PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
It will only go away when City start taking legal action against libellers. A letter of intention should do it as those guys know that they would lose any action.
Click to expand...
You could be right but for whatever reason the policy appears to be to stick to our business plan and not be sidetracked by other things.
 
POYNTON BLUE LEADER said:
Can Prestwich Blue give us a definitive answer as to the ownership of MCFC? Is it a very rich Sheik or the state of Abu Dhabi.I am fed up of hearing all the pundits, so called journalists and fans of other clubs spouting their bile on the subject.I dont mind either way but it would be good to know the truth on the subject.
Click to expand...
You still dont know who owns us ? I say us ..
 
kaz7 said:
You still dont know who owns us ? I say us ..
Click to expand...
@POYNTON BLUE LEADER. Ffs look at our accounts which are published on line. City is a wholly owned subsidiary of CFG. CFG is owned about 80% by Mansour and 20% by Silver Lake.
Mansour does not own City and has no shares in it. He is noted on the accounts as a person of influence because he holds over 75% of CFG shares. If you want to look at CFG accounts you will need to go to Companies House site as they are no longer published on line by CFG. There you will find the parent company of CFG which is Newton Investments which replaced ADUG. That co is wholly owned by Mansour. Both City and CFG are British registered companies but Newton is not, so you can’t look behind the curtain there.
Sorry @kaz7 replied to wrong post.
 
Last edited:
GaudinoMotors said:
The appeal would be subsequent to the judgment. Should it go against us.
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer. Both Everton and City are disputing the breaches, so they go to an "independent" panel for judgment. If we dispute the judgment, we can then appeal, after which it goes to an "independent" appeals panel, and then, if we still disagree, we can take it to an arbitration panel more along the lines of CAS (choose one member each and agree on a third) on certain limited grounds.

Everton is pretty simple, will be quick. Ours is so complicated, convoluted even, that I could be finished before the process is.

:)
 
SilverFox2 said:
Is it possible that even if we are found to be 100 percent not guilty that it will then go away?

I don't think so.

Let's just get used to being the City that the media hate and the PL don't want.
Our success has increased their feelings rather than eroding their dislike.

Two things will bring about change from our enemies, firstly ownership change or secondly our demise regarding on and off field success. Neither are likely when they continue to tweak our collective tails.

Just an opinion but time may bring change anyway.
Click to expand...
There's a third way.

If you look at the media's treatment of Chelsea when Abramovic took over, it was not entirely dissimilar to that of our own. Perhaps not as vitriolic but there was plenty of comment about Chelsea ruining football by buying anyone they want and paying inflated transfer fees and wages. This really only died down when we came along and such criticisms were largely forgotten. We became the new subject of hate, the new cat to kick.

So will this change over time as/when Newcastle start winning things, spending more and more and pushing the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, United further down the table? Will we become more accepted and Newcastle will be the focus of their hatred? Quite possibly, IMO.
 
Chippy_boy said:
There's a third way.

If you look at the media's treatment of Chelsea when Abramovic took over, it was not entirely dissimilar to that of our own. Perhaps not as vitriolic but there was plenty of comment about Chelsea ruining football by buying anyone they want and paying inflated transfer fees and wages. This really only died down when we came along and such criticisms were largely forgotten. We became the new subject of hate, the new cat to kick.

So will this change over time as/when Newcastle start winning things, spending more and more and pushing the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, United further down the table? Will we become more accepted and Newcastle will be the focus of their hatred? Quite possibly, IMO.
Click to expand...
No because Newcastle are perceived to be a proper club with magnificent supporters with a superb fan base. However we know this to be not strictly true when they were in difficult times
 
KS55 said:
Maybe, but there will be the independent regulator for whom only City voted. Redshirts on a sticky wicket the day he/she takes office.
Click to expand...

Possibly the day that the runways need clearing for the synchronised take off of the specialist pigs you mean ?
 
Chippy_boy said:
There's a third way.

If you look at the media's treatment of Chelsea when Abramovic took over, it was not entirely dissimilar to that of our own. Perhaps not as vitriolic but there was plenty of comment about Chelsea ruining football by buying anyone they want and paying inflated transfer fees and wages. This really only died down when we came along and such criticisms were largely forgotten. We became the new subject of hate, the new cat to kick.

So will this change over time as/when Newcastle start winning things, spending more and more and pushing the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, United further down the table? Will we become more accepted and Newcastle will be the focus of their hatred? Quite possibly, IMO.
Click to expand...
Much of the criticism is xenophobia driven. The Americans lose their shit at Arabs for the events of 9/11, because they are all the same aren’t they. Just this week Trump has blamed the attack on Israel on Biden “and his boss Barack Hussein Obama.”
 
Trojan1962 said:
No because Newcastle are perceived to be a proper club with magnificent supporters with a superb fan base. However we know this to be not strictly true when they were in difficult times
Click to expand...
I think we were regarded as a proper club with proper supporters. We had respect from most neutral fans and commentators I think - perhaps because we weren't at all threatening. But I forget how many times people have commented to me about how they used to love visiting Maine Road and how they respected the loyalty of CIty fans through thick and thin.

They only started hating us when we started buying expensive players and winning things.
 
Chippy_boy said:
There's a third way.

If you look at the media's treatment of Chelsea when Abramovic took over, it was not entirely dissimilar to that of our own. Perhaps not as vitriolic but there was plenty of comment about Chelsea ruining football by buying anyone they want and paying inflated transfer fees and wages. This really only died down when we came along and such criticisms were largely forgotten. We became the new subject of hate, the new cat to kick.

So will this change over time as/when Newcastle start winning things, spending more and more and pushing the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal, United further down the table? Will we become more accepted and Newcastle will be the focus of their hatred? Quite possibly, IMO.
Click to expand...
Another reason that the media assault on Chelsea for ‘buying success’ was far less intense than the war waged against City, is that the year before Abramovitch took over in 2003, the Champions League was expanded to accept 4 x PL teams rather than 3 (albeit that the 4th team were obliged to enter at the qualifying stage). Unlike with City’s (and Tottenham’s) emergence in 2011, this effectively meant there was no threat to United, Liverpool and Arsenal in terms of those 3 clubs continuing to get their hands on the filthy CL lucre every year, and indeed they (United, Liverpool and Arsenal, along now with Chelsea) duly occupied those 4 qualification slots for the next 6 years, until Spurs finally got a foot in the door in 2010 when Hicks and Gillette’s mismanagement of Liverpool saw them slip briefly out of contention.
When City started qualifying from 2011 onwards, it meant one of the red shirt piggy clubs would miss out on somewhere between £50m and £100m a season in CL revenue, surely a contributory factor in the intensity of the subsequent media campaign against us by the usual red media stooges and clickbait merchants.
FFP wasn’t introduced to nobble City, it was brought in to mitigate against the possibility of another Chelsea style takeover. We just happened to be the next club to walk through the door waving our wonga!
 
Last edited:
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Another reason that the media assault on Chelsea for ‘buying success’ was far less intense than the war waged against City, is that the year before Abramovitch took over in 2003, the Champions League was expanded to accept 4 x PL teams rather than 3 (albeit that the 4th team were obliged to enter at the qualifying stage). Unlike with City’s (and Tottenham’s) emergence in 2011, this effectively meant there was no threat to United, Liverpool and Arsenal in terms of those 3 clubs continuing to get their hands on the filthy CL lucre every year, and indeed they (United, Liverpool and Arsenal, along now with Chelsea) duly occupied those 4 qualification slots for the next 6 years, until Spurs finally got a foot in the door in 2010 when Hicks and Gillette’s mismanagement of Liverpool saw them slip briefly out of contention.
When City started qualifying from 2011 onwards, it meant one of the red shirt piggy clubs would miss out on somewhere between £50m and £100m a season in CL revenue, hence the intensity of the subsequent media campaign against us by the usual red media stooges and clickbait merchants.
FFP wasn’t introduced to nobble City, it was brought in to mitigate against the possibility of another Chelsea style takeover. We just happened to be the next club to walk through the door waving our wonga!
Click to expand...
I hadn't thought of this but what you say seems to make a lot of sense.
 
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