PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[nmc]

Don’t know who she is mate.

Michelle Dewberry - Brexit Party candidate and GB News presenter.

 

[WestGorton]

Michelle Dewberry - Brexit Party candidate and GB News presenter.

That says it all

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Michelle Dewberry - Brexit Party candidate and GB News presenter.

She was worth one about ten years ago. The thought of her and that floppy haired **** together now is quite nauseating.

 

[Ray bloody Purchase]

She was worth one about ten years ago. The thought of her and that floppy haired **** together now is quite nauseating.

Like 2 fish fingers

 

[Silva2021]

The Telegraph is reporting that the government has issued a PIIN (Public Interest Intervention Notice) that will block the Redbird IMI backed buy back of the Telegraph by the Barclay family. This will trigger investigations by both Ofcom and the CMA to decide if it should be totally blocked or conditions be put in place before it is allowed.

The money for this buy back is almost exclusively coming from IMI, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour, and this is basically why they have done it. So a couple of days after Khaldoon was being courted by Jeremy Hunt for inward investment they are now effectively saying AD money isn't wanted for the Telegraph sale. The notion that the government will be leaning on the PL in support of our case looks a lot more like wishful thinking. They will pick and choose, so investment in Sizewell is deemed good but for other things it isn't wanted.

Real interesting side story this and one to keep an eye on.

Govt interfering in a private sale in my uneducated view, I am sure there must be more in it.

I can understand why the Govt may not want it being owned in this way.

I disagree on the football side, as I don’t see a massive downside to the Govt in it, whereas with Telegraph it is more a stick potentially used to beat them.

If we asked Govt to have a word with PL (which Boris would have been better then Rishi for us) then so be it, but I don’t think it will be something we will have done.

I would not be totally surprised if someone of their own back in Govt reminded PL they need to be 100% certain to do this and be able to prove it. However I also think the Govt might think there not are relationships when this happens let Labour deal with any fallout.

 

[BongoBlue]

Don’t get cocky, Grimsby have a decent keeper, Haddock.

Haddock in the net! :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

That’s fine, it’s all a game of opinions at the end of the day.

Ultimately though, the club say they have ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the charges are bollocks. To see this evidence is to kill the case stone dead, there is that little ambiguity.

That then only leaves two scenarios.

1. The club have this evidence, have decided under legal advice to not engage with the investigation (very likely to avoid falling foul of a fishing expedition) and accept non-compliance charges that will result in a hefty fine

2. The club have provided all of this evidence, the PL and some of the UKs top legal minds, people who pick and choose their cases, have seen this evidence and still plowed ahead in a case of such corporate negligence it makes Gerald Rayner look a visionary, and thrown in non-compliance charges for a laugh also.

My point was a simple one - a poster said if City are found not guilty of all charges they should ‘sue everyone’, but unless it’s a case of scenario 2 above, it’s simply not possible, and if it’s scenario 2 at the end of the day, the PL executives and KC’s who saw ‘irrefutable evidence’ and pushed on would have being sued way down their list of concerns.


Also fine, but whilst it would be absolutely hilarious if all the PL have is the UEFA case that they want to retry, it stretches extremely thin the concept of plausibility that some of the UKs top KCs would be willing to put their reputations and their chambers’ reputations on the line to try that case again, especially with the weightiest allegations having already been found unsubstantiated by CAS. These guys earn millions of pounds a year and pick and choose their cases, they’re not taking this case for money or because they’re secretly Arsenal/Liverpool/United fans.

In that scenario, any KC worth their salt would be advising the club to ‘take a pinch’ if it were offered as some of the Walter Mittys would have you believe the PL have been desperate for. It’s not just SM who can make decisions anymore either, there are important shareholders with a lot of money on the line, it would be negligence of the highest order to refuse a settlement if offered no matter how confident you are.

If in 18 months time the ruling comes out and it turns out the PL had nothing more than the UEFA case, ran with it anywhere and got torn apart at the tribunal, I’ll be on here celebrating with you, trying to avoid a double hernia from laughing so hard, but for the reasons above, I just don’t see any plausible scenario that the PL and KCs would be that reckless, even with the pressure other clubs and an incoming independent regulator no doubt put them under.

You seem to be basing your propositions on the assumption that a KC won't take a case they are going to lose. I guess you have more faith in the legal profession than I do. There are many reasons why a lawyer may take such a case, but most of them revolve around continued access to money.

Anyway, we will see soon enough, I suppose.

As an aside, though. What sort of evidence do you think the PL may have found from a review of the club's accounting and other records (and only the club's accounting and other records) that may bring them to their conclusion that for more than a decade the club has filed annual accounts that don't give a true and fair view?

 

[Paladin]

When they show the intro into Match of the Day at the end they show the Champions lifting the trophy , i timed it at less than two seconds , if that had been a red 'istree club it would be on for so much longer , the BBC cant even hide their hate for our club.
They can shove their licence where the sun doesnt shine , cant wait for another knobhead to come knocking on my door asking if i have a TV licence , the last one got so much abuse he was nearly crying , fuck 'em.

I've just watched the 20/21 intro, and it was the same length for the Liverpool trophy lift.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Like 2 fish fingers

Think you're getting her mixed up with Marcus Rashford.

 

[Bald fraud]

Didn’t hear a peep from any rags yesterday.funny that. Text after text these last few hours saying we’re fucked! this is the closest that lot get to winning things now that’s how far we’ve come! But ffs have we really got another two years at least of this absolute bollocks!?

 

[Bez]

Since we won the PL in 2011/12 Man Disunited and Luckerpool have only won 1 PL title each and Arsenal and Spurs zero. This is where the hatred is coming from. If you can't beat us on the pitch use a dirty tricks campaign via your very own stooge, the PL. Get a Man Disunited fan in as Chairperson and a nodding dog called Richard Masters as CEO and voila loads of spurious charges. Total chaos ensues. The PL are the Lex Luther of English elite football. Come on City!

 

[Blueroses]

I believe we went to court to try and keep the charges out of the media and for everything to take place behind closed doors, only to be revealed after the case had been concluded.

Seems fair enough to me, just imagine a situation where were were charged with 115 breaches and it was just thrown out to the media without them having any understanding of the charges. Opposition fans, the media and red tops would have us guilty before the case had ever been heard :)

Fair points raised.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Real interesting side story this and one to keep an eye on.

Govt interfering in a private sale in my uneducated view, I am sure there must be more in it.

I can understand why the Govt may not want it being owned in this way.

I disagree on the football side, as I don’t see a massive downside to the Govt in it, whereas with Telegraph it is more a stick potentially used to beat them.

If we asked Govt to have a word with PL (which Boris would have been better then Rishi for us) then so be it, but I don’t think it will be something we will have done.

I would not be totally surprised if someone of their own back in Govt reminded PL they need to be 100% certain to do this and be able to prove it. However I also think the Govt might think there not are relationships when this happens let Labour deal with any fallout.

By doing this the government have totally pissed off Lloyds Bank as well as our owner. The Barclays owe Lloyds 1.2 billion and with the Redbird IMI deal they get the lot. If that is blocked they are looking at 600 mill maximum and they have already written off around 600 mill so that is a huge extra profit lost.

I wouldn't be surprised if IMI pull out of this deal and potentially others they are being begged to invest in.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The Telegraph is reporting that the government has issued a PIIN (Public Interest Intervention Notice) that will block the Redbird IMI backed buy back of the Telegraph by the Barclay family. This will trigger investigations by both Ofcom and the CMA to decide if it should be totally blocked or conditions be put in place before it is allowed.

The money for this buy back is almost exclusively coming from IMI, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour, and this is basically why they have done it. So a couple of days after Khaldoon was being courted by Jeremy Hunt for inward investment they are now effectively saying AD money isn't wanted for the Telegraph sale. The notion that the government will be leaning on the PL in support of our case looks a lot more like wishful thinking. They will pick and choose, so investment in Sizewell is deemed good but for other things it isn't wanted.

A perfectly understandable political move in my view, which doesn't mean, at all, that they will actually prevent the sale. Just let it all play out. If the son of a KGB agent can own a newspaper, I am pretty sure the VP of an ally can, especially when it has been made clear he won't have any operational role. NUFC/ Saudi anyone?

 

[TinFoilHat]

So the verdict will be known when Peps contract is up...

I think that's just guaranteed an extension.

Thank you Daily Heil!

 

[nmc]

Real interesting side story this and one to keep an eye on.

Govt interfering in a private sale in my uneducated view, I am sure there must be more in it.

I can understand why the Govt may not want it being owned in this way.

I disagree on the football side, as I don’t see a massive downside to the Govt in it, whereas with Telegraph it is more a stick potentially used to beat them.

If we asked Govt to have a word with PL (which Boris would have been better then Rishi for us) then so be it, but I don’t think it will be something we will have done.

I would not be totally surprised if someone of their own back in Govt reminded PL they need to be 100% certain to do this and be able to prove it. However I also think the Govt might think there not are relationships when this happens let Labour deal with any fallout.

The government’s intervention into the Telegraph sale is largely politically motivated…. The Telegraph is a loyal mouthpiece for the Tory’s which they are loathed to lose.

 

[Paladin]

Would 2024 means the UK limitation period becomes applicable, in terms of six years or something like that?

The limitation is from when the charges are raised. So that's six years before February 2023, so they can charge us for any breaches after February 2017. This doesn't change depending on when the case is heard.

They have charged us much further back than 2017 though, which means the PL thinks it isn't subject to limitation. This will be because the PL rules do not mention limitation, whereas UEFA's own rules impose a five year limitation period on themselves.

The PL rules are made under English law though, so City will argue that a six year limitation should apply under the terms of The Limitation Act 1980. If the commission accepts this argument, all charges before 2017 will need to be dropped, and we will forever be accused of getting off on a technicality.

 

[marco]

The limitation is from when the charges are raised. So that's six years before February 2023, so they can charge us for any breaches after February 2017. This doesn't change depending on when the case is heard.

They have charged us much further back than 2017 though, which means the PL thinks it isn't subject to limitation. This will be because the PL rules do not mention limitation, whereas UEFA's own rules impose a five year limitation period on themselves.

The PL rules are made under English law though, so City will argue that a six year limitation should apply under the terms of The Limitation Act 1980. If the commission accepts this argument, all charges before 2017 will need to be dropped, and we will forever be accused of getting off on a technicality.

not bothered one bit if accused of getting off on technicality, it will boil the piss even more, the villian is disliked by many but also loved by many more

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

The government’s intervention into the Telegraph sale is largely politically motivated…. The Telegraph is a loyal mouthpiece for the Tory’s which they are loathed to lose.

This, it's not referred to as the torygraph without reason.

 

[mac]

I remember us playing away at Burnley towards the end of title battle with the dippers, Aguero bundling in the winner.
Dyche purposely left the grass long, to try stop our passing game and to help klopp and the dips. All this just after them signing the 'ban city' letter.
Don't remember them getting charged for the grass though

Or whas it a dippers game also that snowed. They only cleared the dippers half at half time. Iirc