PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

In the same interview he said this

View attachment 129988


The most money lesser clubs are getting is from transfers, which they have crippled with those fucking regulations.

What a bellend

He knows as much about football as that prick masters.
Scary to think them two are in charge of something so huge yet don't have a scoobies how to run things.

 

[Cassandra]

That rules him out then (hopefully)

The nightmare scenario would be an IC panel of Rosen (AFC), Glancy (MUFC) and Hovell (LFC suspected due to Milner connections).

I think the nightmare scenario would be Omar Berrada doing a Billy Meredith.

 

[train man]

Because by doing so, it didn’t affect the outcome.

I wonder if that panel member knew that before 'voting'..? Do we know?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I wonder if that panel member knew that before 'voting'..? Do we know?

Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.

 

[SilverFox2]

Highly complex because they have to go through every document and every sponsorship as masters and the red puppets have come to the conclusion that we couldn't possibly run so professionally and not be on the fiddle.

I'm just wondering if the HMRC and The Fraud Squad will be asking our owners and CEO's any questions as we're being accused of Fraud on a humongous scale.

And Omar Berrada will be grilled surely as he was the main man for sponsorship deals and the like.

I'm sure the press will be all over that as the trial continues.

Re HMCE involvement I recall years ago regarding UK trade with Saudi Arabia where I think war armements (probably Tornados) were being paid for.
I think the Times made an issue of extras paid by SA for their internal use (no SA taxation at the time) but The UK revenue were only interested in where their cut was and were then happy to see it shown elsewhere.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but hopefully was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.

He published his objections in a newspaper article after CAS iirc, at least he got a junior in his law firm to do it making it clear it wasn't his opinion. But clearly it was. I could try to dig it out if I was arsed.

 

[Oldham Exile]

Not a lawyer, but never understood why the CAS ruling did not have clearly identified sections where the UEFA panel member justified his vote against City. As we know, the ruling states 11 times there was no evidence that proved private equity instead of Etihad sponsorship. Some have mentioned a legal convention where only the neutral panel member decides CAS verdicts, but that would mean EVERY ruling would be decided 2-1.
My guess is his justification was not published in public but was provided to City's legal team. Clearly that would provide very useful content ie help to re-inforce our defence for PL v MCFC.

It does knock my confidence - the way this is so casually mentioned/accepted, yet when people express a concern that the same thing could happen again - those concerns are so casually dismissed.

Surely the only 'evidence' of such matters we have is what has happened before?

Because of this 'convention' we have had years of the 'red-masses' bemoaning that we were allowed to get away on a technicality and that we appointed 2 of the judges. That narrative has been so effective it has become fact in so many peoples eyes.

 

[silva_is_gold]

There were 100 apples, all worth £5 each

ADUG owned 78
Silver lake owned 18
Other people owned 4

Some more apples are made, so now there's about 104 apples

Instead of splitting the extra in the same way as above ie ADUG get 78% of them, SL 18%, others 4%

We are going to give ADUG about 76% of them, SL about 20% and others 4%

So now everyone owns more apples, but SL own a little bit more than they used to, and ADUG own slightly less

That swing would have been a little bit bigger had they not been NEW shares, as owning 76% of 104 is bigger than owning 78% of 100....just!

I appreciate this may have confused you even more, but there is no idiots guide to Accountancy, unfortunately!

So we're only worth a bag of apples ffs haha

 

[KS55]

I think the nightmare scenario would be Omar Berrada doing a Billy Meredith.

Nah, Barrada is useless in the air.

 

[Damanino]

haha, Chelsea just sold a reserve striker for about 20m to Strasbourg where Boehly is majority owner.:)
another loophole?