PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[I'm Blue]

ORGAN115ED AND CLEAR.

The "115" announcement, designed for impact and severity.

As some have eluded to, the whole process is our "punishment" for upsetting the applecart.

Publicly dragging our name through the mud at every opportunity via paid media shills.

Firing up opposing fans with cries of cheats, and twisting the truth around the case.

I have trust in the knowledge and opinions of the resident legal experts on here.

If all the pl have is non cooperation they will try to inflate the punishment for it.

If cleared of the financial, procedural and accountancy accusations we should push back against non cooperation.

We, and City will still be here when the pl is no more, so fck em.

Happy new year everyone.

The transfer window is open so expect some extra bullshit this month.

 

[cheekybids]

I'm sure Mai Fyfield found the time during her round-the-clock work on our sponsorship deals to scrutinise united's claims of Covid losses.

I see she was another beneficiary of New Years honours.

Premier League director Fyfield recognised in New Year's honours list

Board member Mai Fyfield appointed CBE in King's awards, while ex-West Ham boss David Moyes also recognised

www.premierleague.com

 

[Dodge]

Nor does it mean that, as he seems to suggest, there must therefore be something wrong with them. Obviously, as we've done to death on here, if they're set up with a view to creating a fraudulent disguise for shareholder investment by portraying it as sponsorship income, then THAT would constitute (among other things) rule breaches along the lines of the accusations against City.

Otherwise, the arrangements presumably amount, in the final analysis, to: individuals at City with connections to the Abu Dhabi royals or government apparatus allowing AD publicly owned sponsors preferential payment delays by making funds available to MCFC pending reimbursement; AD public body shareholders of such companies providing the latter with funding to meet the sponsorships obligations; or a combination of the above.

OK, fine, but how does this constitute, as the ‘charge’ references, a failure to provide "in the utmost good faith ... accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs". Maybe there's an argument it does, and the PL obviously thinks so. It's far from evident based on the information in the public domain, though, and the explanations in the preceding paragraph are IMO prima facie far more persuasive.

As pithily stated in the post I've quoted, this field isn't an area of strength for Herbert, a lamentable illiterate in serious legal and financial matters He proclaims himself a friend as well as a former colleague of Nick Harris, on whose judgement here he's in all probability relying. Yet while Harris is more knowledgeable than Herbert on these issues, the former’s proficiency is still grievously deficient itself and, moreover, is tainted by a stench rather than a whiff of manifest bias.

There are all kinds of issues potentially at play here, none of which either Herbert or even Harris is even close to capable of analysing in competent or credible fashion (as opposed to Nick’s detailed but myopic rehashes of the ‘prosecution’ case). I could speculate what the issues at hand might possibly be, but I'm really not sure that it serves any purpose. Nonetheless, in this monster of a thread they've all had an airing at some point anyway.

That said, unless City have been improbably and monumentally stupid in the drawing up and execution of the arrangements, I'd contend that they're really not especially likely to be the subject matter of the kind of fraud or deliberate concealment that would allow the statutory time-bar to be lifted for issues before season 2016/17. And it's hard to see how the accounts didn't give a "true and fair" view thereafter.

The latter argument seems to me to apply even if one accepts the wholly contentious premise that AD sponsors should have been declared as "related parties", at least as long as the fees under the relevant contracts were broadly at market value. No doubt our accounting brethren will pull me up on this one if I have it wrong.

TL, DR. Another year, another vacuous, cheerleading piece of simplistic clickbait bullshit from Herbert, coming close to straying over the border with outright mendacity if it doesn't actually do so. No surprises there. Still, I have to give the guy credit for one thing, namely his sheer chutzpah in being that grotesquely ugly yet being prepared even so to appear in public without a bag over his head. He has looks and intellectual ability on the same level.

Last time I heard anyone use the phrase "outright mendacity" was Leonard Sachs.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I see she was another beneficiary of New Years honours.

Premier League director Fyfield recognised in New Year's honours list

Board member Mai Fyfield appointed CBE in King's awards, while ex-West Ham boss David Moyes also recognised

www.premierleague.com

I'd still like to know why a supposedly independent non-executive director was burning the midnight oil over an operational issue, when a NED is supposed to be detached from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

And that's yet another example of getting an honour just for doing the job you're supposed to be doing.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

This is a very good point. I just don’t see how someone like Herbert would get the inside track on that.

Probably just a snide comment from one of our rival Club Directors but based on gossip within the PL leadership. Most of these stories come from such sources.

 

[cheekybids]

I'd still like to know why a supposedly independent non-executive director was burning the midnight oil over an operational issue, when a NED is supposed to be detached from the day-to-day running of the organisation.

I think as mentioned earlier there was so many holes in her evidence.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Surely the Premier League can’t just retrospectively declare that Etihad are a Related Party. That would be some serious straw-clutching. Even UEFA didn’t pursue that one too much but at least when they were in discussions with City about it, it was being done in real time.

Not sure, but can't see why not. Back to 2016/7 maybe unless they can show deliberate concealment of something or other? I wouldn't worry about it unduly, even if it is included in the allegations it will be devilishly difficult to prove to the standard required.

I always assumed UEFA didn't challenge because of the 2014 settlement, tbh.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I got told off by my better half last night for laughing at a rag relative of hers who suggested that the rags will get free money to the tune of 2 billion for a new stadium because it's technically free money.

If it wasn't so stupid it would be embarrassing :)

Interesting!
Did he say where this free money comes from.

 

[slbsn]

Wasn't it a sponsor refusing to pay up. Not sure how that was put down as an exemption though

That’s one of the elements they claimed but there is no record of any sponsor going bust let alone anything material. But you’d have to think they had to prove this to the PL

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Assuming Herbert hasn’t just made it up of course

I am sure someone has whispered it in his ear.