PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Bald fraud]

Sorry I have not been on for a while.

This sort of thing is so rare, you really have to have done something really bad and cost someone (usually the government ie HMRC) a lot of money. As I say, prosecuting would mean accounts would have to be ammended and millions of pounds of VAT repaid to City, that's not a mess the government or any prosecutors would want to get themselves into.

We have cost someone a lot of money. The premier league make more money when the rags are hoovering up trophies. We’ve stopped that

 

[Silva2021]

I kind of enjoy reading this thread, not sure why!!

but we do have some brilliant posters who provide some thoughtful and educated pieces and we definitely seem better when the detail is discussed.

However, anyone with a slightly negative view kind of gets rail roaded a bit.

Overall, I don’t think we will be found guilty, based on for me most intelligent opinion I hear is Stefan who seems fair and articulate (so I’m basing mainly on this). I would love Stefan to have been a Liverpool fan and be saying the same thing as to ensure no confirmation basis (no offence Stefan, as of course we love having you as a fan).

My point is I do believe be it the United fan or Neville that is asking has our window been effected by the charges and I think it most certainly have.

Now, I’m not saying it means guilt but the facts on their own we have had a quiet window. The sale of Alvarez I think is based on the reasons Alvarez has said and is no way affected by the charges. The decision to replace or go with youth again could be effected by the charges.

We could get a points deduction
We could get relegated

So would any new signing want that over not having that uncertainty.

Would Bruno G want the risk of upsetting the Newcastle fans to join us and then have his PL dream lost due to no fault of his own.

Would Haaland renew now or wait and see what happens.

Same for Pep.

Whether we like it or not the litigation causes us issues that we either have to indemnify against or reassure to the point they do not feel they need them.

I think the club has made the decision that it’s better to get the litigation done and then hopefully we can be in a better situation to move forward on all the above.

 

[TedofChume]

Brilliant mate. Very informative and cuts through the normally lengthy articles we see on city and 115.

I do hope you are correct.

All the info is there if you look, but it takes time, so most people don't bother. I thought I'd still through it all just to see how bad it could be. The bit about depreciation swung it though.

 

[mcfcpride]

Cowards can't beat us on the pitch!

 

[TedofChume]

That's a lot of work. I will have a look when I have the time.

But are you sure your numbers are right? Aren't they claiming 60 million a year of equity investment disguised as Etihad sponsorship? In which case it would be an adjustment of 180 million for a three year period for Etihad alone?

All the reported values are £40m for Etihad and £10m for Etisalat deals.

There are various alleged payments from ADUG for £67m, £90m etc but if true without seeing what money went from City to ADUG it's impossible to draw any conclusions. I get the impression City leant ADUG money to invest and these are repayments.

 

[burning blue soul]

It's a daily struggle lol

They have certainly been on here swatting up for the script :D

 

[Norbiton]

Anyone thinking non cooperation will just be a fine will probably be disappointed. It obviously makes sense that such a minor offence is a fine, and it should be, but we can only go off past offences and judgments of the Premier League. There has only been one case that I know off thats been found guilty of non co-operation and that was the Everton case. In particular their appeal reduction was due to being found guilty of this charge but not actually being charged for this offence in the first place. So a complete legal fuck up. This is why they got a 2 points reduction (I think it was that right?) from their initial penalty. I seriously doubt it was a legal fuck up in the first place though and it's set them up to deduct us 10 points if they find us guilty on the charge.

My memory was that the panel laughed themselves sick at the non cooperation charge which included things like documents being provided in a different format from that requested, but my memory isn’t very reliable these days

 

[Metal Biker]

The PL are the native English and City are the evil great heathen army..

Incase anyone forgot how it turned out:

The Great Heathen Army lost...? Quite considerably, in fact.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Or you could argue Evertons original 10 point penalty included the non co-operation charge, and it was reduced to 6 on appeal when the non co-operation charge was removed, so that element was worth a maximum of 4 points

Yep if that was right I could remember the exact numbers. 4 points it is then

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

The Great Heathen Army lost...? Quite considerably, in fact.

No they won.

But like life.. not every battle is a final victory. The battles keep coming.