PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Man-chester copperpot said:
Oh for fuck’s sake!

I’ve been flicking through YouTube shorts and i do not know why but stopped at a clip of Camelgob on a Rag channel saying
“I could have 2 more medals, which means 8 premier leagues, shine them up for me, shine up them medals”

Milking it and acting up for 13yro old kids like some gangster

He’s a ****’s ****!

For the love of god, please, please let us be innocent

I’d rather nail my balls to a sinking ship than let him have more medals
Click to expand...

How many should be taken away from him and rags for drug cheating ?
 
sh249 said:
Ronay is a knobhead. Nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...
Would agree but he certainly isn’t stupid, as the article is quite carefully constructed to appear balanced - and the conclusions contained in there are superficially plausible.

He presents three scenarios. The first being that we are found guilty - because we are guilty and that the club will engage in ‘vengeful’ retribution following it. The second scenario is the we are cleared but it’s inevitably qualified on the basis that it could be a just outcome, but by implication may very well not be. And the third scenario, and one he posits as the most likely, is a middle ground and one that crucially involves an admission of guilt on our part.

There is a common theme running through those three scenarios, namely that the club has done something wrong, a view that is underpinned by his description of the emails as ‘compelling’ despite them manifestly not painting the full picture (how could they?) juxtaposed against his derision at the club’s deployment of the word ‘irrefutable’ to describe the evidence we have/had in our possession to rebut these charges, through the prism of a gratuitous and grossly exaggerated reference to the hourly rate of our leading counsel. Along with, of course, the obligatory and misleading reference to the time-barring of the UEFA charges.

And he finishes off the article to remind everyone of the wider geopolitical consequences of a finding of guilt - a worthwhile point but plainly designed to bolster the inference of that gult, given its location at the end of the article.

It’s a carefully constructed, but wholly specious work of sophistry, and whilst conspicuously better written than most of its ilk, is still consciously designed to project the unwavering position that the club must have acted dishonestly.

Maybe it has, it’s perfectly plausible, however unlikely, but it’s the absence of any suggestion at the possibility that the club has not, and what the consequences are that would flow from that (rather than us simply getting away with it) that has marked this wholly dishonest species of article for the last two and a half years.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Back to the settlement discussion, would you settle for no sporting sanction, no financial sanction, but seven asterisks?

:)
Click to expand...
Ironically, if we are docked points this season and consequently don’t win the league the only asterisk will be the one for this season.
 
Brendan110_0 said:
He was beaten to two league titles by better players, not by ££££ notes, 11 vs 11, no referee bribed, no taking drugs (Wio).
Click to expand...

The crucial part that no other clubs fans want to admit. Even if you say we're guilty of what we're accused of, none of that was 'direct' corruption. We have a game built on money and we spent money, and the only reason we've alledgelly fallen foul of anything is because they tried to shut up shop to stop us. Essentially what other fans and players do is fantastsize about what our team would look like if their rules had their intended consequences.

We put 11 legit players out against every other teams legit 11 players and we've dominated English football.
 
I've seen dozens and possibly hundreds of articles discussing potential punishments, but not a single reference to a specific sporting advantage that we might have allegedly gained, especially as we simultaneously failed (and were punished) for not meeting UEFA's early FFP requirements.

What definitely wouldn't have happened that did happen Mr Camelgob?
 
WRicko said:
@Prestwich_Blue are you saying the allegations if proven are not that serious including disguised investing surely that’s false accounting fraud ? Relegation ?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that there's a difference between doing something because you genuinely think it's OK, based on proper professional advice, and doing something you know is deceitful and illegal.

Based on the evidence provided at CAS, we know that ADUG did not fund the Etihad contract and therefore, on the basis of that evidence we believe the charges under that heading are likely to fail. But the PL's lawyers could potentially have uncovered details of a conspiracy to spin the story of the central funding as a knowing lie. I doubt it, but it's a possibility.

Financially, the Fordham and Mancini allegations aren't that significant but it's the motivation for those that's potentially important. Again, I very much doubt there was any overt, malign intent to deceive in either of those, but if there was that would have a wider impact that just the figures.

I've just found out that an ex-boss of mine died last year. He ran the insurance company I worked for and when it collapsed he was convicted of fraud and went to prison for 7 years. Insurance company premiums are their main revenue and claims are their main expenses. If you pay out less in claims than the revenue you bring in, you make a profit (and vice versa of course). Claims can take many years to finalise though, so they have to be carefully managed, and reserves put aside to cover potential liabilities that may arise. Those reserves are audited and professionally assessed by actuarial experts.

We'd written some bad business over a couple of years however, and losses started to become apparent on that business. Rather than admit those, which would have spoiled the good reputation the company had built, they were hidden by not putting new claims on the system. There is a legitimate reason for not putting them on the system short-term, because you might not be clear on what the potential liability is. Bujt once you have a figure, they need to go on the system, be visible, and reserves adjusted accordingly. Bujt they were witholding them even when the potential liability was established, which meant the company appeared to be more profitable than it actually was.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that you could be questioned on not entering claims but you coulld say you had a legitimate reason not to, citing the difficulty of establishing a potential figure for liability. If you could show a pattern of doing that but only over a short term, then that might be judged as reasonable. But if you keep claims off the system for a longer time, even when liability is established, and there's a paper trail showing that you did this deliberately and knowingly, then you'll be in trouble, as three of the directors were.
 
Last edited:
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.