PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jacko74]

“then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged”

Give me some examples?

Whether we had a choice or not to sign up is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we did. Therefore, we simply have to abide by the rules.

Your “it’d be ok to breach the rules because I don’t agree with them” approach is infantile and not how the real world works.

Let’s say the dippers now go and breach a raft of the rules and as result won the next 5 prems, would you back them if they took the stance of “fuck it, the rules are shit anyway” and advocate for them avoiding sanctions?

So many ridiculous, irrelevant straw man arguments it's barely worth even trying to debate with you.

If any club decided to ignore or circumvent FFP/PSR then I'd say good luck to them as its a corrupt, unjust and iniquitous ruling aimed at giving an advantage to certain clubs over others ... if a club decides that the handball or offside rule no longer applies to them then obviously they deserve to be sanctioned because its a fair and just rule that is there for the benefit of the game as a whole, is applied even handedly and offers no advantage to any one club over another.

 

[jacko74]

That’s life mate.

You as an individual are bound by every law in the land. You have no choice. Break them and off you pop to spend some time at HMP.

Whether you like it or not or agree with it or not.

Same for City and this. Either sign up and abide by the rules or fuck off. We signed up.

You really are talking shit now.

Rag or dipper?

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

No we don’t… allegedly-:)


Don’t buy the opinion that you have to abide by protectionist rules. City today in its current form would be Newcastle or worse Everton.

The club had no choice but to sign up and to find ways around it.

This is what Khaldoon was referring to when he spoke of "the tyranny of the majority". Lord Salisbury touched on the same principle when he explained that a free society was not one where six men (!) had the right to tell five men what they must do. Most free societies have a declaration of fundamental rights which must not be infringed by new laws. The PL's constitution includes no such limitations and a two thirds vote of members can enact any new rules. Thus (as proposed by our neighbours from Stretford) the PL voted for FFP rules which limit severely the right of owners and shareholders to invest in their club, despite a prohibition on such limitations being expressed clearly in law. City have taken proceedings against APT on the grounds that they conflict with the laws of the land. The complication in this case is that City are not accused of breaking these unenforceable rules but of avoiding them by unquestionably unlawful ways. City's defence is, however, the only one possible: we haven't done it and we can answer all charges with "irrefutable" evidence.

 

[Stoned Rose]

So many ridiculous, irrelevant straw man arguments it's barely worth even trying to debate with you.

If any club decided to ignore or circumvent FFP/PSR then I'd say good luck to them as its a corrupt, unjust and iniquitous ruling aimed at giving an advantage to certain clubs over others ... if a club decides that the handball or offside rule no longer applies to them then obviously they deserve to be sanctioned because its a fair and just rule that is there for the benefit of the game as a whole, is applied even handedly and offers no advantage to any one club over another.

You’d say good luck to any club purposely not abiding by the rules because they don’t like the rules they signed up to?

If that’s the case, let’s just leave it there and crack on with our days.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Statute of limitations probably applies in this case - given it was so public and unlikely there’s anything untoward if the HMRC saw nothing too concerning.

Depends how the IC apply the 6-year limitation. If they copy CAS, and back-date it to 6 years before the charges were formally laid (which was Feb 2023) then everything in and after the 2016/17 financial year will be in scope, with anything prior to that time-barred. The Mancini-related allegations will certainly be time-barred, but 2016/17 might have been the final year, or maybe the penultimate year, of the Fordham arrangement, so it could be in scope.

However, given what I said earlier, that the PL could well have known about it in 2015, then the IC might legitimately ask why the PL didn't do anything about it then.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

The best evidence of our innocence is the silence, no whistle-blowers, former players, managers, ex-executive staff. If we'd have conspired to do what we're accused of over 15 years, well, just think rationally.

I reckon they'll wheel Yaya out at some stage. Done nothing but slate us since he left and was being paid by Daniel Levy couple years ago.

 

[jrb]

Not only bad faith but criminal and should have been reported to the law for prosecution under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 with a potential a jail sentence

Let’s be honest. If City wanted to take the Scouse hacking further, they could have. City decided to settle out of court with a pay off. We’ll never know the reason why. The PL were happy with that. City could have absolutely slaughtered Henry and Liverpool in court. But City decided not to do that. Yet all along Henry and Liverpool have been behind the constant and under handed smear campaign and attacks against City. Very strange decision by City.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

You’d say good luck to any club purposely not abiding by the rules because they don’t like the rules they signed up to?

If that’s the case, let’s just leave it there and crack on with our days.

Not a question of whether they liked the rules they signed up to or not. We signed up to a rule that required us to register a manager's contract, which had various statutory clauses in it. Presumably we did just that, in order to comply.

Yet we're being charged with something that someone has decided broke those rules, even though the rules didn't say anything about the things we've been charged with when we first got into Europe under Mancini in 2010/11.

 

[dadnlad]

Let’s be honest. If City wanted to take the Scouse hacking further, they could have. City decided to settle out of court with a pay off. We’ll never know the reason why. The PL were happy with that. City could have absolutely slaughtered Henry and Liverpool in court. But City decided not to do that. Yet all along Henry and Liverpool have been behind the constant and under handed smear campaign and attacks against City. Very strange decision by City.

it appears thats where were at you've been caught but lets not rock the boat

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Let’s be honest. If City wanted to take the Scouse hacking further, they could have. City decided to settle out of court with a pay off. We’ll never know the reason why. The PL were happy with that. City could have absolutely slaughtered Henry and Liverpool in court. But City decided not to do that. Yet all along Henry and Liverpool have been behind the constant and under handed smear campaign and attacks against City. Very strange decision by City.

As far as I know the 'hack' was just City not removing the permissions for old employees. They logged in using their old credentials from when they were employed by City. This is a pretty embarrassing security oversight by us imo and probably why we were happy to settle for a low amount. If they had hired some shady hacker to access our database then I'm sure we would have taken it further.