PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chappie said:
What evidence, do you have to back that up ?
Click to expand...
We have actively looked for a new shirt/stadium sponsor for a considerable period and have employed an agency to do so.

No takers, incredible for a club so well run and so successful.

Our brand IS tainted in the UK and anyone is kidding themselves if they think any other.
 
Ric said:
We have the highest commercial revenue of all English clubs, and the third highest in Europe.
Click to expand...
WE do but there is an argument it could be even higher and I believe it will be when we are cleared.

Do you genuinely believe the campaign to discredit our club has worked to an extent?

I do, and if it has, some sponsors have to be put off getting involved with us
 
"reputational damage" in this instance is totally superficial imo, restricted to no-marks on twitter and halfwit red shirt twats.

Where it matters there doesn't appear to have been any damage at all. Sponsors are still happy, targets are still being pursued and want to come to city, the north stand is still getting expanded etc. That can lead to the only conclusion that in the agents offices, sponsors boardrooms etc the situation has been briefed and they are all happy with our stance and where we expect the case to go.

Business as usual. MCFC OK
 
Last edited:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
The huge advantage would be this monkey off our backs, once and for all?

It's a monkey that is now 12 years old and is the same monkey.

If the Execs think the same way as me, they don't give a fuck what other fans or media think, as long as we continue the thrive on and off the pitch, as we have done since they came in the door?

You can't argue with stupid, but you can leave them pissing in the wind and with nowhere else to go.

Like CAS, I didn't care how others wanted to interpret the verdict.

Same again, as long as we win, the rest is just partisan, boiled piss.

Those who want to be associated with us, will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right mate. We need to win this one. even if we do the likes of Panja, Delaney & Harris will continue beating some form of fraudulent or human rights drum.

I can't see it stopping, as long as we win on the pitch, just let the piss boil
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
If they had that evidence, the Premier League would have already produced it.

I don't believe they are trying to catch us in a lie, produce a smoking gun at arbitration.

It's gone this far because we simply know everything you have brilliantly explained, we know the law better than they seemingly do and the bar is extremely high.

We've taken the smears, but I genuinely believe the Club and our executives have gamed the whole battle process out and accepted that downside to win the entire war.

The Premier League ran out of road and here we are.
Click to expand...

Yep. I think they have been outplayed strategically and have been manipulated into a position they can't (or, at least, shouldn't be able to) win.

That said, you can never be certain what the outcome will be with legal matters.

I'm pretty relaxed about this whole thing, but like I said before, I was nervous about CAS and we breezed thought that one, so we are probably fucked this time :)
 
Last edited:
I know we cant use other clubs not being investigated as a defence.
I just dont understand ( perhaps I do ) why there isnt a big outcry about other clubs, like Leicester or arsenal sponsored by the fa cup sponsors, utd money in the Carmen Islands, dippers 50 million, or buying homes and leaving derelict.

Why isnt anyone calling this out as a clear case of a whitch hunt. It's as clear as the nose on your face.

A club that is a shining light as to how to be involved in its community, how a football club should be run.

I will be totally shocked if the honourable people, top people in their country and in business were cocking the books.

The pl and UEFA have tried to stop fair trade. How is that allowed ? I thought cartels were illegal.

I couldnt careless City being investigated if all our pl clubs were. Which is clearly not the case, the pl is running scared of the American owned clubs. Clubs that want to destroy our game. They want a closed shop league, with guaranteed income, no relegation.

It's a fucking whitch hunt

I know I keep repeating myself its just letting of steam !
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
It's even more overlappy than that. A lot of the rules you break 1 by breaking another. So if the PL called for someone at City to come in and assist them with their inquiry into and they didn't, it would break W.1, W.2, W.16 and B.18 simultaneously.

Rule B.18 is essentially "follow rule W1 promptly".

And if the PL decided that was an attempt to block or circumvent their investigation then it would break B.15 too.

So that's 1 action - rejecting a request for a specific person to come in and speak to the PL investigators - that generates 5 charges per season they're investigating (which is 5) so 25 of the 115.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the rules have been built deliberately with this interdependency in mind?
Break one and we've got you on a dozen style?
Surely if there is no appeal to a High Court they can do what they want or am I simply out of my depth trying to use that logic?
 
We have no way of knowing but I do wonder whether the PL offered City a way out of this in the weeks before they charged us…. Just as UEFA did…. I wonder if we declined and the PL then hit us with these 100 plus charges in a fit of pique- hence all the errors…
 
petrusha said:
Yes, this seems to be the position. But surely the fact that we cooperated after the High Court ruling on the matter would be relevant in terms of deciding the punishment? Even the CAS agreed that we deserved a fairly heavy fine for not cooperating in those proceedings, but the circumstances then were quite different.

Then, we expressly declined to cooperate, telling UEFA we didn't trust their process, and waited until we went before an independent tribunal before producing relevant evidence. Here, we told the PL that we didn't think they were entitled to ask for what they had, no doubt on legal advice. It turned out that the High Court agreed with them and not us. If we cooperated in full once we had clarification of what we were legally entitled to ask for, then it would seem to mitigate City's position significantly, wouldn't it?

I also note, and believe, TH's comment to the effect that we've provided the PL with a welter of material. In MCFC's own statement, the club made reference to the "vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with". The point in this regard that I (like others) find hard to square in my own mind is why, in this event, the PL has charged us.

We've already run through the theoretical possibilities (either they have convincing evidence we're not aware of or they've given in when pressured by the redshirts to follow this course). To those, Stefan added another - that we're incorrect in our analysis with regard to the standard of proof.

If we speculate on the point that they did so having folded in the face of pressure, then I think a further issue worth raising here is the role of the media. Back in a previous lifetime, I worked for six years in the UK central government, and I've seen how ostensibly sensible and professional people can sometimes act in ways that seem to run completely counter to those qualities with a view to avoiding public criticism.

With regard to the Der Spiegel emails, I don't dispute that they showed City in a wholly negative light and were extremely damaging. Comments and discussions were committed to email that never should have been (to say nothing of the questions the episode raised with regard to our IT security, but that's a separate issue). However, Der Spiegel's presentation of the hacked documents was IMO highly selective and sensational, resulting it it being misleading to a layman reader. Intentionally so, I suspect.

The British press's resultant coverage was, however, utterly hysterical. I understand that this was a big story and it quite clearly raised serious questions for the club to answer. I have no problem with it being reported as such. But the rush to condemn the club - and the general attendant glee at having the opportunity to do so - went far, far beyond any notion of fair and impartial reporting. The only mainstream media figure with any sympathy for us was Martin Samuel, and even he assumed from the off that we were guilty.

People label this kind of thinking as paranoid, but there are journalists out there who've admitted to pushing in their reporting a line of argument that's aimed at discrediting City. Miguel Delaney and Nick Harris have both been quite open on social media about having done (and continuing to do) so, while The Guardian seems very clearly to me to have an anti-City editorial stance.

In this context, it matters little why they do this. The fact is that it sets an agenda and the rest of the football press pack follows. These people have minimal knowledge or expertise when it comes to the off-field aspects of the game, so when the prevailing narrative is set, they follow. That's what's happened with City, IMO. A few have stirred the pot and succeeded in creating a febrile environment in which MCFC are acknowledged as cheats so punishment is expected.

My contention is that, in a context where the PL has faced considerable pressure from within on the part of the redshirts to act against City, there's been considerable pressure from without, too. We'll gain an idea of what the truth is in due course, I suppose, but for now I don't find it inconceivable that the media attitude could have influenced the PL to a certain, contributory degree (I'm not saying it could be the main factor).

After all, I think that few people when taking a decision with ramifications that interest many people want to find that decision widely and publicly lambasted. And a decision on the part of the PL to decline to charge City would have been met with vituperative condemnation from the usual suspects and, most likely, from far wider quarters than that.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!
 
petrusha said:
Yes, this seems to be the position. But surely the fact that we cooperated after the High Court ruling on the matter would be relevant in terms of deciding the punishment? Even the CAS agreed that we deserved a fairly heavy fine for not cooperating in those proceedings, but the circumstances then were quite different.

Then, we expressly declined to cooperate, telling UEFA we didn't trust their process, and waited until we went before an independent tribunal before producing relevant evidence. Here, we told the PL that we didn't think they were entitled to ask for what they had, no doubt on legal advice. It turned out that the High Court agreed with them and not us. If we cooperated in full once we had clarification of what we were legally entitled to ask for, then it would seem to mitigate City's position significantly, wouldn't it?

I also note, and believe, TH's comment to the effect that we've provided the PL with a welter of material. In MCFC's own statement, the club made reference to the "vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with". The point in this regard that I (like others) find hard to square in my own mind is why, in this event, the PL has charged us.

We've already run through the theoretical possibilities (either they have convincing evidence we're not aware of or they've given in when pressured by the redshirts to follow this course). To those, Stefan added another - that we're incorrect in our analysis with regard to the standard of proof.

If we speculate on the point that they did so having folded in the face of pressure, then I think a further issue worth raising here is the role of the media. Back in a previous lifetime, I worked for six years in the UK central government, and I've seen how ostensibly sensible and professional people can sometimes act in ways that seem to run completely counter to those qualities with a view to avoiding public criticism.

With regard to the Der Spiegel emails, I don't dispute that they showed City in a wholly negative light and were extremely damaging. Comments and discussions were committed to email that never should have been (to say nothing of the questions the episode raised with regard to our IT security, but that's a separate issue). However, Der Spiegel's presentation of the hacked documents was IMO highly selective and sensational, resulting it it being misleading to a layman reader. Intentionally so, I suspect.

The British press's resultant coverage was, however, utterly hysterical. I understand that this was a big story and it quite clearly raised serious questions for the club to answer. I have no problem with it being reported as such. But the rush to condemn the club - and the general attendant glee at having the opportunity to do so - went far, far beyond any notion of fair and impartial reporting. The only mainstream media figure with any sympathy for us was Martin Samuel, and even he assumed from the off that we were guilty.

People label this kind of thinking as paranoid, but there are journalists out there who've admitted to pushing in their reporting a line of argument that's aimed at discrediting City. Miguel Delaney and Nick Harris have both been quite open on social media about having done (and continuing to do) so, while The Guardian seems very clearly to me to have an anti-City editorial stance.

In this context, it matters little why they do this. The fact is that it sets an agenda and the rest of the football press pack follows. These people have minimal knowledge or expertise when it comes to the off-field aspects of the game, so when the prevailing narrative is set, they follow. That's what's happened with City, IMO. A few have stirred the pot and succeeded in creating a febrile environment in which MCFC are acknowledged as cheats so punishment is expected.

My contention is that, in a context where the PL has faced considerable pressure from within on the part of the redshirts to act against City, there's been considerable pressure from without, too. We'll gain an idea of what the truth is in due course, I suppose, but for now I don't find it inconceivable that the media attitude could have influenced the PL to a certain, contributory degree (I'm not saying it could be the main factor).

After all, I think that few people when taking a decision with ramifications that interest many people want to find that decision widely and publicly lambasted. And a decision on the part of the PL to decline to charge City would have been met with vituperative condemnation from the usual suspects and, most likely, from far wider quarters than that.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting post but can you clarify the points about the High Court Ruling

The high court action I believe was about the PLs right or competence (if that’s the correct words ) to arbitrate and no about failure to forward documents and yes I know the cause of the PLs wish to go to arbitration
Of course it would be madness to think that City didn’t following the ruling and you would assume arbitration then to supply every thing that the PL requested but looking again at the City statement it sort of implies that all documents requested were supplied but doesn’t actually say that
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
Actually we do. It’s in the court of appeal judgment that the PL asked us for documents which we refused to provide.


see Para 3
Click to expand...


3.
In December 2018, the PL commenced a disciplinary investigation into the Club after allegations about the Club appeared in various European media reports which disclosed details of confidential documents obtained from a hack of the Club's email servers. The PL contends that the media reports contain information suggesting breaches of the Rules by the Club. During the course of its investigation, the PL requested information and documents from the Club (including copies of various documents identified in those media reports) under Rule W.1. The Club objected to disclosure of that material.

I still think there’s very little detail, we could say the email doesn’t exist because it didn’t. The email in Der Spiegel had been doctored or we could have said F off. If it’s a $10m fine then I hope it’s the latter.
 
Last edited:
Keeper! said:
We have actively looked for a new shirt/stadium sponsor for a considerable period and have employed an agency to do so.

No takers, incredible for a club so well run and so successful.

Our brand IS tainted in the UK and anyone is kidding themselves if they think any other.
Click to expand...
I ask again, what evidence do you have to back that statement up,which companies have walked away from us,due to perceived reputational damage to their brand if they were to be associated with us ?
 
Chappie said:
I ask again, what evidence do you have to back that statement up,which companies have walked away from us,due to perceived reputational damage to their brand if they were to be associated with us ?
Click to expand...
Lack of a new shirt sponsor for one, despite an extensive search.

You would not think companies would be fighting to have their name on our shirts after the last decade?
 
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