this before passing judgement on City and our owners, sponsors and our financial arrangements.


www.bbc.co.uk

Standard Chartered: UK bank accused of helping to fund terrorists

Standard Chartered carried out billions of dollars of transactions for terrorist funders, US court papers claim.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Gordyola said:
No we had the initial UEFA FFP failure the one we took “a pinch” for when we failed due to a late change, in what was allowed, paid a fine and squad reduction
Then there was the 2 year ban following the Der Spiegel leaks which was successfully appealed to CAS the only thing they partially withheld was the non-cooperation although they reduced the UEFA fine from €30 to €10 as they accepted our mitigation over the leaks
Click to expand...

I know this "last minute change" has become part of Bluemoon folklore, but it isn't exactly right. The club was likely screwed on several other issues before the change in the treatment of pre-2010 contract costs in 2012/13. These would include fair value of second-tier AD sponsorships, revenue from the sale of IP to CFG and revenue from the sale of image rights to Fordham, any of which would have made the contract costs irrelevant. There were also questions around the club's inclusion of amortisation in the pre-2010 contract costs, which UEFA disputed. Any of those would have led to an FFP breach irrespective of the "last minute change".

While I am at it, CAS didn't allow any mitigation for non-cooperation. They found the club breached the duty to cooperate in respect of UEFA requests that weren't produced until CAS. No mitigation for the UEFA leaks was requested iirc, and mitigation for the age of the breaches and for COVID were denied. The 10 million fine was thought to be appropriate for the breach (note that the original UEFA fine of 30 million wasn't just for non-cooperation, the combination of 2 year CL ban and fine were the sanctions for all the charges taken together).
 
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
✖
  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.