PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules



Is this concerning

I suspect that Yves Leterme may be getting a letter from our lawyers shortly.

"it turned out that money from sponsorship was actually paid by the owner."

"Finally, there were also the ambiguities surrounding contracts. However, thanks to emails and bank statements, we had hard evidence.


If they had 'hard evidence' then why did CAS reverse the decision?

"The problem, however, was that UEFA's ruling could be contested with an arbitration committee, which does not fall under the real judiciary. Those arbitrators are always drawn from 10 to 12 of the same people and can reduce the sentence because they consider it too severe."


Except they threw it all out excepting for the 'failure to co-operate' because they considered the charges to be unsubstantiated. Not because they thought it was too severe.

Pure nonsense and sounds very bitter.
 
Ok, if this is the level of debate, lets leave it there. It is not obtuse emphasising the word "serious" it is the key word - trivial allegations such as Rosen's football allegiance are irrelevant. There is no provable corruption I'd suggest. But yes if there is corruption, we can take it to court. Happy now?
yes agree with the final sentence. that is exactly what people are asking you about.
 
Since I calmed down. Last night sat in me Dad chair with a large glass of Malbec and had a meander through Twitter and media outlets which I had avoided since the news broke. As the wine numbed my senses down i began to realise the PL won't want to expel us or retrospectively hand titles to other teams because that would literally destroy the image of the league. I know insane cult followers of Liverpool and Man United feel it should be but they just can't do it. I do however expect a truly magnificent fine is incoming
 
Agree, but unavoidable unfortunately. I cannot wait for the post detailing the evidence against us and where it was obtained from to appear on here. I don't know when that will be, but it really is the 64 million dollar question atm.
i've skipped to here, couldn't be arsed reading all of the thread, ill ask a question in a bit and get what i got last time

i'm sick of fucking posters asking the same questions :)
 
I suspect that Yves Leterme may be getting a letter from our lawyers shortly.

"it turned out that money from sponsorship was actually paid by the owner."

"Finally, there were also the ambiguities surrounding contracts. However, thanks to emails and bank statements, we had hard evidence.


If they had 'hard evidence' then why did CAS reverse the decision?

"The problem, however, was that UEFA's ruling could be contested with an arbitration committee, which does not fall under the real judiciary. Those arbitrators are always drawn from 10 to 12 of the same people and can reduce the sentence because they consider it too severe."

Except they threw it all out excepting for the 'failure to co-operate' because they considered the charges to be unsubstantiated. Not because they thought it was too severe.

Pure nonsense and sounds very bitter.
Well he put a lot of his life in too the bullshit he charged us with
 
Pretty much yes. But image rights are deemed to be personal to players and separate to their wages/bonuses. HMRC have a general rule hat about 10% of their total remuneration to be paid in this way, to their own personal companies rather than on a PAYE basis.

As an example, let's say someone is a photographer and an employee of a company that does commercial & wedding photography. He buys the right to do all the wedding photography and pays his employer a sum of money for that right. The money he earns in that way still goes to his employer initially, but they pay it to him gross, which he than has to account for and pay any tax on. Whereas his wages for the employer's main commercial photography business is paid to him as normal salary, with tax & NI deducted at source.

City also moved a number of employees into two subsidiary companies (City Football Services and City Football Marketing). They were paid through these companies but they were loss-making, needing constant injections of cash. That was seen by some as an attempt to move costs off the books but those businesses cross-charged the various CFG clubs for their services, on a pro-rata basis. Obviously most of the charge fell to City but it went through our books, as Other Operating Expenses though, instead of Wages. Also UEFA included those companies in wht it called the 'Reporting Perimeter'. That meant we had to include their results in our FFP submission, with any double-charging cancelled out.

As a measure of how impenetrable this stuff is for laymen Col, I’ve been readping that post for about 20 minutes and I still don’t understand it!
Bottom line, does it mean we’ve acted illegally/dishonestly, are we fucked, and what would be an appropriate/likely punishment?
 
I honestly cannot understand why at this stage the PL went public with the charges and briefed the media before informing us. Surely they would go public after we've had a chance to reply?

Saw some Villa fans yesterday explaining that they have been affected most as they were a solid top 6 club and pushing for top 4 every year and then we came along and ruined it.
Villa fans? You sure they weren't Birmingham fans having a laugh?
 
Only went on RAWK on Monday to see their initial reaction, which was it would be swept under the carpet.

Anyone who knows that site knows their page count holds about 40 posts per page. It was in the 700’s on Monday. It’s just hit 832, with some of the most bitter posts you’ll ever see.

Yet we don’t matter to them?!
Don’t forget that a fan base responsible for the death of 39 Juventus fans have every right to be the moral guardians of football .
 

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.