PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Jesus H Gabz]

Has anyone else noticed a dearth of Rags wanting to take the piss about Manchester City, the Premier League & FFP, since A22 announced a revised Super League today?

My phone's gone awfully quiet... \0/

The irony of them storming their stadium again before being punished for the zebra grazing

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

That's funny. Reminds me of chemical allie in the gulf war saying on TV the Iraqis would win and then a shell going off nearby and his chin hitting the floor.

 

[Corky]

Ahh OK but what do they have?

if the CAS hearing was a private matter between CITY and UEFA, what do the Premier League have?
as from what I can gather the findings are not in the public domain

And if that is so they have no evidence from City with regards the time barred issues and I recon that's what they want to see and that's what City want to show

There was a massive report published a couple of week after the decision.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Etisalat are a mobile communications provider who sponsor City and have every right to pay City for that honour. Surely if Sheik Mansour wants to support Etisalat as a company from his homeland he has that right also. Why wouldn't he want to grow his homelands profile?

That's not the issue. The question is whether he paid those funds as sponsorship, as a way of putting in investment. There is provision with FFP for an owner/investor to sponsor clubs however so it's not necessarily against the rules.

 

[BlueRockape]

1.5 billion interest free not repayable loan from the Sheik to fight this would rattle some cages ; )

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I've got loads of Red mates too - and family. Never once rubbed the Glazer situation in their faces. Always sympathised. Always acknowledged when they've done something I felt was admirable. Horrible behaviour on his part but always sad to lose a friend - I hope you guys patch it up and before long he'll be crying about something - the Super League, the Glazers, some scandal...and you can take the high ground.

Nah..fuck him. The ****.


Only joking. I’m sure in time when tempers have calmed and emotions on both sides aren’t quite so raw we will get back to a kind of normal.
I tell you though, I won’t ever forget the gloating I’ve witnessed this week.
Piss-taking is one thing. We’ve done it about football for decades to each other. But gloating and flaunting disgusting racist tropes about our owners is something I may forgive in time, as emotions on both sides were frayed by then, but I won’t ever forget.
There’s a reckoning coming and when it arrives it will be most glorious.

 

[Keepingthefaithsince1976]

That's not the issue. The question is whether he paid those funds as sponsorship, as a way of putting in investment. There is provision with FFP for an owner/investor to sponsor clubs however so it's not necessarily against the rules.

OK. Excuse me for taking up your time as your clearly more intelligent & knowledgeable than me in this stuff. But if he did... he can...so what's the issue? The amount?

Edit; I'm generally interested not trying to be condescending.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think you're both probably right - handed over, but not reviewed/considered because it was time-barred.
I think the club would have wanted to be obviously cooperative with CAS, but the first legal move came down to whether it was barred.

The fine for not cooperating was probably not something worth arguing. The leaky UEFA committee had already been raised with CAS, but you have to fine people for not cooperating, or the next time will see no cooperation at all.

 

[Coatigan]

Ahh OK but what do they have?

if the CAS hearing was a private matter between CITY and UEFA, what do the Premier League have?
as from what I can gather the findings are not in the public domain

And if that is so they have no evidence from City with regards the time barred issues and I recon that's what they want to see and that's what City want to show

Do you know for a fact that the case, findings and process are a private matter? Asking, rather than arguing.

 

[blueish swede]

If there is no right of appeal and the PL rules state that they can impose unlimited fines, what is stopping them fining City 1 trillion pounds?

The latest Premier League handbook I found on line starts with:

Premier League Chairmen’s Charter
Season 2020/21
Foreword
The Chairmen’s Charter is a statement of our commitment and aim to run Premier League football to the highest possible standards in a professional manner and with the utmost integrity. With that aim we, the Chairmen of the Clubs in membership of the Premier League, are determined:
• To conduct our respective Club’s dealings with the utmost good faith and honesty.
• At all times to maintain a Rule book which is comprehensive, relevant and up-to-date.
• To adopt disciplinary procedures which are professional, fair and objective.
• To submit to penalties which are fair and realistic.
• To secure the monitoring of and compliance with the Rules at all times.

That's why I think the amout of money involved is interesting.
How much money can be translated to how much differece it made.
And how much difference it made must, for professional, fair and objective procedures must translate to what a fair and realistic punishment is.