PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Ste68]

I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.

Interesting , but would have thought our external auditors would have been all over the AD sponsorships to assure themselves none could be regarded as RPT given the risk of misstatement especially after the UEFA case and the noise around funding. I would have thought if the PL can't land these as a RPT then they can't land them as breaking any UEFA fmv rule (assume any overinflated fmv for a related part would be breaching UEFA rules and not PL rules as they stood at that time) or PL rules related to misstatement of the accounts.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?

If that's the case, what does this mean for us?

I don't think it means anything new for the club. If the PL can't prove the most serious charges, fair value and related partyness (and pretty much everything else) fall away, I think.

That paragraph just ties up a loose end for me: why did the list of allegations refer to related parties?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Interesting , but would have thought our external auditors would have been all over the AD sponsorships to assure themselves none could be regarded as RPT given the risk of misstatement especially after the UEFA case and the noise around funding. I would have thought if the PL can't land these as a RPT then they can't land them as breaking any UEFA fmv rule (assume any overinflated fmv for a related part would be breaching UEFA rules and not PL rules as they stood at that time) or PL rules related to misstatement of the accounts.

It would only really work for the PL, I think, if they can prove the most serious charges which, imho, they won't be able to. That paragraph just put to bed an annoying question that has been in the back of my mind since the list of allegations was published.

 

[johnny crossan]

Thought I'd share this interesting Parliamentary response to my complaint to the BBC about Banned Roan and the appalling BBC bias against us. (Original complaint as posted on here below)

Dear (my local MP),

I am contacting you as a long standing Man City supporter who is very unhappy about the BBC's biased coverage of my club over many years.

I would like to make you aware of my complaint to them about an article they published today as below and ask if it would it be possible for you to pass it on to Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State with responsibility for these matters.

It would be a bonus if you happen to agree with my views and can endorse them of course but I fully recognise they are not entirely neutral in the matter although would argue are considerably more balanced than those of our national broadcaster.


BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-7928353-B5P0L0

"Prejudicial Reporting 

"Man City case 'moral reward' for Football Leaks hacker, lawyer claims".

The above headline echoes the purpose of this article, which is clearly intended to defend a convicted extortionist whose corrupted evidence was comprehensively exposed by CAS two years ago after it was misused by UEFA to charge Manchester City with sponsorship wrongdoing under pressure from its elite rivals . Those same teams now control the Premier League, forcing it to repeat their earlier failed attempt to damage City using the identical doctored emails and once again relying on the full-throated support of your Sports Editor Dan Roan to endorse their blatantly racist, anti-arab media narratives . This outrageous piece is just the latest example of Roan's many attempts to smear the club following his permanent banning by them in 2018 for lying about Patrick Vieira. Over the years he has abused his position by enthusiastically promoting every element of the redshirt cartel's relentless anti-City propaganda campaign as it moved from 'state control' to 'financial doping' to 'sportswashing' and now the 'dirty cheating oil club ' slur. When these current confected charges are again dismissed as baseless the BBC will surely have to answer for his conduct (and that of subordinates under his direction) in nearly a decade of disgracefully biased reporting about Man City by our national broadcaster and the reputational damage it has unjustly inflicted as a result."

 

[give it to gordon]

All this talk about stopping clubs spending what they want and yet nothing about stopping what makes a club go broke.
Debt and interest free loads when the load is called in

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Only thees.

Delaney is another who raises good points about where football is going but then, for one reason or another, blames entirely the wrong group of people.

It was always entirely predictable that super-rich individuals would get involved in football because opportunities are available to increase value and clubs generally are so badly managed. It was also entirely predictable that hedge funds would get involved in football because they see, and want to maintain, the potential for maximum value extraction for minimum investment.

A real clash of cultures.

Delaney pines for a time when different teams won the league….50 years ago !!!

He must have been sleepwalking through the 90s and 00s when the expanded Champions League gave the same 4 clubs an unfair financial advantage for two decades that stopped any chance of anybody else getting a look in ( until City came in the scene ).

He’s written a book on State ownership and sportswashing due out soon so everything he has written for his day job thos year is sales patter for his new book.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Delaney pines for a time when different teams won the league….50 years ago !!!

He must have been sleepwalking through the 90s and 00s when the expanded Champions League gave the same 4 clubs an unfair financial advantage for two decades that stopped any chance of anybody else getting a look in ( until City came in the scene ).

He’s written a book on State ownership and sportswashing due out soon so everything he has written for his day job thos year is sales patter for his new book.

I might pick up a copy of his book. Just for shits and giggles. When it’s in the bargain bucket at Asda marked down to 30p !

 

[nmc]

Delaney pines for a time when different teams won the league….50 years ago !!!

He must have been sleepwalking through the 90s and 00s when the expanded Champions League gave the same 4 clubs an unfair financial advantage for two decades that stopped any chance of anybody else getting a look in ( until City came in the scene ).

He’s written a book on State ownership and sportswashing due out soon so everything he has written for his day job thos year is sales patter for his new book.

We all need to give his book a one star rating and good slagging off on Amazon.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Thought I'd share this interesting Parliamentary response to my complaint to the BBC about Banned Roan and the appalling BBC bias against us. (Original complaint as posted on here below)
View attachment 134907
Dear (my local MP),

I am contacting you as a long standing Man City supporter who is very unhappy about the BBC's biased coverage of my club over many years.

I would like to make you aware of my complaint to them about an article they published today as below and ask if it would it be possible for you to pass it on to Lisa Nandy, the Secretary of State with responsibility for these matters.

It would be a bonus if you happen to agree with my views and can endorse them of course but I fully recognise they are not entirely neutral in the matter although would argue are considerably more balanced than those of our national broadcaster.


BBC Complaints - Case number CAS-7928353-B5P0L0

"Prejudicial Reporting 

"Man City case 'moral reward' for Football Leaks hacker, lawyer claims".

The above headline echoes the purpose of this article, which is clearly intended to defend a convicted extortionist whose corrupted evidence was comprehensively exposed by CAS two years ago after it was misused by UEFA to charge Manchester City with sponsorship wrongdoing under pressure from its elite rivals . Those same teams now control the Premier League, forcing it to repeat their earlier failed attempt to damage City using the identical doctored emails and once again relying on the full-throated support of your Sports Editor Dan Roan to endorse their blatantly racist, anti-arab media narratives . This outrageous piece is just the latest example of Roan's many attempts to smear the club following his permanent banning by them in 2018 for lying about Patrick Vieira. Over the years he has abused his position by enthusiastically promoting every element of the redshirt cartel's relentless anti-City propaganda campaign as it moved from 'state ownership' to 'financial doping' to 'sportswashing' and now the 'dirty cheating oil club ' slur. When these current confected charges are again dismissed as baseless the BBC will surely have to answer for his conduct (and that of subordinates under his direction) in nearly a decade of disgracefully biased reporting about Man City by our national broadcaster and the reputational damage it has unjustly inflicted as a result."

i had heard on here a few times that Dan Rodent had been banned by the club but wasnt aware of the actual reason or the club statement (below). One that shouldn't be forgotten in light of his license payer funded vendetta against our club.

Vieira and Club anger at BBC interview

Patrick Vieira has expressed his disappointment and anger at what he feels is a serious and cynical misrepresentation of an interview he gave to the BBC.

www.mancity.com

 

[Tolmie scores]

We all need to give his book a one star rating and good slagging off on Amazon.

I agree, I am going to read and review as subjectively as possible - I have the help of a mate who is a lawyer working in M&A (Reputation and goodwill form a key part of valuations of course) Interested to hear his points on the book from a purely legal perspective. It will be good to compile views from anyone else with good insight or connections who can work together re this publication specifically. Be great to get on the BBC (depending whether there is value of course) and challenge one of their own. It's public broadcasting so hard not to allow our input IF contentious. Jury's out!