Cobbled together charges that look bad but with not a lot on context but all done to tarnish are brand ! It's the way businesses try to devalue rival companies ! Growing rumours City have been gathering evidence about certain other clubs that is far more damming only hope its true !
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
Whats fun about this, as someone who is a big PGA Tour fan and been following the LIV Golf stuff closely, is that in order for the heads of the PIF to not have to be deposed in a PGA/LIV lawsuit, they claimed diplomatic immunity status that the PIF is an arm of the Saudi royal family and thus not subjected to US laws, but that is the opposite of what they claimed to the PL in order to get the PL to allow the purchase of Newcastle. I have no idea if there is precedent to allow one thing in one country and the opposite in another but I estimate that the LIV lawsuit gets dropped real soon to potentially protect their PL investment. (also because theyre gonna lose that lawsuit)
the talisman
Well-Known Member
Your not a football scout are you?I got a warning that the website is impersonating 188 and trying to steal my personal or financial information ?
Better case against the dippers
meanwhile this is the website:
It doesn't even exist!
What were the odds on 7-0 and no red cards lol
These companies are Philippines Offshore Gambling Organisations, whose main business is accepting bets fron Asian individuals who live in countries where gambling is illegal. I assume they sponsor Prem teams as their potential customers watch English footy.What were the odds on 7-0 and no red cards lol
Sorry, response was for @slbsn
Last edited:
I think he can both be a minister and Newcastle not run by the Saudi StateWhats fun about this, as someone who is a big PGA Tour fan and been following the LIV Golf stuff closely, is that in order for the heads of the PIF to not have to be deposed in a PGA/LIV lawsuit, they claimed diplomatic immunity status that the PIF is an arm of the Saudi royal family and thus not subjected to US laws, but that is the opposite of what they claimed to the PL in order to get the PL to allow the purchase of Newcastle. I have no idea if there is precedent to allow one thing in one country and the opposite in another but I estimate that the LIV lawsuit gets dropped real soon to potentially protect their PL investment. (also because theyre gonna lose that lawsuit)
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,836
I agree. But when Mark Hendrick MP uses a phrase like “City have been targeted by the red-shirt cartel” it makes you think. He is very well connected in football governance circles.
Like I say, I think you are probably right, and Mark Hendrick MP seems to agree. But the evidence that the PL has actually been pressured into bringing unwarranted charges against is is (AFAIK) nonexistent.
Thanks for this clarification.
Who decides what is relevant information to a particular investigation, and who checks if all information has been disclosed?
Take for example the Al Jazeera contact. Would we just give them a copy of the contract and Mancini's calendar for the dates in question, and the financial entries to back them up? Or do we have to give them every email that mentions Al Jazeera too? Or can we go through the papers and be selective in what we give them?
The process, as I understand it, goes like this.
1. The PL decides to open an investigation. There will generally be some reason for them to do so, like a complaint being made that we have broken the rules, or (as in this case) something coming out in the media that, if true, would suggest that we have broken the rules.
2. As part of their investigation, they ask us for the documents they think are relevant to that investigation.
3. The PL rules say we have an obligation to provide those documents, but if there is some reason not to, eg they are not relevant to the investigation, we can choose not to.
4. The PL then decide whether to issue a disciplinary complaint about that, as they did in this case. If so, it goes to an independent panel. The panel then decides whether the information requested should be provided, because it is relevant to an ongoing investigation, or whether the club was justified in refusing to provide it.
So the answer to the question 'who decides' is ultimately an independent panel, but there are several stages in the process before you get there.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,930
Like I say, I think you are probably right, and Mark Hendrick MP seems to agree. But the evidence that the PL has actually been pressured into bringing unwarranted charges against is is (AFAIK) nonexistent.
The process, as I understand it, goes like this.
1. The PL decides to open an investigation. There will generally be some reason for them to do so, like a complaint being made that we have broken the rules, or (as in this case) something coming out in the media that, if true, would suggest that we have broken the rules.
2. As part of their investigation, they ask us for the documents they think are relevant to that investigation.
3. The PL rules say we have an obligation to provide those documents, but if there is some reason not to, eg they are not relevant to the investigation, we can choose not to.
4. The PL then decide whether to issue a disciplinary complaint about that, as they did in this case. If so, it goes to an independent panel. The panel then decides whether the information requested should be provided, because it is relevant to an ongoing investigation, or whether the club was justified in refusing to provide it.
So the answer to the question 'who decides' is ultimately an independent panel, but there are several stages in the process before you get there.
So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
If only it was that simple, play in red....get another 7 clubs to sign a letter with us etc we'd have a chance.So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.
nmc
Well-Known Member
So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.
No, because when it suits them they say it’s out of time…..
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Yes, although like 99.99% of them, nobody outside the concerned parties will be aware of it, as it's kept confidential.So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.
They're also a betting partner/sponsor of Bayern Munich... nothing to see hereTheir just operating in Asia unfortunately doesn't mean they've gone bust but seems a con to advertise in a country that your punters can't put bets on so why waste money sponsoring a club in that country ? Perhaps the scousers are under contract to do this but seems very dodgey need to see their agreement and when it began !
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,930
Yes, although like 99.99% of them, nobody outside the concerned parties will be aware of it, as it's kept confidential.
Starts & finished within 10 mins.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Quite possibly, we'll never know and I'm on the fence whether that's a good thing or not.Starts & finished within 10 mins.
Brightwell Bros.
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 8,647
Better case against the dippers
meanwhile this is the website:
It doesn't even exist!
I did think when Liverpool fans got very excited about that that they wouldn't like it if people started pulling the thread of football and dodgy gambling/crypto organisations.
Sorry but I think part of your thinking is not correct.This is the point I was trying to make, but Chris made it so much better.
My understanding is that if the Al Jazira contract was the only thing that had been revealed in the Der Spiegel articles, then the PL (or anyone else) couldn't come in and say "Well we think you've cheated on this so we're going to investigate all your sponsorships as well." And I believe we would be within our rights not to hand over anything that wasn't connected to the Mancini/Al Jazira issue (although that net could be wide). They have to be investigating a specific, formulated allegation, not 'fishing'. I'm keen to understand this specific point.
Hance why I've previously described this investigation as UEFA's sloppy seconds, which was the time-barred sponsorship contracts, the Al Jazira contract and the image rights payments. That last one was the only one that worried me initially but once it was clear that UEFA already knew about this back in 2015, and let us know they weren't happy with it, plus Fordham was hardly a secret as they were referenced in our Companies House entry, I was more confident it was nonsense.
The arrangement was seemingly wound up in 2018 and Fordham is now in liquidation. Martyn Ziegler thought that this was some sort of revelation the other day, proving journalists don't do any original research, and it made me think. If UEFA told us in 2015 that they were't happy about this arrangement, what happened between 2015 and 2018? My guess is that we then included the Fordham payments in our FFP submission, with the payments coming back in-house in 2018/19. No money went into Fordham after an allotment of shares of nearly £60m in May 2016. If it was so egregious, and we'd carried on with it, despite UEFA's concerns, then they'd have charged us back in 2019.
1) UEFA may well have accepted the sum paid for image rights but UEFA, as far as I am aware, don’t set the rules on what is or isn’t in players contracts so would not have jurisdiction to rule on the method of payments.
FIFA sets the broad ground rules but each association then in conjunction with the relevant tax authorities will state what is and what isn’t acceptable
2) In relation to the Mancini’s second contract it may well have been minimal in terms of turnover but that isn’t the point .
3) I keep going back to the CAS ruling they didn’t rule on many of the issues some as we know were time barred, others were dismissed “ if that’s the word” because UEFA didn’t cover all the bases.
Yeah, or The FA receive information through other means. Contrast and compare Liverpool hacking incident in 2013.So if City make a complaint about clubs breaking rules then we can expect an investigation to commence.
"The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns."
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,930
Yeah, or The FA receive information through other means. Contrast and compare Liverpool hacking incident in 2013.
"The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns."
& that’s why lobbying is part of the US dna, keep going until you’ve manipulated the situation to your own good.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I've no idea how the FA rules compare to the PL's but one of the factors considered would be the fact that we accepted a one off payment of a million quid. There is no comparison TBH.Yeah, or The FA receive information through other means. Contrast and compare Liverpool hacking incident in 2013.
"The FA has carefully considered the evidence it received in this matter, including information provided by both clubs involved, and has decided not to progress the investigation. This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns."
Tugay One Cup
Well-Known Member
Better case against the dippers
meanwhile this is the website:
It doesn't even exist!
There's at least one for every club in the league. Most have the exact same website design.
Now, call me a cynic but it's almost like they're just in existence to inflate the revenue of Premier League clubs because they've all tied their hands behind their backs by voting in FFP.