PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Invisible Man's Bandage said:
Holt is considered to be a leading football journalist (I know the bar is set very low) and he's no better than a large number of posters on here for instance.

I remember a piece he wrote when he was at the Mirror that didn't age particularly well. It was a compare and contrast between Sheikh Mansour and Randy Lerner when he was Villa owner. Needless to say everything Lerner did was amazing (organic growth blah blah) whereas our owner was a know-nothing who could only throw huge sums of money at it. His immortal last line was 'Every club should have a Randy Lerner' :)
Click to expand...
The first five years the press thought we were a billionaire's plaything he'd drop when he got bored. I've said before, there is plenty to say about City, UAE, and middle eastern money more generally and it's relationship to global capital, but our sports journos have been woefully under prepared for making sense of what is happening.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
The first five years the press thought we were a billionaire's plaything he'd drop when he got bored. I've said before, there is plenty to say about City, UAE, and middle eastern money more generally and it's relationship to global capital, but our sports journos have been woefully under prepared for making sense of what is happening.
Click to expand...
thats because it is easier to appeal to idiots than actually do any research and preparation, sadly football fans have access to the same resources and info that they do and have become much better informed which has left them appealing to the ill informed idiots who want to believe their crap, it shows how useless they are when multiple youtube and fecking tiktok channels have more reach than them.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Because the club didn't provide the PL with the external evidence which would have countered their allegations (for understandable reasons). So they had no option but to refer the allegations to the IC?
Click to expand...

You have concluded so, and keep saying this. I have no idea whether you are wrong or not, but the club have claimed all along they have provided all evidence asked of them, so I'm not sure. And if it Is true, then that was a bit silly too, if they could have helped conclude the investigation in our favour. Now they'll need to provide it anyway, but with a couple years of the accusation hanging over the club.

Not that I think that is what happened btw.
 
Coatigan said:
You have concluded so, and keep saying this. I have no idea whether you are wrong or not, but the club have claimed all along they have provided all evidence asked of them, so I'm not sure. And if it Is true, then that was a bit silly too, if they could have helped conclude the investigation in our favour. Now they'll need to provide it anyway, but with a couple years of the accusation hanging over the club.

Not that I think that is what happened btw.
Click to expand...
it depends if they believed whether that evidence would be viewed in good faith and whether it was commercially sensitive or not.
 
supercity88 said:
A combination of huge pressure from certain clubs and the looming independent investigative body that was threatening the PL. It was a statement to say they could deal with matters themselves, the timing being the most fucking obvious admittance of that.

I'm pleased to see the growing discussion around P&L rules and how it only benefits certain clubs. At the moment there's still the generalisation that City just ignored the rules and now teams can't, but the more traction behind that conversation the more likely we'll get someone to repeat what Martin Samuel said many moons ago regarding the FFP rules and what the true agenda behind it was.
Click to expand...

Fair on the 'show of force' in the face of an independent body. Don't think 'pressure from other clubs' would have really played a part into them throwing any old shit at it with that putting themselves into the position you described. But that's only on an assumption that nobody can possibly be that stupid.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It does seem as if he got some information from people at the club about "accelerating" what he calls "investment" but what I think was accelerating income to meet FFP when it started in the early 2010s (there was no point accelerating investment because that wouldn't have made any difference to FFP). There is nothing wrong with accelerating income as long as it is done properly, in fact the Board would have been negligent if they hadn't taken all allowable steps to meet FFP. Where he is going wrong is letting this misunderstanding consume him to the extent he can't see reality any more when it comes to City.

A bit sad, really. But still a **** who needs to reorganise his priorities in life.
Click to expand...

It was hardly a secret though. We all knew it was happening, without getting calls or having sources. The club never tried to hide wanting to get to a top position to challenge as quickly as they could, and once ffp came in had to be consciousc of the longer term limitations and timeframe.

Doesn't mean they cooked the books though, the two are completely different concepts.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's pretty well on the right lines. I'm not even sure whether it was a case of passing or failing FFP though. Simply putting forward incorrect accounts would be a breach of the rules. Even if those accounts were "correct" (in the PL's eyes) we still could have passed the PSR/FFP rules yet still face charges.

The thing that struck me yesterday was that possibly the PL have done their 'version' of what our accounts should have been, knocking off what they see as 'fake' sponsorships and adding image rights payments back, and in that scenario we would have failed PSR and FFP. It's pretty desperate stuff if so.
Click to expand...

There Are a few allegations in there about outright not passing FFP. As far as I can remember seeing. That may well be a presumed consequence of the books being seen as not accurate, or the alleged concealment. But they are in there, it is not juat a case of the bools were inaccurate but the rest comes to nothing. Similarly by extension we are also accused of breaching Uefa ffp rules, by not providing them with accurate information.
 
Too many sites :) What is a realistic scenario for city because of the charges?
 
Coatigan said:
Fair on the 'show of force' in the face of an independent body. Don't think 'pressure from other clubs' would have really played a part into them throwing any old shit at it with that putting themselves into the position you described. But that's only on an assumption that nobody can possibly be that stupid.
Click to expand...

Have you heard Richard Masters in the Commons? I think you'd change your assumption!
 
johnnytapia said:
Not if new evidence is provided
Click to expand...
If there is NEW evidence, it has to be substantial & substantiated.

My understanding is it's the same evidence but presented by a different, but related jurisdiction in the PL (European FA's make up UEFA), who have different lengths of limitations.

Not being privy to the detailed charges, prosecution/defence evidence, & with there being little information being released by either side, it's a dot connecting exercise for all except those involved.
 
Coatigan said:
You have concluded so, and keep saying this. I have no idea whether you are wrong or not, but the club have claimed all along they have provided all evidence asked of them, so I'm not sure. And if it Is true, then that was a bit silly too, if they could have helped conclude the investigation in our favour. Now they'll need to provide it anyway, but with a couple years of the accusation hanging over the club.

Not that I think that is what happened btw.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You may well be right, we will see in due course, I suppose. It's just a hypothesis that meets most of the outstanding questions I have on the PL process. So I am comfortable with it.

And don't forget the club may say they have cooperated fully, but the PL obviously doesn't think so because non-cooperation is one of the alleged breaches. So there is a dispute between what the PL wanted and what the club gave. Bearing in mind the court order to comply with the PL's infoemation requests, I can't imagine the club has withheld information required by the PL rules in the relevant years. So I am left with things they asked for that the PL rules didn't specifically require to be handed over. Add to that the recent rule change requiring external evidence and the club's apparent (reported) recent challenge that new rules can't be applied retroactively and it all makes sense to me.

Could all be bollocks, though, granted :)
 
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