Bodicoteblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 5,919
‘softly softly catchee monkey’
I have a cliche for every occasion!
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
I have a cliche for every occasion!
Kinkybyname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 3,091
- Team supported
- Manchester City
You should avoid clichés like the plague‘softly softly catchee monkey’
I have a cliche for every occasion!
decmancity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 13,040
If we win, there is nothing more to be said. We continue to let our talking happen on the pitch.Was a more general comment, mate.
Yes I think we can absorb the punches, I just worry that we won’t, as you phrased it, spring into action as stridently and purposefully as I would like if this goes comprehensively our way. Think the club are, overall, too diffident with their comms, and I fear this MO won’t materially change if we are vindicated.
More than happy to be wrong on that though.
Little old City had plenty of fans. I know, I was there. According to the numbers we had 25,000 turning up when we were crap. Allowing for fiddling of the match day take, it was 30,000 in reality. I remember one occasion when we got 30, 000 plus on a weds night in Div 2 and the rags got 25,000 that Saturday in div1.Yep.. it's gone quiet on the results of the hearing, City claimed a win and damages and losses could be available
But the Premier League also claimed a victory but the main rules had to be changed, in fact, they have been voted on by the members and the victory was in the hands of the Premier League to keep it with renewed rules
What was the first Etihad deal worth ten years ago £600million, So it had to be over £1billion spread across 10 years
I think Manchester City can now ask for any major company for sponsorship, We are good value because of the past 10 years, The best team should be able to pick the best deal for them,
Sometimes People forget we are not little old Manchester City with no fans. Our revenues are 2nd to none and stand up to the best in the world
You could argue that the current regime have forgotten us FOCs and our loyalty.
Not about controversy. I just don't think it is convincing to raise E.54 as important when it wasn't even a rule in effect until 2015/16 and even then required a consultative process that never happened (E.55).My official answer is I have parked this because our exchange is confusing people and taking attention away from our much more important agreement on the most serious allegations.
My unofficial answer would be that I'm not here to justify what the PL has referred to the disciplinary process as allegations or not (but if I were to try I would suggest E53 and E54 weren't referred for 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively for the same reason no other FFP breaches were referred for those seasons: the first three year assessment period ended with the 2015/16 season. I suppose it's hard to assess a breach of FFP rules until the first assessment period is over).
I am simply saying the investigation, imo, looked at the related party nature of the sponsorships, that they were presumably
not satisfied with the outcome and so they included the issue in the referred allegations in two places: the first tranche (as one of the areas in which the annual accounts were incomplete or inaccurate) and the FFP tranche (as a breach of E53/54 for certain seasons). It may be wrong, of course, but I'm not sure why it's such a controversial opinion.
kippax123
Well-Known Member
I wish we all knew so we could all just get on with it. I think it is 100 % harder for the fans than any player or Pep.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Profoundly disagree.If we win, there is nothing more to be said.
kippax123
Well-Known Member
Bloody hell give us some hope.Profoundly disagree.
How about “Sack Masters.”If we win, there is nothing more to be said. We continue to let our talking happen on the pitch.
Hi masters, welcome to blue moanI spend a lot of time reading this thread but don’t post very often. However today I’m giving it a go. I particularly want to address the viewpoint of some, which I think is flawed and that is the trust in the legitimacy of the case against City and why the case was launched.
I don’t have the legal or accounting background of some on here, although I do have experience in 2 areas, that I think can throw a little light on some matters. Firstly I have run a successful business, in a field that was highly competitive and self regulated. Secondly within that field I was an elected member of the board that regulated the industry in question and also a member of the panel that wrote the rule book . I won’t be naming the industry.
I know from personal experience how the rules and regulations can easily be influenced by individuals and individual businesses. I also know how the executive of an industry can be completely manipulated by the more powerful organisations it is supposed to represent and regulate. It’s so easy for me to see parallels with the way the PL is run and the industry I was involved in.
Admittedly the industry isn’t as big as football but it impacted on almost every person in the U.K.
I’ll give one small example of what I mean. A newcomer to the industry came up with a new way of doing business. This immediately threatened the business model of my company and others. To stop this newcomer in its tracks we changed the rules under which business could be done. We did this by seeking help from other board members we’d worked with in the past and collectively put pressure on the executive to act.
We also went to the government department associated with our industry and via our contacts there persuaded them that the newcomers business methods were in breach of government regulations, this was highly debatable but we’d worked with the people in charge for years and had close business relationships with them. We persuaded them the newcomers methods were going to be more trouble than they were worth and they acted accordingly.
Once we’d changed the rules and persuaded government to act we then attacked the integrity of the newcomer business with their clients and they soon gave up and went away.
The point I’m, probably badly, trying to make is that businesses protect their own interests and that in many fields, including I believe football, specific interests can easily be portrayed as “looking after the interests of all parties”. Also it’s so easy for big players to influence any self regulated industry.
Obviously there’s a lot more to the scenario above but I’m aware I’ve already rambled on.
PS I’m not proud of what we did but want people without experience of business to understand how the world can work.