For what its worth, this is my take on this.
We, as a club have some of the smartest business people in the world looking after our finances. Every business that I have ever worked for sales as close to the wind as possible while ensuring they comply with the rules and regulations.
We then have the Premier League, who are basically a sporting organisation with a huge turnover. I highly doubt that they have the same level of financial understanding and skills as our guys do.
I think it all boils down to interpretation of the rules, the PL may argue that the way we have applied the rules is not in line with their expectations, however, if we have acted according to UK law and everything can be accounted for and shown on the books then we will be fine.
If the independent panel is indeed experts in their field you would have to assume they are fully aware of legal accounting processes.
My main point was we aren't being tried in accordance with UK Law, because a business owner investing as much of his own money as he likes into his business is perfectly legal.Because the rules of the premier league say they can't and we have agreed to abide by the rules. Specific financial rules aren't unique to the premier league or even football, many other sports have salary caps for example.
I agree with your wider point in that I feel City should have challenged the concept of FFP at it's inception but we didn't so now we have to abide by it.
Or the Dippers fans throwing missiles at our solicitors’ cars when they arrive at the hearing.None whatsoever but I think it's a good thing for City, the last thing we need is the media and fans of other clubs running a ticker tape countdown with daily updates.
The references to in accordance with UK law relate to the process not the charges.My main point was we aren't being tried in accordance with UK Law, because a business owner investing as much of his own money as he likes into his business is perfectly legal.
It only becomes an issue when the rules of a private members clubs are applied, & then & only then is it a "breach" of their rules for a business owner to invest as much as he sees fit into his business.
We're essentially being held to the standards of the private members club, not UK Law.
HOWEVER, when the PL say their rules are run in accordance with UK Law, this also poses a problem, because the PL set the point at which UK Law becomes a consideration.
If UK Law was considered throughout FFP/PSR, there wouldn't be any mention of owner investment in the PL's Red Top Rules "RTR".
Bit old for him :-)Even after Sadio Mane has ragged it
Which makes perfect sense, because FFP/PSR bear little relation to UK Law, which is why it's such a farce that the PL can create their bent self serving rules, then claim only the process itself can be appealed to a UK Court, not the rules themselves.The references to in accordance with UK law relate to the process not the charges.
Now that's the point.Would any of these financial witch hunts even exist if the rags were still winning things most seasons?
So now your back to organisations setting specific rules that don't apply in law. The law doesn't state the maximum you can pay an employee is "x" but other sporting organisations have such rules.Which makes perfect sense, because FFP/PSR bear little relation to UK Law, which is why it's such a farce that the PL can create their bent self serving rules, then claim only the process itself can be appealed to a UK Court, not the rules themselves.
It's toral utter bullshit.
Our charges are nothing to do with the PL's Profit & Sustainability Rules. They are to do with wider PL Rules about reporting true and fair accounts and acting in good faith.No one has answered me about this point so here goes:
Can someone tell me why the charges go back to 2009 when PL FFP came into force in 2014?
Is it trying to blacken our character so other lesser charges can be seen in a worse light?
We can challenge FFP/PSR, but we've chosen not to be the ones to bring it all crashing down.So now your back to organisations setting specific rules that don't apply in law. The law doesn't state the maximum you can pay an employee is "x" but other sporting organisations have such rules.
As I said to you earlier, we agreed to abide by the rules of FFP we can't now challenge them.
Also our charges don't actually relate to FFP, they relate to inaccurate accounting which is something that exists in UK law.We can challenge FFP/PSR, but we've chosen not to be the ones to bring it all crashing down.
Just because I agreed to join Need For Speed road racing club, doesn't mean the 70mph national speed limit doesn't apply in Law.
You can't exceed 70mph regardless of club rules, likewise we can't legally be stopped from investing what we like in our squad because of FFP/PSR.
The fact we've agreed to FFP/PSR means little in the big scheme of things in UK Law, otherwise the old bill would've long since felt Khaldoon's collar for allegedly spending too much on his employer's business.
Exactly, so if we're being accused of inaccurate accounting, doesn't that amount to fraud?Also our charges don't actually relate to FFP, they relate to inaccurate accounting which is something that exists in UK law.
Nick Harris on X last night, he’s lost the plot. Apparently the club has told people close to him that City had to start cooking the books, he’s not well that bloke. Imagine the state of him when we are cleared.
Telegraph article today on its back page… Judgement day looms for City ! Article could have been written by a 5 year old…. Basically says a date has been set but interestingly says the club should be made aware before it’s announced publicly…. But we all know it’ll leak to the media before either the club are informed or it’s officially announced.
Is this the Harris that was laughed out of court for calling himself an expert or is that the other Harris?Of course they did…..
Surely he’ll be a witness for the prosecution.