PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[argyle]

Once City are cleared could City take action against the people behind this witchhunt ?
Why are other clubs allowed to break the rules like rags ?
Why isn't the pl doing a 4 year investigation into the other 19 clubs ?

No. Not in that sense anyway.

The PL will say it is a legitimate investigation and hearing.

City won't be 'burning everything down' after the hearing is over.

I think Tolmie has said he's heard City will apply for damages in terms of lost sponsorship etc.

But I think Stefan disagreed?

 

[argyle]

or
email 1: I'm going to kill the gym this afternoon
email 2: I'm going out with my wife tonight
Der Spiegel evidence: I'm going to kill my wife tonight

I don't think this is what happened.

City didn't contest that the spliced emails fundementally altered their meaning.

 

[manimanc]

Will a hearing like this have “leaks” as we go through the process of will it be a pretty tight ship on information until a decision has been made?

Absolutely no leaks.

How do I know that?

Because the media pricks have gone into overdrive about what will happen to us.

At the minute we're being relegated to the Stockport Sunday league, we're getting docked 500 points, we're getting docked 25 points per season forever, we're also getting expelled from every competition, every single player is looking at other options, pep and kdb will lead the walkouts
Oh and a transfer ban which, by the way, will be hard to impose if we aren't playing in any competition or don't have any players.


So as you can probably tell our lovely chaps in the press are like junkies who have gone cold turkey.

 

[Alex Harley’s Penalties]

Essentially the contract was for £60m a year but we arranged cash payments from Etihad for more than that in three years. Harris added those payments up and let's say they came to £230m. He took that as evidence that the Etihad contract was therefore nearer £80m a year and that we'd underreported it as £60m in the accounts.

What he didn't understand was that if the contract was for £60m a year, then that's what we need to show in the accounts. The cash actually received is irrelevant.

He also didn't understand (or conveniently chose to ignore) that if the contract was for £60m a year over 10 years, we'd get an average of £60m a year but that could be paid in any way, with a lump sum upfront and a lower annual payment for example. So in the 'missing' 2014/15 year, we only received a small sum in cash, as we'd received higher payments in the other 3 years. In other words, it all balanced out over those years.

PB: I am very appreciative of your informed comments and positive outlook on this situation. I, also, remain optimistic about the outcome. I just wonder if, should the judgement go City’s way, that City may try to turn the tables and go for punitive damages against certain actors? Sorry if this has already been covered.

 

[dublinblue12]

It really is a pile of shite. Just pops up on my news feed.

Just block it, all of that gets fed back into their analytics as well so they will know exactly what articles has people blocking

 

[bigA]

And if the BBC could get any worse with its constant insinuations and lies about City they are now trying to defend the theiving Portugese piece of shit for "morally saving" football. Where were the BBC morals regarding Jimmy Savile and Huw Edwards? Oh yes, they were swept under the carpet.

Anyhow, here's the article



Man City case 'moral reward' for Football Leaks hacker, lawyer claims - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c74852evz50o

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I wasn’t to know you had more than one lad!

Haha. Twins.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Surprised at that view, PB.

In the very worst case scenario that the bulk of the Etihad revenue was falsely included in the accounts in the way alleged, how could that have happened without the very serious, wide-ranging and deliberate deception against the PL, UEFA, the auditors and the club's commercial partners that you suggest would lead to expulsion, relegation or a large points deduction?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they have any way of proving that for many, many reasons. I was just surprised at your thinking.

I couldn't understand your response at first but think I've got it now.

There's a big difference in doing something that's deliberately deceptive and doing something you believe you have good grounds for. It's the difference between acting in bad faith and good faith.

For example, we proved to the comfortable satisfaction of the CAS panel that the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment, as we presented evidence that it had come from a source other than ADUG. So unless the PL has an email or other evidence that specifically contradicts that testimony, they will struggle to prove it. If they do have cogent evidence that there was a conspiracy to lie and mislead the panel, then we would be in serious trouble.

Same for Fordham. We didn't do that to hide expenses but to bring in revenue. I assume we took good legal and financial advice about that, and that we didn't act in deliberate bad faith. But the IC could potentially still find us in breach of something, but not that we acted deceptively.

 

[HelloCity]

 

[chaddblue]

Absolutely no leaks.

How do I know that?

Because the media pricks have gone into overdrive about what will happen to us.

At the minute we're being relegated to the Stockport Sunday league, we're getting docked 500 points, we're getting docked 25 points per season forever, we're also getting expelled from every competition, every single player is looking at other options, pep and kdb will lead the walkouts
Oh and a transfer ban which, by the way, will be hard to impose if we aren't playing in any competition or don't have any players.


So as you can probably tell our lovely chaps in the press are like junkies who have gone cold turkey.

Don't forget we're getting every single trophy we've ever won since 1904 taken off us as well