PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Luca1894 said:
Looks like La Liga have declared war on PSG.The new EU regulations seem to be targeted directly at the Qatari owners...

www.fotmob.com

La Liga file complaint against PSG to European Commission

La Liga file complaint against PSG to European Commission
www.fotmob.com www.fotmob.com
Click to expand...
Cheeky bastards. They have been fucking up the football ecosystem for years. Another new regulation passed to go after sporting competition. How long before the red tops do the same to us?


Franco returned?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
He’s mentally ill. City have never been convicted of cheating. They agreed a settlement in 2014 to a rules breach just like dozens of other clubs have done. Convictions only happen in criminal trials.
Click to expand...
Spot on. If our 2014 breach is now the definition of cheating, then the likes of United and Chelsea are cheats as well, along with dozens of other clubs across Europe such as our opponents in last season’s CL Final who just happen to be in the middle of their second settlement agreement.

Nick Harris - if you’re reading this (and I bet you are seeing as though City live in your head rent free 24/7/365), I’m very sorry that you lost your wife but that doesn’t excuse you from being a ****, and I hope your next shit is a hedgehog you despicable twat. Now let’s see you Tweet that you fucking shithouse.
 
wolviedinho said:
Cheeky bastards. They have been fucking up the football ecosystem for years. Another new regulation passed to go after sporting competition. How long before the red tops do the same to us?


Franco returned?
Click to expand...
You could bet your life, if it wasn't for Brexit we would have been included in this political attack. This was also a factor in the red tops conspiring to force through the speculative PL charges.
Litigation in sport is heading into a golden era, the legal firms will be making absolute fortunes for years to come.
 
This thread is mad. 25,000+ posts on pretty much no information.

The charges probably galvanised us to win the treble.

We've seen a list of the charges and Stefan and Colin have done their best to spell out what they believe they relate to, without certainty as no information is in the public eye.

Even when the panel meets, we will not have any information until a decision is made.

Will it make 100,000 posts before a decision is made?
 
Iassel said:
The only way Harris can make money is off these digs at City. Nobody is giving him work in good faith as they know he’s bonkers.

An average tweet of his writing nonsense about City might get say 5000 impressions on Twitter. Once some weirdo reposts it on here it jumps to 50,000 impressions.

He then goes to the Mail on Sunday with his 50,000 impressions about City and if the KAM is low on their monthly targets they give him an article to bump up their numbers off City fans. He gets £500 if he’s lucky, The Mail make £5k and none of it possible if weirdos would just stop reposting his shite.
Click to expand...
So why does he block so many, there is no logic as that reduces his interaction
 
Its fairly simple to see how Harris operates - his tweets about anything about except City are basically ignored. Normally gathering between 10 and 30 likes from his 150k followers.

When he tweets his regurgitated weekly snide City thread ( normally around midnight on a Friday or Saturday ) he gets 10 x his normal interactions.

That’s why he does it - to keep himself relevant.

Meanwhile back in the real world he has an article in the Mail today about watching the new TNT coverage of the Arsenal game. That’s his level these days ! Being tossed scraps which could and should be written by an intern for free.

He’s an absolute embarrassment
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
This thread is mad. 25,000+ posts on pretty much no information.

The charges probably galvanised us to win the treble.

We've seen a list of the charges and Stefan and Colin have done their best to spell out what they believe they relate to, without certainty as no information is in the public eye.

Even when the panel meets, we will not have any information until a decision is made.

Will it make 100,000 posts before a decision is made?
Click to expand...

This is a great thread. In fact, if you have a moment, it's a huge rollercoaster of a thread in four hundred sizzling chapters.

SB and CS and many others have managed to calm down the debate from the blind panic of the first hundred pages to a generally well-informed debate on the issues. I would say that this thread makes City fans as informed as possible about what is going on from the little we know. Certainly better informed than most other people who comment on it.

If it takes 100,000 posts to keep us calm and informed on what is, after all, a critical issue, I say bring them on.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I’ve read it. The two posters calmed peoples’ nerves months ago. Nothing new has happened. The rest is people reacting to posts on Twitter (X) that have no new information in them.

Ad nauseam.

It’d be far better to have Stefan and Colin’s detailed and succinct analysis of the situation stickied to the top of every page. Nothing else of note has happened since then.

Edit: I shouldn’t really have responded to you as you probably meant something completely different to what your words suggest. I won’t be responding further.

Apologies to the board.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.

He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.

We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.

To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.

The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.
 
Re the Chelsea theory PB, Banks and Insurance companies were factoring in regulatory fines back in the day, knowing their sales practices and products were dodgy. I assume it still goes on.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Funnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.

He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.

We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.

To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.

The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.
Click to expand...
Ah, you saw my post before my edit. I changed it as I didn’t want a to and fro with the other poster. Might as well reply to you now though!

The other fundamental difference is that Chelsea don't seem to care in breaching the regulations, whereas we seem to care vehemently and want to clear our name.

Ultimately, though, Chelsea’s FFP issues don’t change where we’ve been since February.

There are a lot of suppositions in what is in our accounts and how reports meld to the charges laid out. You and Stefan have done sterling work in making it as clear as you have done, but we don’t know what evidence that the PL/independent panel actually have, so its mostly going to be a waiting game until a decision is made.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Funnily enough I've just replied to one of Stefan's posts on Twitter which gave me a thought I hadn't had before and I realised I hadn't joined some dots.

He was talking about Chelsea's spending spree and that his view was that it was a calculated breach, potentially of both PL and UEFA rules, in order to accelerate their spending and take any fines as the cost of doing that, as they absolutely have to get back in the top four.

We tried the accelerated spending thing in 2009 and 2010, knowing FFP would slow that plan to upgrade the squad down. However, we thought we'd escape sanction, due to the pre-June 2010 clause in Annex XI, assuming we could hit certain revenue and loss targets. UEFA, as we now know, pulled the rug from under that plan in 2013, after we'd published our 2012 accounts. But before that, we were short of the revenue to hit the loss we needed in order to meet the requirements of that transitional arrangement.

To get more revenue in, we sold the image rights IP to Fordham, which brought in the £25m we needed to get inside the aggregate loss that would enable us to claim mitigation under that Annex XI clause. My reasoning of why we'd be OK over Fordham was that it was apparently all discussed with UEFA long before 2018 and the Der Spiegel hatchet job, and they certainly didn't pursue it in 2019.

The point of Fordham though was primarily to get revenue ON the books, not off them.
Click to expand...
PB
And, what better way to mitigate for sanctions - which could potentially include a transfer ban- than recruit enough high calibre young players on long contracts to fill a Ben-Hur action set?
 
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