PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Newman Noggs]

Anita or Bomber?

 

[citizen_maine]

We won't be proven innocent
The charges will be unproven
There is a difference

They're not charges, they're allegations.
There's a difference :-)

 

[Bell1970]

Just contacted the BBC to ask them for the source of Dan Roan’s quote "no conclusive evidence that they disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship" - because I can’t find that in the 93 page CAS Summary. I suspect the arse made it up.

Followed you in..

YOUR COMPLAINT:

Dan Roan Clickbait bias 

I read Dan Roan's article about the forthcoming investigative hearing between Manchester City and the Premier League. It seems to be full of errors which are presumably left in for effect.

1. It is not a trial, it is a hearing. There is a big difference.
2. He uses the phrase "No conclusive evidence" to refer to the judgement of CAS in the 2022 case between the same club and the European governing body. Why has he chosen to insert the word "conclusive" when the actual CAS adjudication used the phrase "no evidence" 12 times. Does including the word "conclusive" sound a bit more sinister??
3. Dan informs us that the Independent Commission has "limitless powers". No they do not. For example they cannot demand access to the books of third party sponsors which would surely be a key part of any criminal investigation. Neither can they demand to see bank accounts for club owners for example. Once again, Dan makes no attempt to explain the type of cogent evidence that will be required to get the outcome he so clearly hopes for.
4. Dan also says that there can be no time-barring applied to this investigative hearing. Again that is wholly wrong. The Premier League and it's rules are still bound by the law of the land which has a statute of limitations of 6 years which in this case will most likely apply to many of the allegations. Time barring will apply unless the Premier League's legal team can show cogent evidence (that phrase again) that dishonesty and potentially fraud have been involved in the preparation of accounts. This information regarding basic legal process is easy to find and I find it shocking, although not surprising, that the BBC's lead reporter has either not bothered to appraise himself of such basic facts or just chosen to mislead his audience.


Once again the BBC's impartiality is in question. I am aware that Mr Roan has previously been barred from the Etihad for inaccurate reporting in the past. Is he abusing his position to exact revenge?

 

[Dubai Blue]

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575

And yet City's actual mascot that day (in the keeper kit) had all the branding on her kit covered up with green tape. Those classless, opportunistic fuckers never miss a trick.

 

[M18CTID]

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575

What makes it worse is that the City mascot at the front with Dunne was wearing the special issue City kit that didn't have the name of our sponsor on. If United were going to do it properly then all their mascots should've been wearing the same sponsor-less shirts as their players just like our mascot was.

 

[M18CTID]

And yet City's actual mascot that day (in the keeper kit) had all the branding on her kit covered up with green tape. Those classless, opportunistic fuckers never miss a trick.

Beat me to it! I thought our mascot had a special issue goalie shirt rather than the sponsor being covered up but either way we did it right and them lot didn't. And it was their occasion too. Disrespectful cunts!

 

[Resurrection Joe...]

Beat me to it! I thought our mascot had a special issue goalie shirt rather than the sponsor being covered up but either way we did it right and them lot didn't. And it was their occasion too. Disrespectful cunts!

just a note. It was an occasion for the whole of Manchester which some time ago, way after the actual event itself, they decided to monetise.

 

[KS55]

May be totally wrong but wouldn't there be a route to CAS through the FA as the governing body in UK?

Nope.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Followed you in..

YOUR COMPLAINT:

Dan Roan Clickbait bias 

I read Dan Roan's article about the forthcoming investigative hearing between Manchester City and the Premier League. It seems to be full of errors which are presumably left in for effect.

1. It is not a trial, it is a hearing. There is a big difference.
2. He uses the phrase "No conclusive evidence" to refer to the judgement of CAS in the 2022 case between the same club and the European governing body. Why has he chosen to insert the word "conclusive" when the actual CAS adjudication used the phrase "no evidence" 12 times. Does including the word "conclusive" sound a bit more sinister??
3. Dan informs us that the Independent Commission has "limitless powers". No they do not. For example they cannot demand access to the books of third party sponsors which would surely be a key part of any criminal investigation. Neither can they demand to see bank accounts for club owners for example. Once again, Dan makes no attempt to explain the type of cogent evidence that will be required to get the outcome he so clearly hopes for.
4. Dan also says that there can be no time-barring applied to this investigative hearing. Again that is wholly wrong. The Premier League and it's rules are still bound by the law of the land which has a statute of limitations of 6 years which in this case will most likely apply to many of the allegations. Time barring will apply unless the Premier League's legal team can show cogent evidence (that phrase again) that dishonesty and potentially fraud have been involved in the preparation of accounts. This information regarding basic legal process is easy to find and I find it shocking, although not surprising, that the BBC's lead reporter has either not bothered to appraise himself of such basic facts or just chosen to mislead his audience.


Once again the BBC's impartiality is in question. I am aware that Mr Roan has previously been barred from the Etihad for inaccurate reporting in the past. Is he abusing his position to exact revenge?

Being honest, most fan complaints I read on here are arse clenchingly embarrassing but that’s well written and reasonable.

 

[Bentheblue]

And yet City's actual mascot that day (in the keeper kit) had all the branding on her kit covered up with green tape. Those classless, opportunistic fuckers never miss a trick.

It possible could have been but iI don’t remember this being mentioned in the media at the time.