PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

What does a balance of probability mean as far as this case is concerned? 50.1% to 49.9%? A balance of probability is not a very meaningful phrase. How do you quantify conviction in the interpretation of rule breaking? It seems to me that the legal process is inherently subjective, therefore the in-house process makes me wary. For example, the UEFA in-house commission & CAS reviewed similar material, and arrived at different conclusions.

I do not trust the regulatory regime when I see Chelsea and Man Utd reporting extraordinary losses, and I see that Man Utd are given unusual deductions and allowances that no other football club receives, and Chelsea have reportedly been allowed to use the proceeds of hotel sales in the breakeven calculation. It feels like Manchester City are being targeted by rival clubs because their is huge financial benefit to rival clubs in doing so.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Good morning. I knew that would do it :) Happy New Year btw, I don't think I've said it yet.

What I actually think is the following:

The related party nature of the AD sponsorships is part of the allegations referred to the disciplinary process by the PL. The issue is well-known, has been unresolved since 2014 and before, has been referred to in the APT case (imho explicitly) and was stated in the PL's press release as part of the allegations.

I suppose you can disagree with this. That's fine, but I think it's a reasonable position.

Just to be clear, I don't think they will succeed, as it happens, because it's pretty much a judgement call and the PL would need some pretty good evidence to obtain a conclusion from the panel that goes against 15 years of the treatment in signed, audited accounts. But nothing is certain. If we are to believe that the PL wouldn't have proceeded with the Etihad allegations, for example, without an indication that they could be successful then we should apply the same thinking to this matter?

That's my position in a nutshell.

As always, no problem if everyone thinks it's bollocks :)
Click to expand...
The difference is one is highly subjective, well trodden publicly and clearly time barred. The other is sufficiently serious (very) and concealed to be capable of breaching the SoL. Furthermore, it is something worth pursuing - a disagreement on RP is not and, if it was, you have failed to address why they waited 10 years to pursue and haven't pursued the ongoing "breach" all founded on the same factual background. Of course you can believe what you like but you haven't addressed any of the questions including how you prove the subject RP point, how you now demostrate the FMV of 10 year old deals with good clarity.

PS related party and FMV only commenced in the PL rules in 2013-14 so "related party" couldn't relate to any charge for any year prior to that.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....
Click to expand...
You are right to be skeptical of the entire proocess. The PL leadership and some of its Club Directors have behaved despicably The disparaging public comments, the anonymous vicious media briefings, the letters, the partisan press releases. And all this has happened in plain sight. Can you imagine what has happened behind closed doors? It would be insane to trust the current leadership at the PL. The detailed evidence from the APT case alone is proof of bad faith.
 
WRicko said:
So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?
Click to expand...
You are one of the very few people on ignore on this forum (perhaps the only one), I couldn't remember why but it appears for good reason.

I did none of those things detailed above.

I explained a story nobody had previously mentioned on national radio, it got plenty of coverage (contrary to the view here), I clarified that my point was not that United had done wrong fighting their own corner (a position I stand by be it City, Chelsea, United or anyone else), never said it was squeaky clean and explained some of the other relevant points like the audited amounts for 2021/22 in every other clubs accounts inc Arsenal (£2m). United responded by briefing Maguire with a list of categories and since then I have explained repeatedly why those categories do not appear to add up to £40m nor are detailed in any set of accounts. I have also explained here and elsewhere that despite my scepticism as to the £40m figure, they would only have got approval with an audited schedule of information submitted to the PL for review. Finally, I made it clear UEFA did not accept the £40m (per United's accounts).

I would say that contrary to your suggestion what I actually did was present quite a wide ranging objective look at the subject with lots of near exclusive detail.

As for your questions at the end, you obviously didn't listen properly to what I said. Do so next time rather than misleading the reader and making idiotic attacks.
 
Last edited:
Exeter Blue I am here said:
It depends on the level of integrity one attributes to this whole process, I suppose. Personally, I'm inclined to be wary of an organisation, whose CEO had to be 'wined and dined' at the Swamp and Anfield and given their 'seal of approval' prior to being elected to his post, then needlessly announced our charges tally as being 115, rather than the 6 it should have been, and then selected an Arsenal supporting judge to in turn select the hearing panel.
I know you will put the last of the above (if not all) down to paranoia, but I'm with @halfcenturyup. The PL has thrown all its resources at this and seems hell bent on securing whatever kind of conviction they can get their hands on. Attempting to retrospectively re-examine the related party angle of our sponsorship deals, falls well within the levels of chicanery to which I think they would stoop. They're cnuts.....
Click to expand...
The PL was set up as a protection racket and as new money has gone into clubs, other than the red cartel (plus Spurs), the PL have turned the screw and created more and more ridiculous rules to prevent the new money from being spent. This is a desperate attempt to stop the PL from becoming more competitive in the top 6.

The PL is a political organisation and where there's politics there will be power groups influencing the PL to do what they want them to do. It's entirely possible Richard Masters is a stooge. Why did the other candidates pull out of the running for this role? Perhaps they were told it was going to be a tough brief. We may never know the truth on this. We can only speculate.

I don't think you are paranoid.

My main concern is lawyers, particularly KCs, are very clever people and clever people can find angles/subtleties/nuances in order to make their case. That said, the lawyers on both sides will be very adept at nullifying the other's case. The hearing will be attritional and without new damning evidence I cannot see the PL succeeding in the way they hoped. No doubt the PL may have some small wins, but if City's owners are as good as we think they are we will prevail and come back stronger after this.

Finally, I also agree with your last sentence. However, I need to note there is a spelling error.
 
slbsn said:
The difference is one is highly subjective, well trodden publicly and clearly time barred. The other is sufficiently serious (very) and concealed to be capable of breaching the SoL. Furthermore, it is something worth pursuing - a disagreement on RP is not and, if it was, you have failed to address why they waited 10 years to pursue and haven't pursued the ongoing "breach" all founded on the same factual background. Of course you can believe what you like but you haven't addressed any of the questions including how you prove the subject RP point, how you now demostrate the FMV of 10 year old deals with good clarity.

PS related party and FMV only commenced in the PL rules in 2013-14 so "related party" couldn't relate to any charge for any year prior to that.
Click to expand...
Coming on here with your experience and knowledge. It'll never catch on!
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
You are right to be skeptical of the entire proocess. The PL leadership and some of its Club Directors have behaved despicably The disparaging public comments, the anonymous vicious media briefings, the letters, the partisan press releases. And all this has happened in plain sight. Can you imagine what has happened behind closed doors? It would be insane to trust the current leadership at the PL. The detailed evidence from the APT case alone is proof of bad faith.
Click to expand...
If we are found not quilty of most of the charges then it is clear that PL is acting in bad faith, like UEFA before them. It is very clear in the CAS judgement that UEFA realy should not have banned City with something they clearly wasnt able to proof . I cant see any different in this case no matter what Magic Hat / Harris says. So if City are succsessfull something has to be done about the bad faith PL/UEFA and the Cartel has shown in this 6 years bullshit . Its been hard been a City fan thats for sure.
 
WRicko said:
So when you went on talkSPORT and implied the figures they used seemed a bit high dodgy and and then subsequently went on and ignored there situation you where wrong to bring attention to it the first time round as it’s all above board and squeaky clean ? And what’s more it’s always followed the same procedure so you didn’t know what the procedure was ? Or raised it anyway because ? And rowed back from it because ?
Click to expand...
Your spelling is atrocious, makes it difficult to read and understand.
 
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.