PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

WRicko said:
Doesn’t seem like this would be covered by this but it seems that the only reason sponsors would collude in the way implied by these charges is if they are related parties but they are not according to accounting practice surely this is an issue for the courts to deal with as it’s where the law and FFP / agenda collide ? Perhaps it is procedural I don’t see that they have down an alternate related party definition. But it seems more fundamental than that and more sinister I mean look at how rival fans and journalists see it they think company x is from UAE it’s related they don’t do that with white owners.
Click to expand...

The emails on face value are pretty damning in that regard though to be fair, particularly the ones around Mancinis contract.

We were able to provide evidence to counter the ones Uefa were using at CAS though so hopefully the same can be done this time and it’s enough.
 
AdamMarrett said:
Outside of the cartel clubs benefit from this something utterly stinks about the entire thing. It beggars belief the Premier League could release a statement that was so flawed in the first place. For a multi billion pound organisation that was a amateur move, and embarrassing. You could almost bet your bottom dollar our lawyers seized on that as soon as possible. It was a free hit for lawyers who are paid more in a week then I earn in 4 bloody years.

They clearly briefed the media before hand that Martin Ziegler had his piece and opinions out within a minute of the statement being released, plus the other buffoons piling on after the original statement release from Simon Jordan and the other shills.

The more I've read about it, and things that have happened since something is well and truly off. We all know the white report is due out, and the UK government's want for a regulator for the Premier League etc and certain clubs and the Premier League's desire to avoid that as it will even the playing field off field for everyone, something certain clubs don't want. Then all of a sudden there's Qatari interest in the Rags and posturing from them saying they'll do exactly as we have spending wise can't be a coincidence.

The hints and inside word from yourself and others which are greatly appreciated hint that we as a club know it as well. This feels like a fight that is a lot more then us vs the Premier League, there's a lot more at stake.

Of course I could be wrong but for me something stinks about the entire thing.
Click to expand...
As a novice I for one always appreciate good information and sound thought about possible or probable outcomes.

From tall poppy syndrome to legal matters that mean a reduction in operating profit due to a need to pursue an agenda whether it has merit under the rules or otherwise that govern behaviour in accounting for payments and income sources it makes for interesting reading when the white noise and zeitgeist are removed.

As for Tolmies last line our history shows that our window of movement will be measured and outside the contract situation those who are likely to move on like Silva will need replacing so I don't expect a Chelsea splurge that results in a squad near their numbers especially if Pep in the manager.

Currently our issues are basically players lacking the confidence to move the ball forward enough and making the right pass to our frontman and or men when they make the runs and an unsettled back four which to some extent can be corrected with what we currently have. The goal we gave away to Brentford and Spurs to name just two examples of dropped points were very easily avoidable and should not be repeated for if they are we won't be winning the title this year.
 
jrb said:
City know the PL rules. So does Pannick and his legal team. I doubt very much they are as shocked and concerned about them as some of us are on this thread.
Click to expand...
I just had a vision of Pannick looking at the PL charges and bursting into fits of laughter.
 
half & half derby scarf said:
As soon as this was announced, the ESL Super League became inevitable. I think a lot of the posts on here give the PL way too much credit. They were a hastily assembled mish mash of dinner guests ready to be served the Golden Goose of TV rights.
In comparison to UEFA they are far less capable, more disorganised and extremely incompetent. The real power is with the media companies who not only control the PL but also the massively skewed narrative we are seeing in the press.
The PL make up the rules as they go along and a lot of the charges (which are little more than mud slinging) invoke rules that hadn't been written at the times the offenses are alleged to have taken place.
When Vinny said he 'rolled his eyes' at the news, it is because he knows the whole industry is corrupt and trying to find a scapegoat.
I know a bit about Football Governance from first hand experience and it is rotten to the core. The ESL will be a sad by product of this whole stinking mess.
Click to expand...
I do think the Super League mess -- also pushed through via United, Liverpool and some other people around Europe -- is as good a snapshot I've seen that speaks to the fact that these clubs will happily push through things without considering the consequences, without having the right paperwork, without having done due diligence. It's a good sign for this case, accepting the two have nothing to do with each other. One of the worst decisions City ever made getting involved with that.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
There’s nothing illegal in Manchester City paying Roberto Mancini a wage, then another company paying him a wage as well. If all the correct tax, national insurance has been accounted for. It’s not in the spirit of the rules but it’s not illegal.

Similar if Mansour wanted to invest money into Etihad. Etihad then pays City funding for sponsorship and naming rights to the stadium. How do the premier league get the paper trail externally from what City show in their accounts? They will have to demonstrate that and do Etihad even have to open up their books to the premier league if it’s not them in the dock?

If the Etihad deal isn’t at fair market value, how come Arsenal’s sponsorship with Emirates is around the same number. This is Arsenal who haven’t won a premier league for nearly two decades. If there’s tax avoidance going on here the premier league and inland revenue need to throw to book at City and it becomes a criminal case. Why has it taken them so long to deem accounts from 2009 wrong? As another poster highlighted ‘it’s all a bit woolly this from the Premier league’.
Click to expand...
No foreign entity like Etihad/ADUG etc would submit their accounts or list of transactions to the Premier League as they just have no jurisdiction to demand that. City as a football club however have to comply with the league's rules on transparency etc as conditions of participation so that's the sticking point and it's why we've been charged.

Obviously there are potential consequences but the rules are likely what city will challenge. In effect city's position is these are our accounts so prove what the problem is. The league will put their case out and we'll be found guilty of obstruction, lack of transparency etc. City will then take this to a real court and this is where UEFA found themselves in trouble and the Premier League will be the same.

I don't think it's true that city have done nothing wrong but we've only done wrong in the context of what the league has defined as wrong, this is effectively a civil dispute and not a criminal case. City can easily argue that our accounting practices are completely normal in business terms. They might be seen as dodgy but then every club in the league will be doing something similarly dodgy.

This is again something city will challenge because the Premier League has to justify that its rules are fair on competitive grounds but it's quite easy to prove that this clearly isn't true.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Undoubtedly, and maybe a slap on the wrist for the Mancini thing if it was just a technicality. Can't imagine the other issues will come to much, unless they have some damning evidence we don't know about, which I think is unlikely.

Then again we have no idea of the actual allegations apart from which rules were allegedly breached in which years. So it's difficult to say.
Click to expand...
I remember during the UEFA investigation and more specifically in the lead-up to the appeal at CAS that I was concerned that this might be the case - that UEFA might just have something aside from what we were aware of that would have us bang to rights, given that the noises coming out from their end were that they were confident that the punishment they'd handed to us would be upheld at CAS. In the end it turned out that they didn't have any other evidence. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that the PL doesn't have some damning evidence that we're unaware of. For example, yesterday it was suggested on here that perhaps they have the full trove of hacked e-mails whereas UEFA didn't. Initially I was concerned that this might be the case but the more I think about it, the more I think that if there are other potential smoking-gun e-mails that aren't in the public domain then how come Der Spiegel didn't run with those as well when they did their poxy hatchet job on us? In other words, the e-mails that Der Spackel did publish are probably just about the worst-looking of the lot.
 
we need either Soriano or Khaldoon to do a video interview in they are so confident we are innocent and start dropping in hints of dirt we will release if we indeed do have any? It would be then interesting to see if the media narrative changed from the joy we currently see?
 
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.