PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
I think the way they write the award is just "The commission finds ....", there will be no discussion of individual opinions or even an indication of unanimity or dissention. At least, iirc, there hasn't been in previous awards.
Click to expand...
I suppose in a way rather than being inconvenienced by it the KCs are grateful for the extra work they can charge out as one offs rather than having to group them together.

If the PL have to pay I'm sure the individual Clubs will understand why.
 
Charge #11356 - Cleared of all previous charges, thus upsetting several competitors, rival fans and journos, and putting them at a mental disadvantage in several competitions for this and all subsequent seasons. Therefore, exclusion of the offending club is sought as the only reasonable and fair course of action, in order to protect the football establishment in England.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.

If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Unless of course it is part of allegations to deliberately clog up the Appeal System.
Click to expand...
It was the Der Spiegel stories that started this, although apparently UEFA knew about Fordham ten years ago and discussed it with us then, 3 years before Der Spiegel published their articles. And if Fordham was meant to be a secret, it was a poorly-concealed one as it was in full view on the Companies House website.

My view has always been that if UEFA thought we were hiding player payments from them, we'd have known about it, given how close it was after the 2014 settlement. But we know that Fordham was a rather contrived device to sell IP in order to generate a one-off increase revenue in the 2012/13 FY, not a device to hide expenses.

My guess would be that UEFA saw player payments coming from a third-party and queried this. I believe the Fordham payments carried on for another couple of years before the scheme was closed down so there couldn't have been too much of an issue with them.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It was the Der Spiegel stories that started this, although apparently UEFA knew about Fordham ten years ago and discussed it with us then, 3 years before Der Spiegel published their articles. And if Fordham was meant to be a secret, it was a poorly-concealed one as it was in full view on the Companies House website.

My view has always been that if UEFA thought we were hiding player payments from them, we'd have known about it, given how close it was after the 2014 settlement. But we know that Fordham was a rather contrived device to sell IP in order to generate a one-off increase revenue in the 2012/13 FY, not a device to hide expenses.

My guess would be that UEFA saw player payments coming from a third-party and queried this. I believe the Fordham payments carried on for another couple of years before the scheme was closed down so there couldn't have been too much of an issue with them.
Click to expand...
Many thanks Colin for that detailed reply.
I can see how suspicions were raised especially when our business plan had a few years to run before we were finished with owner investment.
How right they were to try to stop City early doors. They were terrified of our owners investment plans from the start and didn't want City to upset their financial setup.
 
I checked in here at lunch time on the last day of the international break, hoping for some 115 verdict news... no such luck.
Think I need a consolation coffee with a tasty muffin or barm (same thing).
 
SilverFox2 said:
Many thanks Colin for that detailed reply.
I can see how suspicions were raised especially when our business plan had a few years to run before we were finished with owner investment.
How right they were to try to stop City early doors. They were terrified of our owners investment plans from the start and didn't want City to upset their financial setup.
Click to expand...
As we've always said, it's about context. If you look at Fordham in isolation it looks dodgy on the surface. If you understand the full sequence of events however it makes a bit more sense.

The problem is that the events of the first two years of FFP, and the scramble to use the Annex XI provisions, aren't understood by many outside the club. I spent a lot of time researching this, with help from Swiss Ramble, so I think I have a good insight into it. People like Jamie Carragher and the other KFAs haven't the first clue about FFP or the process behind it.
 
Greenandblue said:
Think I need a consolation coffee with a tasty muffin or barm (same thing).
Click to expand...
A barm is bread, and something you'd typically have cut in half with meat/cheese (maybe both!) in the middle.

A muffin is a cake that often comes with chocolate chips or blueberries inside.

Absolutely not the same, and we don't need three KC's to work that one out.
 
KS55 said:
That’s like saying Vimpto and Vimto are the same thing.
Click to expand...
They are. Some while back in Off Topic I took a great deal of time to show why and when the P was dropped.
In short, during World War One every company was asked to make savings to help the war effort. To reduce printing costs, J.W. Nicholson shortened Vimpto to Vimto.
 
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