PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Joe Donachie said:
Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,
Click to expand...
Christ, that's crazy.
 
Joe Donachie said:
I did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict

I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)

I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,

I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,
Click to expand...
I “woodn’t” have disagreed with the judge…

Furthermore jobs are protected for jurors. Employers cannot dismiss you for being on a jury.
 
wonderblue said:
There's no way the PL would have offered us 6-10 points after being hit with over 115 charges. It surely would have had to have been significantly higher IMO.
Click to expand...
Let's remember that it's really only 3 substantive issues, not 115.

They'd be looking at a points deduction only if they felt our revenue was overstated, or expenses understated, to a point that we'd have failed PSR had they not been. That scenario would put us in the same sort of position as Everton.

The Mancini contract isn't enough to do that, plus there were no financial rules in place at the time as they were only introduced in 2013/14. I very much doubt Fordham would be enough to push us over as we're only talking about probably £13m a season.

So it's the Etihad contract, which we can only assume they're taking the same line as UEFA on, in that the majority wasn't paid by Etihad. But having looked at the figures, even if we're talking about Etihad etc being overstated by £60m a season, I'm dubious as to how we'd have failed the PL's profit and sustainability rules, which allow an aggregate loss of £105m over a 3-year period.

We reported an aggregate net profit of £7m over the first three years of the PL's rules. Adding back a minimum of £75m in allowable expenditure over those 3 years gives an adjusted net profit of over £80m meaning we'd have to have overstated our profit by £200m over those 3 years to have fallen foul of PSR enough to warrant a 6-point penalty.

Therefore you could potentially see the logic in the PL's offer of a 6-point deduction if they think we've significantly overstated sponsorship revenue. But we haven't done that, as CAS proved.
 
99% of all of these 115 charges by the Premier League are being played out in the media and targeting the public to Hate Manchester City, Talk about a Kangaroo court and having a panel of so-called unbias people to make a fair decision,

You Know what I don't care anymore, Please Manchester City blow open the can of worms, bring the system down and call it out for what it really is BENT TO THE CORE, from top to bottom on the field and off the field BENT,
YES Manchester City have been made to play by their rules and beaten them and now they have had enough.

So what if we are relegated and the manager and players leave, We will be free of all this bullshit everyweek
UNITED LIVERPOOL ARSENAL CHELSEA don't like a fair fight, Same on the Uefa front their so-called elite teams don't want a fair fight,

Manchester City fans used to hate the system and called it out, But then we wanted to take them on and got somebody to invest into the club and the Premier League, Then we signed the best players and managers, But the Premier League (United) thought we would go away after a couple of season and didn't think Manchester City could become a worldwide household name and even Bigger than United,

United want their ball back, But the noisy neighbours have it in our back garden and want to keep it for ourselves
 
Stoned Rose said:
Where’s this rumour come from?
Click to expand...

PB posted yesterday that he has heard from a good source that we were offered a settlement. He believes this part to be true.

But he also then stated he heard from someone else that we had been offered 6 points and a huge fine by the PL. The credibility of this second rumour/piece of information, PB believes, is more dubious.
 
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.