PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Getting sick of it and letting our reputation being dragged through the mud. At this point I don't care about the trophies. There is no going back to having a 'normal ' reputation.
I've always swallowed the argument about ' playing the long game' and ' just wait and see'.
There is no end to this, even if both bodies came out and said sorry.
I'm angry - rant
 
My understanding of projectriver's posts is certainly that the PL is going to have to present very compelling evidence indeed to the IC because of the gravity of the charges. He believes however that our case depends on the question of sponsorship and in particular the funding of the sponsorship. I believe he maintains that the PL has to find evidence of deception and/or fraudulent intent or they cannot surmount the obstacle of time barring. Deception and fraudulent intent are (I submit!) matters which an IC is in no way competent to decide. If they did City would appeal to the courts immediately - unless of course we were banged to rights!!! In which case we may try to take the punishment but it seems unlikely.

I do suspect that I'm getting hung up on a right of appeal and yet I share the certainty of others that we will never need to consider an appeal. "We ain't don nuffink' me lord".

Agree on the first part about cogency of evidence.

Not on the second part about the competence of the IP to decide on a matter of fraud. That was my first thought as well, until it was pointed out to me that civil courts decide on matters of fraud all the time on the balance of probabilities.
 
Hence my point that the annual accounts weren't mis-stated. If the Etihad contract was at fair value, properly serviced and paid in full, the accounts are fine. They would be "more" mis-stated by taking a huge part of fair value sponsorship income out and accounting for it as equity. So, if the accounts aren't mis-stated, they have nothing serious contract breaches with which to charge the club under their own rules, apart from some possible disclosures.
Quite. I suspect that the core of the PL's charge under the first heading of the requirement to provide accurate accounts is that if the supposed disguised equity investment was taken out, our accounts would show lower commercial revenue and therefore reduced income. Hence the accounts we did provide were (in their view) mis-stated.

Given the outcome at CAS, as I've said before, it's quite bizarre they should choose to pursue this line.
 
Do we have any friends at all anywhere? That **** Ceferin has sent me into a very angry place. I was fairly relaxed about all this at one point but am fucking raging, fair and transparent processes, do me a fucking favour. Hope Sheikh M buys the times/Telegraph whatever ,and sacks the cunts.
 
Last edited:
any idea what can be written down as a loss in current PL ffp rules?

just looking at Newcastle lost 70m last season, another 70m the year before and 15m in 20-21. thats about 155m loss and the limit is 105m in 3 years.
Hence why they can't afford Philips & either need a massive sponsorship boost, or to sell a high value player or two before July to avoid an Everton.

Richest club in the world or not, this is FFP/PSR at work as the Cartel Clubs intended.
 
This is going to far now, City doesn't answer anything so that's why people can say what they want. There is ongoing investigation for fuck sake, he is a lawyer why would he say this it's just unbelievable.
I am very sad and though I love us winning everything and playing such a breathtaking football all this ongoing shit is taking alot of the joy away.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.