but this is the problem for the PL they've wrote the rules and what you've just said is city passes all of them apart from the first good faith one. So for the seasons from 2009 to 2013 they've charged us with 20 breaches, we pass them all by definition apart from 4 of them which are open to interpretation.Ah, this is where we are disagreeing.
I agree with you that the club has very probably complied with a literal reading of P7 and P8 which I suppose is the benchmark now, so those two rules shouldn't be a problem.
But I think you can't read the "filing incorrect accounts" rules literally, for the very reason they have also thrown "bad faith" in there. Yes, the club filed accounts. Yes, they had a clean audit opinion. Yes, the club filed future financial information. All good. Until you take bad faith into account. The PL is saying the directors filed accounts in bad faith because they knew they were wrong, deceived the auditors in bad faith into giving a clean opinion and then deliberately concealed all that in bad faith from the PL.
If you don't take the bad faith allegation into account, it's basically saying these aren't effectively allegations of fraud and that argument has been done to death since day one.
Anyway, I could be completely wrong, but I think all that applies to Mancini and Fordham and/ or Toure as much as sponsorship, no matter what the individual rules for manager and player remuneration say.
In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
agreed, but this is just the first section which is just not going to stick at all.I agree entirely with what you have said. The rules only cover his contract with the club. So why the fuck have they charged us ? Surely if we broke the actual rules at that time we should have been charged then. It stinks of "charge them with everything we can think of and hope something sticks".
Very little's changed mate. Numerous posters rehashing most of what's been posted several times already.I’m struggling to keep up with this thread. And that’s with me off work this week It’s going to be a long haul.
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
Yeah, watched that, Slater and his sidekick offered no balance, no mention of the emails being doctored etcI watched The Athletic YouTube channel video about "what punishment will City get?"
Video truthfully wasn't as bad as I was expecting, still was bad mind you, but at least they mostly included "if".
They did address, very briefly, what will City do if/when we win the case. They seemed to think City would be happy to just let it go and move on
I find that madness.
this is a crucial point, I think pre 2014 there's two possible attacks the PL could use and that's the players contracts and the good faith rules, the others can be dismissed in my opinion. So if no fraud happened during this time which I seriously believe (why would city commit fraud when there was no need to during this period makes no sense) then even if they find us guilty of bad faith the SoL would overide them anyway.In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
Why though? Surely saddling a club with £500M debt from out of nowhere is also a case to answer.Simple Simon:
“We can’t ignore City are currently embroiled in a hearing looking into 115 alleged financial breaches of Premier League rules.
While we are excited for this (arse)fixture, the greatest threat to English football is the ridiculousness of the misplaced thinking behind PSR (profit and sustainability rules).
If you have an owner losing a hundred million quid a year – which, by the way, isn’t all cash losses, but also a result of things like amortisation and inability to properly market value assets - yet they are prepared to put a bond up for a billion quid, it means their club is sustainable in my book.
It leaves the PSR argument as rather ludicrous in a free market, in an industry built by people investing in ambition.
Worse than that, we are having to listen to a ridiculous crowd because a few clubs have had bad owners at the lower end of the pyramid. I do understand the angst of fans at Reading, Leyton Orient and Bury but our rules and thinking need to be more sophisticated.
Let’s build a safety net for clubs, that go bust, such as league-provided insurance policies and find a mechanism for fairer distributions.
To introduce a financial regulator, a Government appointment, to economically asphyxiate English football whilst the rest of football around the world runs free and wild and does what it wants, is utter madness.
I do believe Manchester City have a very significant case to answer though I can’t really see what they did that differently to Chelsea under Roman Abramovich, apart from timing because rules have changed”.
Behind a paywall. He must be getting info from his buddies about what way the wind is blowing regarding the 115 hearing and the current mood towards a regulator which they seem to fear.