PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Silva61]

We will keep quiet on others’ peccadillos until our case is resolved. Then it’s:Dear Independent Regulator we thought you might be interested in these emails which fell into our possession.

I'm hoping that £10 billion of trade with a lot more to come goes someway to ensuring we get a truly IR.

 

[blueju]

Is it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?

 

[shemnel]

Is it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?

I could be wrong on this, but it was phrased something like "the time that has elapsed, plus the settlement...." etc, is why they dropped it. So not a time barred situation, but more they were willing to let it go due to the settlement being in 2013 etc. More of a subtle/similar language thing.

 

[Gary James]

Assume you’ll provide all of your evidence to the club when required, as ever great work Gary

If asked/needed.

 

[blueju]

I could be wrong on this, but it was phrased something like "the time that has elapsed, plus the settlement...." etc, is why they dropped it. So not a time barred situation, but more they were willing to let it go due to the settlement being in 2013 etc. More of a subtle/similar language thing.

Cheers

 

[WRicko]

It was said by Ian Cheesman on one of his podcasts. There was a finance guy identified I hadn't heard of who was named a couple of times, I can't remember his name, but it doesn't really matter. City provided all the documented evidence to the EUFA inspectors and the CAS judges, and CAS found in our favour.

If CAS could see the error, why was it so elusive to the EUFA inspectors? Hence the comment, I suppose.

No, there was nothing other than the contractually agreed payments between the club and the players taking place.

For whatever reason, the EUFA inspectors couldn't reconcile an accounting function that took place between 2009 and 2018 when the payment of image rights was handed over to an outside company.

City were obliged to pay the players the agreed amount stated in their contracts, and they honoured their commitments.

Image rights payments are an accepted part of the game, and there is nothing dodgy about them. There is no need to try and hide them.

I don’t think you’re understanding me or maybe I am not getting you. I am not saying there is anything dodgy or need to hide it but the and I certainly understand image rights to be normal though the sale might not be but allegations seem to be that. The price was to high presumably the premier league are going to argue it is a related party. Chevrolet paid United too much but that’s not an issue as they are not related party that’s just there own stupidity though I do believe the guy who did the deal got sacked not proper sign off or just incompetent. Non related parties don’t over pay there in it to get the best deal possible.

 

[PPT]

I could be wrong on this, but it was phrased something like "the time that has elapsed, plus the settlement...." etc, is why they dropped it. So not a time barred situation, but more they were willing to let it go due to the settlement being in 2013 etc. More of a subtle/similar language thing.

The hack on our computer systems was a 'data breach' which is very serious stuff. For allowing it to happen - which clearly & obviously did, we are wide open up to a maximum fine of £17.5 million or 4 per cent of annual global turnover - whichever is greater - for infringement of any of the data protection principles or rights of individuals. That is why we had no choice to accept a paltry £1m and let Liverpool off scot free.

 

[City Raider]

Not sure if posted but..

Big Sam has waded in..

Sam Allardyce:

"Of course there is jealousy – all clubs will be rubbing their hands together wanting to be found guilty..."

"It seems like owners want City kicked out of the PL which isn't the right thing to do. I hope they are not found guilty and come out on top..."

Lining himself up as Pep’s replacement!

If we do win it’ll be because we had more expensive lawyers. That narrative has already been set.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Is it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?

yep the age of the offense was considered very old to be investigated. That and the pay off we received stopped the FA from looking into the case. Even though it was a clear case of industrial espionage and not treating other clubs with respect

 

[Tim of the Oak]

If City have indeed fail to supply everything the thePL requests and they ( unlike UEFA) can produce evidence that despite repeated requests to provide such requests haven’t been met in full then I think it’s inevitable that the tribunal will make damaging assumptions as to what those documents reveal .
Even if they don’t!
Then at the inevitable appeal” that forum ( unlike CAS where UEFAs assumptions were dismissed because in effect UEFA gave up trying to get the info) I would imagine the PL s attempts to gain full disclosure added to the High Courts ruling and the hint given by CAS in this regard that failure to fully disclose any defence re non cooperation won’t go well

Do we really know what documents we did / didn’t supply before CAS. We supplied enough information to put the emails stolen by Pinto into context. We refused to cooperate with the UEFA inquiry for reasons including passed chairmen of Liverpool and Man U were involved in the initial prosecution. We didn’t cooperate with UEFA so some procedural fine could be justified.

There are additional reasons why we would not comply with the Premier League:
- the Prem reinforced it’s willingness to use stolen information in its rules.
- the Prem (although not bound by a higher legal authority / CAS) chose to ignore the ruling of CAS - that’s at least partly unreasonable.
- the Prem continued to display double standards towards who it admits to its Club. For example, there was extreme scrutiny towards the Saudis taking over Newcastle (maybe justified) and a tick box exercise for American owners like the ones who took over at Burnley.
- Nine (then)! Prem Clubs wrote to UEFA To try to influence our ban from the Champs League.
- Everyone at the Prem from the Chairwoman to the Head of League Compliance seems to be a rag or a supporter of another rival club.

It was never a case of being able to “give a dog a bone” by cooperating fully with the Premier League investigation.

 

[terraloon]

Is it true that the dippers hacking was deemed ‘time barred’ by the same organisation that says our alleged discrepancies cannot be?

That is just not correct

1) It was an FA Investigation not the PL
2) The two clubs had reached a private settlement and it was the date of that settlement and the timing of the subsequent investigation that created the issue.

Irrespective I don’t think that City actually ever made a compl to the governing bodies.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I don't think we can accept any "pinch" this time. We need to stand up for ourselves we've tried playing the nice guy and now it's time to end this once and for all, if that means dragging the PL or rivals clubs through the courts for years so be it. Enough is enough.

 

[M18CTID]

This is the part you were looking for

View attachment 69094

Cheers for that. So Ernst & Young ran the check. That's more than good enough for me because if what was alleged actually happened then the auditors would've been in on it as well so by extension it could be argued Ernst & Young are effectively being accused of accountancy fraud too. With that in mind, and assuming that nothing else has come to light in the meantime, I'm not sure why the PL would even want to revisit this and any other charges where we won at CAS!

 

[SilverFox2]

I read today that Lord Pannick is an Arsenal supporter. I fully expect him to give his all for us regardless.

II think our owner is a Real Madrid supporter.

 

[waspish]

Unless we do a deal this will take 3/4 years!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I'd just like to ask one quick question of #Prestwich_Blue please. I watched your interview with Cheesy and have read your informative message a couple of pages back. You address the materiality of both the Mancini scenario and that of the player payments. I agree that neither of these are likely to be significant enough to result in extreme sanctions but you don't make comment on the "sponsorship stuff." I just wondered why that was. In terms of materiality, Mancini is golf ball size, player payments is tennis ball size but the sponsorship is potentially beach ball size. Why have you not addressed the beach ball. I know we have little detail but are you confident the sponsorship stuff is not a threat (can you pop the beach ball?). I ask simply because it is only the sponsorship stuff that really worries me. Thankyou

The Etihad stuff was covered at CAS and was cleared. They, not ADUG, were found to have paid the sponsorship, that it was fair value and that they got fair value in return. Two others were Aabar and Etisalat but I think those two were time-barred. Aabar would have been similar to Etihad so not worried about that. Etisalat was an odd one as ADUG advanced the monies for that one, but that was before FFP if I remember correctly. Once FFP came in, they reimbursed ADUG. It was in the CAS verdict that UEFA were aware of that and accepted it.

This is an example of how weak the PL charges really are.

And if you want to tag anyone, use @ not #

 

[Iassel]

One thing that I think is important to repeat for expectation management at least is that a ‘100% win’ for City is extremely unlikely.

The non-cooperation charges are highly likely to be supported by specific requests from the PL to City that could be proven unfulfilled, and so a large fine is in my opinion nailed on.

Let’s be clear though, if the rest of the charges fall ‘non-proven’, City will be hosting the largest party Abu Dhabi has ever seen, and Pep will be puffing one of his Cubana’s in his ‘technical area’….

The key for expectation management though is that City almost certainly *will* fall foul of the small fry charges, and opposition supporters *will* hang on this, as with CAS, to support their view that City were guilty all along.

 

[M18CTID]

Arsene has been talking up the allegations constantly until now. Any comment like this one is welcomed, but why the change of heart, and if he knows Khaldoon so well as he says why has it taken til now to make this u-turn?

I've not come across anything from Wenger where he has talked up the allegations - have you got any links?

What I will say to those who are suspicious of these comments is that about a year or so ago he was on beIN Sports one evening and that wanker Keys was asking him why City didn't just go and cough up the £150 million or whatever it was that Levy was asking for Kane. Keys must've thought that Wenger would make some negative comment about City - as he often did so when he was Arsenal manager - but instead Wenger said that City are a very well run club these days and although we spend lots of money, we also have a limit to what we can go to when we're bidding for a player.

 

[Dubai Blue]

The most logical and simple reasoning is far less difficult to process. Biggest TV & Prize revenue = highest commercial revenues in every other league…

It's almost like united's massive commercial growth during their extended period of success never really happened. It's beyond mental that people keep trotting this shit out. Commercial growth has followed serial winners around since sport began.

 

[CADE MCFC 1894]

Nope. I wrote City are confident.

My own personal opinion is that we will win but are unlikely to come out scot-free (taking medicine) whether it be in the form of a fine for non cooperation or a poss transfer ban for how we set up for Mancini or player payments.

I just think it be a fine for non cooperation like uefa fined us for