PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
They must have been aware of Fordham as UEFA spoke to us about it in 2014 or 2015. As the PL act as the FFP licensor, they were surely either involved or at least aware of these discussions. And Fordham was visibly linked to City, specifically the Manchester City Sports Image Rights company, on the Companies House website. It's inconceivable that the Der Spiegel articles were the first they'd heard about Fordham.

I'd have thought if we could show that the PL were acting under pressure from certain clubs, following the pretty definitive CAS outcome, that would have some impact on our case and that it was potentially vexatious rather than principled.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question on Fordham is what the PL knew and when. It may be that they knew about the arrangement in 2015 through UEFA, but they didn't know about the "underwriting" by ADUG (if indeed there really was one) until 2018. In which case an investigation of the revenue in 2013 would be time limited, but the underwriting payments wouldn't be time limited. For example. We just don't know enough to come to any conclusion, really.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose the question on Fordham is what the PL knew and when. It may be that they knew about the arrangement in 2015 through UEFA, but they didn't know about the "underwriting" by ADUG (if indeed there really was one) until 2018. In which case an investigation of the revenue in 2013 would be time limited, but the underwriting payments wouldn't be time limited. For example. We just don't know enough to come to any conclusion, really.
Click to expand...

Urrggghh ….. you’re sounding like a solicitor ;)
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose the question on Fordham is what the PL knew and when. It may be that they knew about the arrangement in 2015 through UEFA, but they didn't know about the "underwriting" by ADUG (if indeed there really was one) until 2018. In which case an investigation of the revenue in 2013 would be time limited, but the underwriting payments wouldn't be time limited. For example. We just don't know enough to come to any conclusion, really.
Click to expand...
My guess on the Fordham situation is that either image rights payments suddenly weren't included in our FFP submission or that they appeared as being from a third-party. I assume this is why UEFA approached us about it. There's almost no conceivable way the PL wouldn't have been aware of that, as they're the first ones to see the toolkit spreadsheet we have to submit for FFP.

Even if they didn't pick it up, and UEFA did, it's simply not feasible that the PL were left out of the discussion.
 
jrb said:
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.
Click to expand...
We know the reason why
City would have left itself open to an investigation into its GDPR procedures

commission.europa.eu

What if my company/organisation fails to comply with the data protection rules?

A range of sanctions, including suspension of activities and fines can be imposed if your company doesn’t comply with EU law on data protection.
commission.europa.eu commission.europa.eu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.