PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

We're definitely fucked as this Football 365 are very reliable ....

View attachment 132359

Football365 is riddled with errors and inaccuracies. It may as well be called Football366.com

 

[ballbag]

Not a bad listen and finally asked the question what happens if City win? But didn't answer with the implications for the PL. Anyway, baby steps.

The Athletic has been surprisingly neutral over the last month or so, actually.

Too little, too late. They can fucking swivel.

 

[mr t]

Does anybody on here actually know what’s gone this week or are all these rumours a load of bullshit?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Same as about 20 years ago I was on jury service on an assault & affray charge
The person said they acted in self defence
The prosecution couldn't convince us it wasn't self defence so we came to not guilty
We were pretty sure the person should have been found guilty of something but the prosecution couldn't prove there case
Again judge said if you have any doubt it must be not guilty
What I don't get
Say a third party gave Etihad the money for sponsorship
How is that City's problem ? Or is that to simple

That's a good question. I am not even sure I see how the accounts don't give a true and fair view if ADUG funds it, as long as it's at fair value. Questions for another day :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Does anybody on here actually know what’s gone this week or are all these rumours a load of bullshit?

No and yes.

 

[Stoned Rose]

If that offer is true, don't you think it smacks of desperation and weakness by the PL given its so early in the process. And if City turned it down don't you think they firmly believe they have a very very strong case.

There is no significant evidence we were offered a settlement. It’s come from one poster saying he’d heard we had.

I’m not aware of any corroborating evidence.

 

[Gundoggin]

There is no she’s significant evidence we were offered a settlement. It’s come from one poster saying he’d heard we had.

I’m not aware of any corroborating evidence.

Who is she ?

 

[Stoned Rose]

It’s rare for any litigation to not feature an offer to settle by one of the parties at sone pint, even if it’s derisory and not capable of acceptance. No reason to think there couldn’t have been case here.

8th, 9th or 10th pint?

 

[Norman kneejerk]

You're right about the initial Etihad deal as far as I'm aware but At CAS the claim was that Etihad had only paid £8m from its own funds and £52m from somewhere else. UEFA assumed that 'somewhere else' was ADUG whereas we showed it wasn't. But that was for the financial years 2013/14, 2015/16 and 2016/17 iirc.

Nick Harris made great play of the fact that the amounts involved over those 3 years meant that the Etihad deal was closer to £80m a year but hadn't taken into account that we got (I think) only £5m in the missing year, meaning it was around the £60m mark.

Find your explanations great value as many others do but you just lost me with Harris turning the £52m into £80m and the reference to only £5m in one particular year. Did you mean he was adding multi years together to overstate it ?

 

[SilverFox2]

It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.

What a good point you make. Smoke out the decision maker or perhaps the fall guy.