PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[failsworthblueboy]

If we are so guilty,why do Premier teams still play against us, can they refuse to play against the cheats?

Because we are not guilty at this moment in time,so they can't refuse, innocent until found guilty, and we won't be, I would hazard a guess that most of the clubs hold the same stance as there idiot fans. click click baited morons.

 

[freshie]

 

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

Yes. The PL would have to show we'd knowingly submitted misleading accounts for that charge (and the one relating to PSR) to stand.

I'd be seriously surprised and disappointed if our transactional history (and that of our sponsors) showed anything other than we are squeaky clean, which I guess leads back to witness statements and whether or not you believe there is something meaningful which can be derived from the emails. Putting the CAS judgement to one side, I am not sure how emails could stand up against records of signed off, approved, authorised transactions. This is bread and butter stuff for any auditable industry.

I know there are other charges, but to me, the ones aimed at disguised shareholder funding feels like the most serious set.

 

[M18CTID]

At one point, there was a big noise outside the stadium like a bang. Some of the press tried to attribute that to City fans, without any evidence of course.

Yeah, a shit load of fireworks went off during the silence itself. Sounded like it was right behind the away end as well. I thought that might get people talking and wondering what the fuck was going on but everyone stayed silent. Much to the disdain of the media!

 

[Coatigan]

It's really hard to judge in this case, because whilst it's playing out behind closed doors there's immense public scrutiny. Any settlement is a sign of weakness from the PL and an admission of guilt from City. And without knowing what that was it's hard to make a true judgement. There could be a number of commercial reasons why City couldn't rather than wouldn't accept a settlement - in terms of an admission of guilt. And you'd expect the PL, aware of the optics, would have offered something that had a substantial impact on our chances of success this season.

There doesn't appear to be much difference with what's on the table here in terms of charges, and what UEFA levelled at us. And it's always positive to have case law, or in this instance, the CAS verdict, to quote and utilise as part of our defence this time around. I don't believe there's anything additional the PL have other than the hacked emails, although I could be wrong.

If you're turning up to an independent panel with the same accusations, even if rules and legislation differ, it's helpful as I said to point to the CAS verdict and provide their opinion on inflated sponsorships/sources of income etc.

I just cannot see the club settling regardless of what was on the table, when the public perception is that we're guilty. That might not change even with a "win" at the independent panel in terms of your social media content from rival fans, but it will have to from the media and anyone employed to comment or they open themselves to a legal battle of their own.

All this talk of settlement, like it was ever a real option. Great hypothetical chat, but I would doubt it was ever really on offer.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd be seriously surprised and disappointed if our transactional history (and that of our sponsors) showed anything other than we are squeaky clean, which I guess leads back to witness statements and whether or not you believe there is something meaningful which can be derived from the emails. Putting the CAS judgement to one side, I am not sure how emails could stand up against records of signed off, approved, authorised transactions. This is bread and butter stuff for any auditable industry.

I know there are other charges, but to me, the ones aimed at disguised shareholder funding feels like the most serious set.

Financially it is the most serious, and probably in the overall issue of deception. But we know from CAS that it's nonsense, so it's quite bizarre that the PL are going down that route. As we've said before, why is no one in the media making that connection?

 

[M18CTID]

That was excusable. Kids kits.

What was absolutely inexcusable was the giant “AIG remembers” banner hanging from their shithole after asking for sponsorships to be removed for the day. They just couldn’t help themselves. Grubby cunts.

Not excusable for me. If City were respectful enough for our mascot not to be displaying our sponsor’s name on their shirt then United should’ve done the same with their mascots.

Also, let’s not forget that Ferguson didn’t even hang around to do a post-match interview, claiming he had to get a flight to South Africa to see his son. Not a fucking chance he skips that interview if they won that game. As my mate @gordondaviesmoustache would say, he was a disrespectful motherfucker.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I was meaning UEFA presumably have a good faith rule.

Anyway, the point still stands that UEFA is responsible for determining UEFA FFP compliance, not the PL. The PL is responsible for collecting and providing the information to UEFA and clubs are required by UEFA rules, I imagine, to provide accurate and complete information in good faith.

My understanding is that UEFA set the rules but the PL have to 'sign off' our submission and are effectively the delegated authority for issuing the FFP licence.

It's a bit like getting insurance through a broker like Swinton. The insurer will supply the underwriting guidelines and rates but unless there's a problem, Swinton will issue the policy on their delegated authority.

 

[fulabeer]

People are clinging to the fact that some CAS stuff was dropped due to "time bar" issues.
They seem to have a sense, that was us "getting away with stuff" because of it. Not realising (or conveniently forgetting) that we may have had a solid defence against it, but also not being able to use/prove it.
Also when people use the word "heinous crimes" when talking about financial issues, you just know they are already biased and just want punishment no matter how innocent somebody is.

 

[halfcenturyup]

No not looking for a conspiracy theory, there's plenty of those already. Just interested in understanding how the rules might work or be applied on this point. Thank you for the additional explanation.

I am also struggling to see how they would prove or gain proof that would support any of the serious allegations. My feeling is that City will have a robust explanation to refute any allegation they bring forward.

Agreed about the proof. Seems to me the PL won't have had access during the investigation to the external information they need and won't have access to it in front of the panel, at least not in the form they would need it, to prove the serious allegations even if the club did do what is alleged.