PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gesario]

Is this the correct spelling? Only enquiring just ln case I need to spell it in English

Googled it and came up with this.
As a French adjective, it is spelled naïve, for feminine nouns. It is sometimes spelled "naïve" with a diaeresis, but as an unitalicized English word, "naive" is now the more usual spelling.

a load of balderdash, methinks.

Say that again

 

[Dr Marvin]

You can separate the PL from those clubs. The PL is under pressure but I still trust it not to have been totally idiotic and folded only to certain club pressures - perhaps in commencing the investigation but surely not in deciding to charge and doing so against legal advice. That is really very unlikely.

The Premier League is owned by the clubs. Its executive will do as they are told. The truth should become evident in a hearing but I can imagine that at the end of the investigation the PL would have leapt at any opportunity to charge City.

 

[BungleBear]

I know we reference "the PL" without a second thought but sometimes we should just reflect; we are talking about an executive of five people, one of whom is an absolute lickspittle who got the job of CEO because he promised to be a lackey, a doormat and complete corporate muppett. Just five people,

Alison Brittain (Manu ST holder)
Richard Masters (Villa fan)
Mai Fyfield (Sky TV 20+ years)
Dharmash Mistry (Arsenal ST holder)
Matthew Ryder KC (a "passionate football fan" from North London and former Deputy Mayor of London, probably Arsenal)

Or the 20 shareholders who make the decisions.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Don't know what you are referring to re 0 LEI.

Don't think the 186 is saying the disciplinary is about RPTs - it may be but can't read such a redaction that way. I ask again though why the PL wouldn't have challenged the none RPT status of Etihad in any year since 2009 but make it a point in 2023. And if so, why not add a breach of the true and fair for each season since 2017/18 on this basis.

City would have engaged with whatever was a) required b) they felt served their purposes to convince the PL to cease the investigation. But it would not provide documents that would open up disclosure routes down the line ie it would only disclose documents it was always going to have to disclose if it went further.

Yes, sorry, it was a joke: LEI 0 MCI 2. It's been a while since we have seen that. Lawyers: no sense of humour .....

Third paragraph first. Yes, that is exactly my point. The club wasn't required to present third party counter-evidence and they chose not to because they didn't want to open the third party disclosure door for obvious reasons. The PL couldn't strike off any allegations without such counter-evidence (which they knew existed and would be presented to the panel because it was presented for a more limited period at CAS). I completely agree with you that the PL will have acted rationally by charging the club in 2023 based on the information that was in front of it (I used the expression "didn't have any choice"). The only professional choice was to refer any significant uncountered findings from the investigation.

The second paragraph: I would suggest they included the RPT issue in 2023 because there are numerous documents in the leaked (and presumably other) internal documents that describe the Etihad sponsorship, and other AD sponsorships, as owner investment. A spectacular own goal that must have been immediately jumped on by rival clubs. Add to that the fact that, for their case on the Etihad funding to work, there must have been some relationship between ADUG and Etihad (no two unrelated parties would enter into such a transaction), then it all adds weight to the idea that City, ADUG and Mansour are, in substance not unrelated to the AD state, Etihad and the other AD sponsors, no matter what the legal form. It certainly, imho, provides at least a case for the referral of an allegation. Let's not forget the PL statement announcing the allegations refers explicitly to related party transactions. What else could that be?

Edit: I had always wondered if the change in ownership from ADUG to Newton (different legal forms) in the middle of the investigation wasn't something to do with making it easier to prove ownership was independent of the AD state, or harder to prove it wasn't. Coincidental timing, anyway.

Anyway, all this must be driving you crazy, so I will shut up about it now. I just don't think we are too far apart in what we are each saying.

The only area where we really disagree, I think, is my suggestion that the club was happy to deliberately manipulate the PL into the situation that it had to refer the allegations to the disciplinary panel. Just my feeling, happy to say it may be complete bollocks.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I see the narrative on this thread has shifted to the PL behaving competent and rationally.

That might be the case, but I'd say it's a lot less likely than City undertaking wholesale accounting fraud for a decade, ffs.

I am of the opinion that the PL acted competently (except for the list of allegations which was just a press release) and rationally and that the club didn't commit serious fraud for a decade (or, at least, that the PL won't be able to prove it to the required standard). Both can be true.

Nothing to be concerned about.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know we reference "the PL" without a second thought but sometimes we should just reflect; we are talking about an executive of five people, one of whom is an absolute lickspittle who got the job of CEO because he promised to be a lackey, a doormat and complete corporate muppett. Just five people,

Alison Brittain (Manu ST holder)
Richard Masters (Villa fan)
Mai Fyfield (Sky TV 20+ years)
Dharmash Mistry (Arsenal ST holder)
Matthew Ryder KC (a "passionate football fan" from North London and former Deputy Mayor of London, probably Arsenal)

You have listed the directors have you not? Most of which are non-executive.

Don't forget there will be an organisation below Masters with department heads that make up the executive management team. The latest accounts for the PL show an average of 260 employees. There are plenty of people in the PL to operate it properly.

 

[cheekybids]

The written Judges’ statement from the APT case shows significant incompetence and bad faith from the PL. They deliberately obstructed City’s bids to attract sponsors. I think the people leading the PL have shown themselves to be stupid on many occasions. Some of the leaks were stupid and have undermined the PL’s own case. Perhaps Masters is just really stupid and easily influenced.

It’s “double speak” as in they don’t say they are bad faith, incompetent or obstructive & compliment the premier league yet it’s blatantly fucking obvious what’s been going on.

 

[KS55]

Best way to do it if you can pull it off!

He was relentless but controlled and unemotional in his arguments and turned Simon round. Superb, I’d want him on my side in any debate.

 

[KS55]

I know we reference "the PL" without a second thought but sometimes we should just reflect; we are talking about an executive of five people, one of whom is an absolute lickspittle who got the job of CEO because he promised to be a lackey, a doormat and complete corporate muppett. Just five people,

Alison Brittain (Manu ST holder)
Richard Masters (Villa fan)
Mai Fyfield (Sky TV 20+ years)
Dharmash Mistry (Arsenal ST holder)
Matthew Ryder KC (a "passionate football fan" from North London and former Deputy Mayor of London, probably Arsenal)

Tbf, Alison has demonstrated in a gentle way that she is deffo not anti City. She impressed our club.

 

[KS55]

PS. We won a match today.