PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

theres an article floating about this morning saying we should have a 690 point deduction and be relegated, but heres the kicker when we get back in to the prem each time we start on negative 690 points so you start the season already relegated and then work the points off......


Crazy how much people are desperate for city to be found guilty. It really does show mob mentality is not just in person but is digital too.
 
SWP's back said:
The “board members” number 20 in total. Each club is supposedly an equal board member.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the PL Board of Directors, chaired by Alison Brittain (a prominent MUFC supporter).

Governance | Premier League

The Premier League is a private company limited by shares. For more information, visit the official website of the Premier League.
www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
That 'Arsenal letter headed demand' from the 4 clubs from a while back and posted earlier in this thread, tells you everything you need to know about the collusion that is taking place in this apparent democracy of a PL.

As in most 'democracies', there is a small group that sits at the top table and pretty much dictates how the 'democracy' works.

Also, as in most 'democracies', the plebs (read that as 'fans' in this case) are kept at bay by propaganda fed to, or created by, a partisan press, which results in most uneducated people swallowing the lies and treating it as the truth.

All of this will NEVER stop until either the old guard get their way, or so much time passes that the younger generations of non-old guard club fans begin to outnumber their adversaries in positions of relative power.
Click to expand...
Uneducated doesn't necessarily mean stupid. Many of these planks have professional qualifications but wouldn't dream of letting the good fortune and advantage given to them interfere with their prejudice against anything they don't like.
 
SWP's back said:
The “board members” number 20 in total. Each club is supposedly an equal board member.
Click to expand...

The clubs are shareholders if I am not mistaken. They vote on key decisions in general meeting. The board is made up of an executive chairman, a CEO and a few non-execs. The CEO afaik is responsible for running the PL how he sees fit, subject to key decisions being approved in general meeting. Is that not right?
 
With Everton and Forest it's reported as they failed 1 collective breach of FFP/PSR each whereas City get tagged with '115 charges' total.

Does anyone know how many total charges were involved in the Forest and Everton investigations?

Heard somewhere Everton had 8 or 9 charges, but could be wrong.
 
As Stefan has said many times in his interviews and debates, there is no issue with clubs proposing, or voting for rules which will benefit them, that's normal and reflects life in general. What we (meaning all fans of any PL club) should have an issue with are clubs colluding to specifically target any organisation that becomes, or are looking to become more successful. In literally any other industry that is deemed illegal and anti-competitive, yet here we are in 2024 and one of the highest value industries in the world where it is alive and kicking, moreover it actually seems to be the normal way of operating for the PL. How the government have not stepped in sooner astounds me, the PL stopped being "just sport" long ago.
 
Last edited:
Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
With Everton and Forest it's reported as they failed 1 collective breach of FFP/PSR each whereas City get tagged with '115 charges' total.

Does anyone know how many total charges were involved in the Forest and Everton investigations?

Heard somewhere Everton had 8 or 9 charges, but could be wrong.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. It isn't the right logic to be assessing any of the cases. Let idiots worry about that. We should concentrate on the substance of the charges, the likely evidence the PL has (or, more likely, doesn't have) and the clubs likely "irrefutable" evidence. And then the conclusions take care of themselves.
 
joeyh123 said:
theres an article floating about this morning saying we should have a 690 point deduction and be relegated, but heres the kicker when we get back in to the prem each time we start on negative 690 points so you start the season already relegated and then work the points off......


Crazy how much people are desperate for city to be found guilty. It really does show mob mentality is not just in person but is digital too.
Click to expand...

Have we verified the person who wrote that actually has a brain cell?
 
halfcenturyup said:
It doesn't matter. It isn't the right logic to be assessing any of the cases. Let idiots worry about that. We should concentrate on the substance of the charges, the likely evidence the PL has (or, more likely, doesn't have) and the clubs likely "irrefutable" evidence. And then the conclusions take care of themselves.
Click to expand...
It does though. Trying to explain to someone the difference between the numbers involved. Everton or Forests one breach/ failure of FFP/PSR was resultant of a 'number' of charges against them (not just one).
Just wanted to be able to back it up, with the actual numbers from a Forest or Everton perspective.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
You are right. It is clear that CAS spent a lot of time scrutinising the Etihad contracts and they heard evidence from executives at Etihad and City. They had a lot more information than UEFA got and CAS concluded: "There is no doubt that Etihad fully complied wth its payment obligations to MCFC." That is a very strong statement in a legal document with no caveats attached. The proposed public flotation of Etihad seems like a red herriing.
Click to expand...

They didn’t conclude that, that was just a summation of the facts in the conclusion as that was never an allegation put forward by UEFA. It’s the rest of the conclusion that gives their judgment on the allegations, which was that they were not comfortably
satisfied that any disguised equity was used to fund it.

What they said about Etihad was that neither hypothesis could be fully proved.
 
joeyh123 said:
theres an article floating about this morning saying we should have a 690 point deduction and be relegated, but heres the kicker when we get back in to the prem each time we start on negative 690 points so you start the season already relegated and then work the points off......


Crazy how much people are desperate for city to be found guilty. It really does show mob mentality is not just in person but is digital too.
Click to expand...
The salivating social media mob really do think they speak for eveyone - in reality, usually a bunch of box room thickos waitng for mum to shout "tea" - unless of course they're not out threatening paediaticians.
 
Last edited:
Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
It does though. Trying to explain to someone the difference between the numbers involved. Everton or Forests one breach/ failure of FFP/PSR was resultant of a 'number' of charges against them (not just one).
Just wanted to be able to back it up, with the actual numbers from a Forest or Everton perspective.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean but it really doesn't. My advice is to not even argue about the number of charges. Once you get into that discussion, you have fallen into the trap of discussing stupid stuff with stupid people. You will never win.

If people want to argue with you about the 115 charges, just ask them what they think they are.
 
bluemoon32 said:
Anything happening ?
No, ok...
Click to expand...
Only certain gobshites in the media preparing for us to be cleared by spouting shite like were deliberately delaying the verdict ergo were guilty morally and should punished accordingly.

The dye has been cast. Even if we are cleared and sue every fucker who's slandered us into bankruptcy. The most tribal of football fans (red cunts) have decided we've cheated them out of titles and trophies as a coping mechanism for having their arses handed to them on the pitch on numerous occasions.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The clubs are shareholders if I am not mistaken. They vote on key decisions in general meeting. The board is made up of an executive chairman, a CEO and a few non-execs. The CEO afaik is responsible for running the PL how he sees fit, subject to key decisions being approved in general meeting. Is that not right?
Click to expand...
I’m sure it is, but it’s not as described a month or two ago on an Athletic podcast.
 
meltonblue said:
They didn’t conclude that, that was just a summation of the facts in the conclusion as that was never an allegation put forward by UEFA. It’s the rest of the conclusion that gives their judgment on the allegations, which was that they were not comfortably
satisfied that any disguised equity was used to fund it.

What they said about Etihad was that neither hypothesis could be fully proved.
Click to expand...

You are both right, I think. CAS did say there was no doubt Etihad had fulfilled its obligations to the club, as they had paid in full. But that wasn't contested by UEFA and it wasn't the charge, anyway. The charge was that ADUG had funded most of the sponsorship monies that were then paid to the club. This is the element on which CAS were not comfortably satisfied by the evidence presented by UEFA, taking into account the counter-evidence presented by the club.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
You are both right, I think. CAS did say there was no doubt Etihad had fulfilled its obligations to the club, is they had paid in full. But that wasnt contested by UEFA and it wasn't the charge, anyway. The charge was that ADUG had funded most of the sponsorship monies that were then paid to the club. This is the element on which CAS were not comfortably satisfied by the evidence presented by UEDA, taking into account the counter-evidence presented by the club.
Click to expand...

That’s what I said :) The point I was making is it wasn’t a strong statement to put into the judgment to say Etihad paid their obligations in full, it was just a summation of fact that wasn’t contested by anyone anyway and wasn’t the allegation.
 
Ghandi's Flip Flops said:
It does though. Trying to explain to someone the difference between the numbers involved. Everton or Forests one breach/ failure of FFP/PSR was resultant of a 'number' of charges against them (not just one).
Just wanted to be able to back it up, with the actual numbers from a Forest or Everton perspective.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't give them time of day mate.
 
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