Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It does if you're as cynical as I am!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
So the Premier League would accept any clubs claims for allowances no matter how large and suspicious unless they had some reason not to ? And other clubs are not asking questions of other clubs ?
Clearly, United controls the Premier League and the rules, Everton and others had allowances turned down
How United £75million in allowances was passed was a joke and was not questioned or reported in the media because it was bent and rules dodged
Obviously notSo the Premier League would accept any clubs claims for allowances no matter how large and suspicious unless they had some reason not to ? And other clubs are not asking questions of other clubs ?
They didn’t make or ask me to say anything. I merely explained (as I would about any club including say Chelsea) that it not the club’s responsibility to make sure the rules make sense. All clubs’ responsibility is to themselves. They are all entitled to push the rules hard - if the PL accepted United’s numbers, United have done nothing wrong. Similarly with Chelsea and the hotels.
Just to be completely clear, TalkSport have never asked me say anything at all either way. It’s a completely open forum for me to answer as I wish. In fact, they have never even hinted at a direction they would like me to go.
So did anybody lodged a complaint on why £75million allowances were allowed or did United explain how that figure was reached ? I think you said £45million on covid 19 and £30million on legal fees from the sale of shares
So did United have to show the figures they made before Covid 19 on match days and losses because of Covid 19
Also, Legal fees should not be included or passed because it was a sale between the Glazers and Ratcliffe and both were rich enough to pay their legal cost
flb
Well-Known Member
As much as we want United to be dragged over the coals it isn’t happening mate , it just isn’t , and we won’t be the only fanbase to think so (Forest and Everton) . They’re having a fire sale at every single aspect of their operations, Scruffy looks a lot older than his 72 years these days - they’ve banked on CL football to get them out of the shite , it will catch up with them , trying to force Rashford and Garnachio out for liquid home grown saving revenue. They’re a fucking disgrace in how to run a football club , but fuck them , this is our battle to clear our name once and for all.So did anybody lodged a complaint on why £75million allowances were allowed or did United explain how that figure was reached ? I think you said £45million on covid 19 and £30million on legal fees from the sale of shares
So did United have to show the figures they made before Covid 19 on match days and losses because of Covid 19
Also, Legal fees should not be included or passed because it was a sale between the Glazers and Ratcliffe and both were rich enough to pay their legal cost
No other club has been subject to such scrutiny going back 16 years coupled with an orchestrated media smear campaign. The PL leadership has acted with bad faith. They treat City differently to most other clubs.
Manchester City are used and seen as a bad company and cheating and not how a model football club should be run
Only the blind can not see the real truth because they are told otherwise, The Figures don't lie, the successful profit and turnover are all legal, The sponsorship deals are by legal companies and have to show the figures on their accounts,
The Premier League should be demanding all their clubs be run in this model way and not hide behind a wall of history and debt, The so-called greatest club in England and the world is debt-riddled and wants to stop anybody from progressing and challenging them, Even if it's in the best possible way and built on fantastic foundations and great for football at all levels,
The truth is Manchester United does not care for anybody else but themselves, even at grassroots levels or the ladies' games, The Premier League's only job is to protect United at all cost
All 21/22 allowances required an audited statement to supplement the accounts. The share sale fees are presumably as with other previous applicants. I certainly raised awareness of the issue and United’s briefing of the elements didn’t seem to make much sense. But if it was audited I’m inclined to believe it was true if exaggerated within the rulesSo did anybody lodged a complaint on why £75million allowances were allowed or did United explain how that figure was reached ? I think you said £45million on covid 19 and £30million on legal fees from the sale of shares
So did United have to show the figures they made before Covid 19 on match days and losses because of Covid 19
Also, Legal fees should not be included or passed because it was a sale between the Glazers and Ratcliffe and both were rich enough to pay their legal cost
All 21/22 allowances required an audited statement to supplement the accounts. The share sale fees are presumably as with other previous applicants. I certainly raised awareness of the issue and United’s briefing of the elements didn’t seem to make much sense. But if it was audited I’m inclined to believe it was true if exaggerated within the rules
So why all of City accounts from 2013 that was signed off and audited in question again ?? cleared by CAS not good enough ?? Manchester City should demand all Premier League club's accounts be gone through with a fine tooth comb and not just signed off and accepted
Is that Keith **** a red he’s alway negative about cityKeith's back and going straight on the ignore list this time.
I won't get fooled again.