Dannyblue52
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 143
The Premier league did nothing about the hateful eight's letter that clearly breaks the acting in good faith rule.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Scottish Cityzen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2017
- Messages
- 2,458
Plus Delap for initial £15m plus £5m in add-ons?View attachment 128473
We have sold 5 players (3 from the academy) for £116m the other 2 cost us £19m and both contributed to us winning the treble!
No doubt you read it at the time. Double FOC.The Daily Worker wasn't over critical either.
I think there have been some, particularly in cases concerning individuals in drug appeals etc. Big companies vs Regulators may be a different matter.I was thinking that myself and was going to check whether any CAS decisions had been unanimous. Do you have any idea?
They will never apologise. Some will double down “they got away with it again.”Masters - he who shouts the loudest.....
A desperate individual.
As it stands City are guilty of nothing.
This is what we should be running with.
There will be no settlement other than exoneration and an apology from all our detractors.
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
Terrifying how a snappy line can override the brutality of a totalitarian despot, but stick around long enough and future generations will have Uncle Joseph Stalin as a freedom fighter.Not having a go at you (you're only saying what you saw, after all) but 30 pages later and as an Irishman I am still trying to get my head around how, out of all the people in history, the programme makers thought it appropriate to reach for a quote from Oliver fucking Cromwell, for a condemnation of collective punishment and genocide.
Grossly insensitive.
Presumably, there were no pithy zingers available from Pol Pot or Genghis Khan.
GOULDYBOBS
Well-Known Member
Should be a "send to gobshites" optionWe need a “very loud and long applause” button on here.
burning blue soul
Well-Known Member
Arriving late to the hearing after lunch..I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Or,Terrifying how a snappy line can override the brutality of a totalitarian despot, but stick around long enough and future generations will have Uncle Joseph Stalin as a freedom fighter.
That Hitler bloke was a gas man, give him his due!
Cromwell? Centuries on, is still a bad word, a curse in Ireland.
Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
An interesting and informative read. Judging by the language and terminology used, you appear to have some expertise and experience of legal matters as they apply to large organisations and contractual issues in particular. While I'm not challenging your word, it would be helpful to know whether indeed that is the case if only to help reinforce the measured optimism throughout your comment with an assurance that you speak with some authority on such matters.My feelings on this are exactly the same as they were before the latest round of media hit job pieces in the Athletic by the buck toothed rag and other outlets.
1. Etihad
I believe they have nothing but the emails and all of those (including the full run, so some not used by UEFA referred to by "Magic Twat" on X as some kind of silver bullet) are insufficient on their own to prove the actual conduct they partly infer took place. City and Etihad Bank statements, accounts and documents with additional testimony from senior management involved in the transactions of both parties, acting as rebuttal evidence, sufficiently prove the monies came from Etihad central funds and ADEC - NOT ADUG.
54 of the charges fail if the PL cannot prove this.
2. Etisalat
The subject of Piers Morgans' wet dream youtube programme and supposed mystery man and the loaned 30 million is a red herring. The monies are properly accounted for in everyone's expense and receivables (incoming and outgoing accounts) as a loan from an intermediary as a method of up front sponsorship payment when only pre contract agreements were in place. In any event without proof of fraud these will AGAIN be outside any limitation period. This time by the 6 year limitation applied by UK law, not 5 year UEFA rule.
3. Aabar / AD Tourist Board
Prior to the 2014 UEFA NDA sanction agreement (the pinch) these 2nd tier two sponsorships were alleged by UEFA to be above FMV. i believe also alleged by UEFA to be related parties. Whilst City are on record dissenting those UEFA opinions the sponsorship values were adjusted down and accepted going forward. Nothing to see here and no indication the PL are interested in either sponsorship value.
4. Fordham Ltd (image rights)
A temporary company vehicle created to generate approx 25 million income by the centralisation and purchase of player image rights from City when we desperately needed supplementary revenue. Like selling a hotel to yourself, it was creative accounting to generate income. There was no skullduggary it was a loophole we used to boost the coffers so as not to fail the 3 year deficit allowance. It was shut down subsequently and image rights given / sold back to club or players. HMRC seemed happy it wasn't used to evade tax as was the case at other clubs, so again, seemingly nothing to see here.
5. Mancini / Toure - remuneration
The PL have to prove that City did not declare the money paid to Mancini, 1.75 mill per annum, by the Abu Dhabi football club Al Jazeera Sports Cultural Club through Sparkleglow Ltd (a Mancini owned company) arranged by ADUG was part of his City remuneration package. If there are separate employment contracts whose obligations are agreed and met by both parties it is difficult to see how it can be proved by the PL. There also seems some confusion as to if the PL are trying to a) include this remuneration money as part of the charge of "failing to submit accurate fincial information" for those years it was paid up to 2013. Clearly it would appear these annual amounts, if proven to be such as alleged, would likely be insufficient to create a "false financial picture" of the accounts on their own.
Or b) simply imply it was omitted from Mancinis full salary declarations by City which is a breach of a current rule in the PL handbook but unsure if it breaches such a rule, if proven, from 2011- 2013.
The inclusion of Toure seems somewhat of an anomaly here and I'm unsure where the link to him comes from the list of PL charges. It seems to come from the media in the wake of the allegations however not all media outlets include Toure in any overview of the charges. Where he does appear it seems a generic inclusion in accusations of image rights payments although his agent, Seluk, like Mancini, deny both any wrongdoing or that they have been approached by the PL for either a statement or comments.
The whole thing seems a stretch by the PL and considering the sums involved in comparison to the main charges a spaghetti against the wall overreach.
6. None co-operation
Due to the seriousness of these charges City have quite rightly argued every point of law where doubt has arisen. For one, City appealed that the Independant Panel was not the appropriate venue for such serious matters to be decided. Although the courts have ruled against City in most, if not all our appeals, City have clearly laid a marker that they will not take any adverse decision lightly. However no appeal for court decisions can be deemed to be none co-operation. There are other Internet myths propagated by the likes of Simon Jordan that City appealed the inclusion of Murray Rosen on the panel as he is an Arsenal supporter and Season Ticket holder. Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that Citys primary advocate KC, Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal fan and supporter.
City say they have co-operated by the sheer volume of material supplied to the PL that rebutts their allegations but the details of alleged none co-operation by the PL are not listed and each (35 at least) will be argued out in front of the panel and it will be for them to decide such matters.
In any event if in some matters City have been none co-operative it will have been on legal advice for good reason and we would have to face the financial penalty for so doing. There is no sporting advantage from such breaches therefore no sporting sanction (points reduction etc) can be attributed to those charges.
So in summing up I am unmoved from my original position which I took some time ago that I am confident that the serious charges are unlikely to be proven and the other matters seem wishy washy at best. We'll all have to wait and see.
I believe our Chairman and Chief Exec when they say we've done nothing wrong.
If we come out of this relatively unscathed as I suspect, I want some fucking heads on sticks, starting with that **** Masters.
We should be relentless in going after media wankers who want to continue the no smoke without fire narrative. I'd like to see us make an example of a gobshite like Collymore or Aldridge even Goldbridge (yes you Brent) who can't keep their traps shut and think they are beyond reach.
This whole fiasco has been a media witchunt, an enormous smear campaign against the club and its fans over 10 years. Let's not get mad, let's get even!