PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

terraloon said:
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
Click to expand...
The same assumption being made time and time again. PL members do not have to hand over every scrap of paper in the building. Only relevant financial documentation.
I assure you if there was a requirement to send everything then the club would deposit 250,000+ pages of information including coach doodles during matches, the cleaning schedule for the CFA and the listed contents of the broom cupboard for every day in the last decade. It would cost the PL lawyers the leagues entire annual budget to review it all.
Apart from the fact that none of the PL members would ever sign up to an agreement that required them to give all of their documentary secrets…
 
WRicko said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is nothing untoward regarding the size of the payments City were, or are, making to the players for image rights. The contracts between the players and the club are open to negotiation regarding the remuneration they will receive, and the two parties can agree whatever sum they deem suitable.

It doesn't matter what the figure is when the contract is signed. There are no rules in place regulating image rights, and is an expense for the club.

Related party regulations concern income from sponsorship deals and have nothing to do with how a club spends its money.
 
domalino said:
Fordham was not covered in the CAS trial. I don't know how else you want it explained, it simply was not a part of it.
Click to expand...
Probably because neither cas or uefa were arsed about it because having looked at it there was nothing to see. They obviously knew about it, so they either couldn't be arsed investigating, decided to do city a favour by turning a blind eye because they love us, or there was nothing about Fordham worth pursuing - take your pick, I know which one I think is true.
 
Cheer Up Peter Reid said:
Premier League: Show us all these payments Sheikh Mansour made to MCFC.
MCFC: There aren't any.
Premier League: But there must be, everybody is saying there were, even Gary Neville.
MCFC: No really, there aren't any.
Premier League: Right, we're charging you with non cooperation...
Click to expand...
Even though a joke. That’s the exact point. You cannot be found guilty for failing to provide documents that don’t exist. We admitted non cooperation at CAS hence the fine. We do not admit it here. We will argue we did cooperate fully.
 
Shads said:
The same assumption being made time and time again. PL members do not have to hand over every scrap of paper in the building. Only relevant financial documentation.
I assure you if there was a requirement to send everything then the club would deposit 250,000+ pages of information including coach doodles during matches, the cleaning schedule for the CFA and the listed contents of the broom cupboard for every day in the last decade. It would cost the PL lawyers the leagues entire annual budget to review it all.
Apart from the fact that none of the PL members would ever sign up to an agreement that required them to give all of their documentary secrets…
Click to expand...
It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It certainly takes some getting used to. There are still a few remnants of the old world, such as email sign offs that haven’t been amended and the odd sign here and there, but overall it’s remarkable how quickly it changed, especially since it hadn’t done so for over 70 years.

Indictments didn’t change though, as they went from R v X to…errr…R v X!
Click to expand...
Rex and Regina both start with R…good old Latin again… I can Feel another MGS chat about to start…
 
wolviedinho said:
It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.
Click to expand...
Not really. They do not need to decide anything other than what is or is not proven by the evidence to a sufficient standard. It is something the individuals concerned will be well used to doing.
It is not about finding the truth of the matter. Just whether or not the PL has the cogent evidence to prove the charges they made.
From everything already said it remains highly unlikely that they do.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.