PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ufo]

I’d say we were being protectionist.

More like human nature but that was morally , professionally and ethically wrong in anyway you slice it. We have those tendencies in us instinctively to be a protectionist

 

[slbsn]

That might well be to do with the seriousness of the possible consequences, as much as, or rather than, the seriousness of the charges.

I’d say it surely is both. They are obviously connected to each other.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The more this is just about some technical debate about FMV the less serious it is.

Disagree. This "technical debate about FMV" is nothing to do with the seriousness of the main allegations.

Nobody has ever said, afaik, that the allegations about sponsorship income, if they are based on the 2020 UEFA charges as we all suspect, are anything other than very serious.

There are also some less serious allegations, such as Mancini and Touré for example. I just happen to believe the investigation also looked at the related party nature of the AD sponsors, leading to the inclusion of a related party reference in the first tranche of alleged breaches and the alleged breach of 2018:E54 in the FFP tranche.

None of that takes anything away from the seriousness of the allegations around sponsorship income or the difficulty the PL will have in proving them. That is the same as it ever was.

That said, it seems to be confusing some people, so best to park it, I think. We will see soon enough, anyway.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I’d say it surely is both. They are obviously connected to each other.

No doubt you're right, you know a great deal more about this than I do.

What I do know is that if I were accused of murder, I'd take it seriously regardless of the paucity of evidence.

 

[CC1]

That’s the disagreement - sadly I’m pretty certain the charges are simply far more serious than that. Hopefully you are right and they just ran a 12 week hearing to try and prove a highly subjective accounting point where evidence exists that even if RP, the main sponsor was FMV. Clearly, pretty unlikely even if the PL are as incompetent as you insist.

Which charges in particular are you worried about - & how worried are you?

 

[deano ou812]

So basically the premier league are looking and hoping to find something that most likely isn’t there,yet the whole process still has to go through from start to finish..

 

[The perfect fumble]

So basically the premier league are looking and hoping to find something that most likely isn’t there,yet the whole process still has to go through from start to finish..

The process is the punishment.

 

[ancoats]

Because there is no evidence of cheating I’m afraid

True..
But because nobody dares question United accounts they always will get away with it, but allowing £40million in allowances for Covid 19 is crazy when others had been turned down or only claimed around £2 million, other clubs' allowances per week to United is not £2million a week,

Quick Question Stefan...

The Legal fees City has been involved in like the PSR win and Now the 115 charges can City put them in the allowances like United did with the sale of shares, I would like to know how much legal fees City have had over the last season

 

[deano ou812]

The process is the punishment.

Exactly and the after effects from it with the media wanting their pound of flesh regarding well we’ll spin it as them being guilty anyhow..

 

[slbsn]

Disagree. This "technical debate about FMV" is nothing to do with the seriousness of the main allegations.

Nobody has ever said, afaik, that the allegations about sponsorship income, if they are based on the 2020 UEFA charges as we all suspect, are anything other than very serious.

There are also some less serious allegations, such as Mancini and Touré for example. I just happen to believe the investigation also looked at the related party nature of the AD sponsors, leading to the inclusion of a related party reference in the first tranche of alleged breaches and the alleged breach of 2018:E54 in the FFP tranche.

None of that takes anything away from the seriousness of the allegations around sponsorship income or the difficulty the PL will have in proving them. That is the same as it ever was.

That said, it seems to be confusing some people, so best to park it, I think. We will see soon enough, anyway.

Now I am really confused. E.54 is not referenced in the charges press release aside from within the breach of the entire PSR sections from 2015/16 to 2017/18 but not 13/14 or 14/15. In fact, if there was a distinct alleged breach of FMV why is there no charge on a breach of E.53 from 2013/14 or the equivalent E.54 from 2014/15. That could easily have been added to the charges in bullet 1 or in bullet 4. It is notable that it is not there.