PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[searsleftpeg]

As someone who believes in "cock ups " rather than " conspiracy" in most contentious of instances, the longer this drags on the more chance for the conspiracy worm to eat away
My latest is ,its taking so long ,because the ramifications of us being found guilty are being negotiated at governmental level .
Then I think of Koolhand and realise I'm talking bollox ,so back to reread the match day thread for a bit of balance and moderation.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Regardless of the actual verdict, Khaldoon will surely be aware of whether City deliberately acted in a fraudulent manner and therefore whether we're guilty or innocent of the most serious charges?

Or am I just being thick?

This is a key point we often forget. Khaldoon knows the truth. I think the club would have behaved totally differently if they knew the PL had a smoking gun. We would have settled a long time ago.

 

[dadnlad]

If this goes into 2026 then I'm going to find it hard to believe there aren't any discussions going on behind the scenes - involving the regulator/government.

It's genuinely ridiculous that nothing has yet come out, and to be honest, it's starting to worry me a bit.

deep down do you think the other clubs wouldn't shout foul play and keep quiet not a chance with paid off clientele media

 

[Stoned Rose]

Regardless of the actual verdict, Khaldoon will surely be aware of whether City deliberately acted in a fraudulent manner and therefore whether we're guilty or innocent of the most serious charges?

Or am I just being thick?

I said the same on here last week.

City will have been fully aware of whether they’ve breached any rules before this whole nonsense was ever even thought about.

City will absolutely know what the outcome is going to be and will not be awaiting a panel’s verdict to confirm this.

 

[slbsn]

I don't think they would necessarily involve the club or PL but it stands to reason that the regulator might want to find out what's going on and what the impact might be.

Not really and nobody would tell the IFR

 

[Stoned Rose]

It's that Friday feeling again, always think it's prime day of the week to drop at the doors of us & the Prem.

Posters need to stop thinking there is a “prime” time for an announcement, or there are nice little “windows” where it would be announced.

Anyone claiming it’s more likely at this time than another, or think it’s taking too long, are basing this on nothing other than the time it’s taking is making them feel uncomfortable.

It’ll be announced when it’s ready, not when posters on a football forum think would be best or because the time it’s taking is worrying them.

 

[eastlandsblue]

Didn’t the APT announcement happen mid afternoon. So all this international breaks, 9am and 10am is all guess work, that people need to take with a pinch salt

 

[There is a Light]

I think if (and it's a big if) we are to get an announcement this international break, then Monday morning seems the most likely time which would probably mean the parties receiving the verdict today to check over the weekend. Maybe there'll be some whispers in the next day or so, but I'm not holding my breath. Crazy to think there's a good chance this will now run into 2026.

Christmas Eve - Merry Christmas - City absolved of all guilt.

 

[AshtonBlueMooner]

Another barren week in terms of updates.
Digressing.
Weather is bad.
Time for melted cheese on toast with beans on top. A spattering of HP sauce.
Followed by an afternoon session in the local with some pals.
Roll on Monday when we can all dive back in, waiting for the forum to run slow and expecting that to be the sign the result is in.
Have a great weekend folks.

 

[pudge]

Nothing?

Maybe I'll chance my arm with Ms. Alba after all

 

[Saddleworth2]

FWIw, I have seldom seen Pep so relaxed and happy looking. It’s clear that he is avoiding this thread.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Another barren week in terms of updates.
Digressing.
Weather is bad.
Time for melted cheese on toast with beans on top. A spattering of HP sauce.
Followed by an afternoon session in the local with some pals.
Roll on Monday when we can all dive back in, waiting for the forum to run slow and expecting that to be the sign the result is in.
Have a great weekend folks.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I said the same on here last week.

City will have been fully aware of whether they’ve breached any rules before this whole nonsense was ever even thought about.

City will absolutely know what the outcome is going to be and will not be awaiting a panel’s verdict to confirm this.

Or, to play devil's advocate for a moment, they know they did it but they know the PL can't prove it to the required standard.

Doesn't change the rest of your analysis and both situations are fine by me, tbh.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Posters need to stop thinking there is a “prime” time for an announcement, or there are nice little “windows” where it would be announced.

Anyone claiming it’s more likely at this time than another, or think it’s taking too long, are basing this on nothing other than the time it’s taking is making them feel uncomfortable.

It’ll be announced when it’s ready, not when posters on a football forum think would be best or because the time it’s taking is worrying them.

Or an international break!

 

[slbsn]

I said the same on here last week.

City will have been fully aware of whether they’ve breached any rules before this whole nonsense was ever even thought about.

City will absolutely know what the outcome is going to be and will not be awaiting a panel’s verdict to confirm this.

Overly simplistic

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I said the same on here last week.

City will have been fully aware of whether they’ve breached any rules before this whole nonsense was ever even thought about.

City will absolutely know what the outcome is going to be and will not be awaiting a panel’s verdict to confirm this.

The problem is that the rules we've been charged under are very vague and subjective. How do you know when you've done something you believe is legitimate if you've failed to act in good faith?

I'm certain we didn't enter into any arrangement covered by the charges with the intent to deceive or mislead anyone.

• The Mancini contract wasn't done to hide expenses or otherwise improve our financial reports.
• The Fordham arrangement was to get revenue in. You could argue it was a dubious arrangement to sell IP to a seemingly connected third-party but Chelsea and others have sold tangible assets to connected parties without problems, so there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It wasn't done to hide expenses.
• We really aren't sure about the sponsorship charges but CAS determined the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment. And if we genuinely believed it (or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsorship) wasn't a related party then we clearly haven't attempted to deceive anyone by not declaring it as such.

There have been many instances of people believing they've done something "in good faith" where subsequent events have meant they didn't. Tax law is one such area as are the many contract and commercial disputes that have ended up in court.

 

[Fernster]

It will be announced on Fraterday the Tentieth of Jellember!! Postman Pat's Cat told me this is true.

Looks like my prediction in March, seems to be coming true.
Please don't put me in the ITK club because it was PP's cat that predicted it.

 

[slbsn]

Posters need to stop thinking there is a “prime” time for an announcement, or there are nice little “windows” where it would be announced.

Anyone claiming it’s more likely at this time than another, or think it’s taking too long, are basing this on nothing other than the time it’s taking is making them feel uncomfortable.

It’ll be announced when it’s ready, not when posters on a football forum think would be best or because the time it’s taking is worrying them.

This isn't correct. There are more likely times and less likely times. It was never possible to be in the first 3-4 months. It was not possible in August. It is not possible in late December. It is more likely now than 6 months ago and less likely in 6 months time.

And to be clear, the timings I have discussed reflect the views of the parties and their senior lawyers as opposed to being made up or riffed.

I know you don't believe it but it is true.

 

[oldius]

Given the minutiae is so utterly dull, I am still unfathomably drawn to this thread.
I am beginning to think that the ending will be as flat as a fart.

 

[dadnlad]

The problem is that the rules we've been charged under are very vague and subjective. How do you know when you've done something you believe is legitimate if you've failed to act in good faith?

I'm certain we didn't enter into any arrangement covered by the charges with the intent to deceive or mislead anyone.

• The Mancini contract wasn't done to hide expenses or otherwise improve our financial reports.
• The Fordham arrangement was to get revenue in. You could argue it was a dubious arrangement to sell IP to a seemingly connected third-party but Chelsea and others have sold tangible assets to connected parties without problems, so there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It wasn't done to hide expenses.
• We really aren't sure about the sponsorship charges but CAS determined the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment. And if we genuinely believed it (or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsorship) wasn't a related party then we clearly haven't attempted to deceive anyone by not declaring it as such.

There have been many instances of people believing they've done something "in good faith" where subsequent events have meant they didn't. Tax law is one such area as are the many contract and commercial disputes that have ended up in court.

First line is key subjective