PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
He did say he would support City too "if and when the time comes" tbf.

Click to expand...

That’s fair enough, but I still question, given his where political duties lie, whether he should have publicly commented on Everton, even in a personal capacity.

And by the time ‘if and when the time comes’ is often too little, too late in my experience.
 
cheekybids said:
He’s not prejudicing anything as he’s only the Mayor of Manchester. However, he’s trying to influence & I find it startling that everyone calls out City when complaining about Everton unless they are questioning the unjust process. You’d think as a politician he’d think fuck me I should maybe consider my own voters.
Click to expand...
If I had my way, nobody would comment on any of the ongoing cases as none of us have anything like the information to make a definitive judgement.

But we live in times of social media, where people make snap judgments based on their own bias, mostly, so it is what it is.

I’d happily agree with Burnham if he spoke out in our corner, but won’t lose much sleep if he keeps his counsel.

If he came out and added to the anti-City narrative, then I’d be fully with you guys in asking for his resignation.
 
Sk@mcfc said:
Just received from fellow blue anyone else listen to it ?
Listening to Cheesamans last night ,Forever Blue, he had a guest Mike McClean,
He said he has inside knowledge than City's barristers have a recording whereby the Premier league board members quoted " We cannot have Man City winning the league for a forth time on the trot"
He quotes the Premier League board are totally corrupt !!
Click to expand...
Sorry but i call bollocks
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
If I remember correctly the PL's rules - now known as Profitability and Sustainability Regulations - were proposed by Manchester United and only accepted because already relegated Reading chose to abstain. The rules do not see debt as a threat to sustainability but instead see owner investment as the major threat. It was not difficult to see why a particular club proposed them and others supported them, one of which, I believe, was Everton! It is not open to doubt that Everton has broken the regulations they voted for because they spent more than they had coming in from "legitimate" revenue streams! They cannot, therefore, complain when some sanctions are imposed. The PL, though, have behaved with their customary incompetent bias. There are obvious doubts about the independence of a commission of inquiry that includes the lawyer of a club which may sue Everton for damages after their own relegation and the finance director of another PL rival, involved in a relegation battle last season and possibly this. The sanctions imposed were also worryingly close to those demanded by the PL and the statement issued to justify these sanctions - that their wealthy owners could simply pay any fine - appears to show that sustainability was not part of the reasoning which led to the introduction of these rules. As we can see, the real justification was to limit spending to those revenue streams dominated by certain clubs, of which Manchester United were at that time the most obvious. Everton are paying a ridiculously high price to allow the Glazers et al to sleep at night.

City's case is different. It is obvious that we have not "overspent" but have always operated within the rules. We must simply show that our accounts are a true and full picture and that there has been no enormous, eleven year long conspiracy. CAS were convinced by the club's evidence and City were exonerated, not because there was just not enough evidence, but because there was NO evidence. The question of recordings of PL officials not wishing City to win another title are irrelevant to the charges and will only be relevant to any change in PL governance if it can be shown that improper means to prevent our winning the title again are/were used.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen this a few times, just to be clear on CAS, it wasn’t because there was no evidence as such, as the emails were evidence. They judged that Uefa hadn’t satisfied the burden of proof as there was no evidence that any of the arrangements discussed in the emails were actually fulfilled.

I’ve always assumed the PL must have something else though and are going after the related party issue more, which wasn’t part of the CAS judgment. If they’re still only reliant on emails though, I don’t get how they can reach a different conclusion to what CAS did though.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I believe there’s no lawful reason he can’t, as long as he doesn’t descend into defamation. It’s a civil action, not a criminal trial. They aren’t even any ongoing court proceedings. Moreover, commenting on the benefit the club brings to his electoral area is extraneous to the charges. No reason he couldn’t make that point in a way that didn’t expressly reference the charges, but impliedly did.

However, my point was more aimed at the fact he publicly commented on Everton (in a private capacity). Given he hasn’t commented on City, then commenting on Everton at all is questionable, given where his particular duties as an elected politician lie, and what interests he has been elected to advance.

It would be akin to the MP for a constituency with a car factory in it writing to the Secretary of State expressing about the closure of a car factory in another constituency because he drove that car.

Like I said, poor judgement at the very least.
Click to expand...
Disagree anything that increases scrutiny of the Premier league is welcome ... also makes it clear given his official role that he is likely to intervene again in the City case if it isn't handeled right. It's a marker
 
Think people need to calm down a little, this guy is not going to solve all our problems anyway.

He has not said anything on Everton until after the verdict and then has really hammered home how piss poor the process has been.

The process with City is very much in motion and investment or not, he is not going to stick his neck out for us when like most of us, he has no clue on the evidence and the current process.

He will do exactly the same as he did with the club he supports and read through the detail, understand on a level most don’t and if needed articulate it and understand the correct process to make a complaint that is far superior then chanting PL corrupt as F.

It’s RAWK style of ability to find offence in this, why anyone would get upset with what he has done in my view is very strange and time to judge him (if you so want to) would be if we where punished.

For now the enemy of our enemy is our friend and the public letter he has posted is an absolute step in the right direction from the current social media circus of 10 points 1 charge, 1150 points 115 charges etc.
 
Fuzzy80 said:
Think people need to calm down a little, this guy is not going to solve all our problems anyway.

He has not said anything on Everton until after the verdict and then has really hammered home how piss poor the process has been.

The process with City is very much in motion and investment or not, he is not going to stick his neck out for us when like most of us, he has no clue on the evidence and the current process.

He will do exactly the same as he did with the club he supports and read through the detail, understand on a level most don’t and if needed articulate it and understand the correct process to make a complaint that is far superior then chanting PL corrupt as F.

It’s RAWK style of offence, that anyone would get upset with what he has done in my view and time to judge him (if you so want to) would be if we where punished.

For now the enemy of our enemy is our friend and the public letter he has posted is an absolute step in the right direction from the current social media circus of 10 points 1 charge, 1150 points 115 charges etc.
Click to expand...
Not sure saying someone has displaced poor judgement is akin to being ‘upset’.
 
meltonblue said:
I’ve seen this a few times, just to be clear on CAS, it wasn’t because there was no evidence as such, as the emails were evidence. They judged that Uefa hadn’t satisfied the burden of proof as there was no evidence that any of the arrangements discussed in the emails were actually fulfilled.

I’ve always assumed the PL must have something else though and are going after the related party issue more, which wasn’t part of the CAS judgment. If they’re still only reliant on emails though, I don’t get how they can reach a different conclusion to what CAS did though.
Click to expand...
If they are majoring on related parties, they have a huge obstacle to overcome. It is City’s view that we do not have any related party transactions and our accounts do not record any. Related party transactions are defined in IAS24. We had some toing and froing with UEFA on the interpretation of the provision but, in the end, UEFA have treated our view as acceptable. British authorities have never raised the issue with us or our auditors as far as I know.
Indeed the PL has introduced the doubtful concept of ‘associated’ transactions specifically aimed at City. Are they trying to retrospectively apply their new rule?
 
Scoobz3 said:
Disagree anything that increases scrutiny of the Premier league is welcome ... also makes it clear given is official role that he is likely to intervene again in the City case if it isn't handeled right. It's a marker
Click to expand...
That’s a perfectly valid counterpoint, mate. Doesn’t change my view, namely it would have been far more prudent to say nothing.
 
give it to gordon said:
I still dont understand why the 'lower' clubs in the pl voted for FFP. They were voting to stop themselves from ever being top dog. It's bizarre that they voted that way. They signed themselves to just being mid table with no ambition to improve.
Click to expand...
I understand why they did in the beginning cos it was sold in way that suggested it would restrict club spending at the top and close the gap.
They now know that is a load of nonsense so why they’re still voting for it is beyond me.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Isn’t there an argument that by him speaking out and trying to undermine the legitimacy of the PL and its commissions that can only help us in the long run?

He can’t come out and say the same things about City yet as no decision has been reached.
Click to expand...
Manchester City is within his jurisdiction, being in Manchester. Everton isn’t
 
BringBackSwales said:
Manchester City is within his jurisdiction, being in Manchester. Everton isn’t
Click to expand...
Thing is, and he’s made it clear, that’s he’s commented in a private capacity, but the notion he can divorce that from his political standing and influence, is utterly preposterous.
 
homerdog said:
Martin Samuel article in the Sunday Times today, it's pretty obvious what he thinks of Richard Masters and his co-conspirators at the PL:


What we are being asked to concede is that... Manchester City’s move from punchline to headline bringing with it some of the greatest football and footballers we have seen, plus the greatest manager, was without merit. The very thing that made the Premier League the best is being redrawn as its biggest failing.
Click to expand...

An excellent piece but I can only give 9.5 out of 10. Next to the piece about Italy qualifying for the Euros, he almost says that the decision not to award a penalty to Ukraine (which may have stopped Italy's qualification) was corrupt.
He should have followed this by saying a similar thing happened in the dipper game that would have made it 2-0 to City.
Actually on second thoughts it is a 10/10 bravo.
 
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