PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Jam Tomorrow said:
looks like the ten point deduction was lenient after all. Also shows the Everton only got one charge compared with City’s 115 is bollox, I would guess they could easily have had more charges than us if the cartel stooges wanted to go after them.
Click to expand...
Everton had more than one charge btw

 
mcfcphil said:
This is incorrect.
As soon as an appeal is lodged (or even a stated intention to appeal) proceedings become active again and the usual restrictions apply.

(But this isn’t a criminal/murder trial so largely irrelevant)
Click to expand...
How did the Rwanda policy get so much coverage before the appeal was heard then?
 
M18CTID said:
Maybe best to clear our name first. If we do that then why not? Let's go after them and it would be hilarious to see Levy's reaction!
Click to expand...
In reality this is why we will probably just get a slap on the wrist for none cooperation, if they try and fuck us good and proper the whole house of cards could fold. The votes last week signalled the start of a large split, that’s even before you consider the work Abu Dhabi are doing in the background.
 
KS55 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The PL have picked an awfully strange hill to make a stand on if they're looking at the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. Even if they were related parties (and I doubt they could land that) they were still deemed to be fair value at CAS. CAS also declared they were done correctly, that ADUG hadn't ultimately funded them and that the sponsors had received value for the money they'd spent.

I struggle to see the point in bringing charges involving the sponsorships. Same with the Mancini contract. There is literally no mileage in these things. The PL must know this, which completely reinforces the view that they're doing this for the sake of doing something, rather than for rule-breaking.
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
Wow tbh I always thought the £20m breach was bullshit as they had posted mega losses, they also seemed to get away with a COVID write off far in excess of similar sized clubs like Villa and Newcastle. The original figures I see to recall were akin to a £200m breach.

the notion they would spend £40m on a stadium before planning permission had even been granted seems like bullshit as well.

looks like the ten point deduction was lenient after all. Also shows the Everton only got one charge compared with City’s 115 is bollox, I would guess they could easily have had more charges than us if the cartel stooges wanted to go after them.
Click to expand...

Yes but we know where they got the idea from.
 
Paladin said:
The commission in the Everton case said that the failures by Everton are so serious that a sporting sanction must be made. Everton argued that a financial sanction should apply and would be fairer.

The commission said that if they applied only a fine, the owners would dip into their pockets, pay off the fine, and Everton would be in no worse a situation. But Everton benefited from their non-compliance by having a stronger team, getting more points in the season, and avoiding relegation. The penalty needs to include a real deterrent, otherwise clubs in future would just ignore the rules in order to avoid relegation. Hence the hefty points deduction.

In future, the PL wants cases to be judged and punished in the season in which they occur. This is an honourable objective, but as the commission pointed out in the Everton case, this objective should not be allowed to hamper a club on its defence against charges.
Click to expand...
The interesting aspect of this case is on what basis does the commission determine that Everton gained an advantage when spending more. Who can say that they got more points when the spend was only 20 m over 3 years. Spend does not guarantee more points in a season. Rightly a fine is inappropriate. Surely a total ban on transfer signing for say 2- 3 years would be more appropriate. This would really impact on their performances on the field.
 
Dannyblue52 said:
The interesting aspect of this case is on what basis does the commission determine that Everton gained an advantage when spending more. Who can say that they got more points when the spend was only 20 m over 3 years. Spend does not guarantee more points in a season. Rightly a fine is inappropriate. Surely a total ban on transfer signing for say 2- 3 years would be more appropriate. This would really impact on their performances on the field.
Click to expand...

It’s also interesting that they were going to fudge the figures & let them off £40m……
 
KS55 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Well they do love a bit of retrospective! Even the 129(131) charges include references to regulations concerning non cooperation for seasons when PL FFP or PL P&S were still being scribbled down of a napkin.
 
Blue Mist said:
Thanks, what really pissed me off and the reason I ranted was I read his interview. He says something like 'I've spent all week speaking to different people about this'.
The shithouse rat wants to spend all week talking to people about housing in Greater Manchester, homeless people, food banks, how to bring jobs to Manchester, not his football club that is in a totally different area to where he represents.
Click to expand...
I could add a proper transport strategy considering the development round the Etihad instead of banning parking in the surrounding ares.
 
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