PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

Manchesters politicians have been very quiet on the whole issue, considering the investment in East Mcr by City.

Very true. However, because it's a private members club matter between City & the non-statutory PL, it doesn't surprise me one jot that Manchester City Council have remained tactically silent, whilst continuing to collaborate on huge infrastructure projects with City. That in itself speaks volumes, without MCC having to come out publicly supporting us.

Trust me. If MCC got a whiff of impropriety about City, they'd have little issue with distancing themselves from us, regardless of our past close business ties, & the fact we're Tenants at CoMS.

Those baying for our blood in the media should pay serious attention to this fact. There's zero chance that English football clubs complaining it's not fair that we're richer than they are, so our investments should be neutered, will ever trump MCC's priority for building vital new homes & travel infrastructure for Manchester, whilst providing well paid employment.

The lot of them need to get fuckin real. Governments & Councils will not allow these petty football spats to get in the way of big business, infrastructure & employment...

 

[SilverFox2]

Manchesters politicians have been very quiet on the whole issue, considering the investment in East Mcr by City.

As I remember it pre Sheikh M there was no money left after investment into Salford Quays and other South Manchester area.
This left the carcigenic contaminated Clayton Aniline and other industrial remnants to dacay via nature.
Similar fate was left to Ancoats.

In the absence of State and Local Gov Funding our owner decontaminated some of the land then built over a number of years in association with the local council.

In short our owner provided the money, the council made the land and buildings available.

I think that was how it happened but as an east Manchester resident at the time I was disgusted how our area had been discarded for investment.

Thinking about it Sheikh M's investment saved Manchester Business Plan yet he is paradoxically charged with over investment into his own part of that investment.

Yes. Manchester Council should be backing him more.

 

[Coatigan]

I am not saying they are or aren't related parties. I am saying, prima facie, there are no related party transactions (a simple movement of cash isn't a related party transaction although it may give rise to a related party receivable/ payable).

Anyway, we are discussing whether Pearce or anyone else from the club being involved in negotiating the terms of a split salary is a problem. I don't see any problem at all. Other people seemingly do. I can live with that.

And, quite frankly, I would like to move on. A whole day discussing something I don't see as an issue is driving me nuts. :)

Ooh prima facie, check you out!

 

[meltonblue]

I find the idea that the club doesn't have a valid defence extraordinary, I have to say.

What is it about the other allegations that worries you?

Nothing, like I said I only really think this one is an issue. I think the club will have a valid defence, the reason I think this one is potentially an issue is because they haven’t said what their defence is and I haven’t seen anything put forward that would work.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ooh prima facie, check you out!

Yep. I read that somewhere. No idea what it means, though. Always wanted to use it :)

 

[its grim up north]

I'm wondering, with respect to the Super Casino project. The Government set up and independent commission to assess and choose the best option. When it came in favour of our site the Gov reneged. They had final say, maybe this may happen with the football regulator.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Nothing, like I said I only really think this one is an issue. I think the club will have a valid defence, the reason I think this one is potentially an issue is because they haven’t said what their defence is and I haven’t seen anything put forward that would work.

Fair enough. What about this as a suggested defence to the panel?:

"Oh, just tell the PL to fuck off will you? All they have is a couple of emails chosen to show the club in the worst possible light. We have valid contracts signed by the appropriate people in the appropriate companies and UK legal and tax clearances to support the contracts, the services provided and the amounts involved. And you can tell them not to even think about using the new rules. It was 13 fucking years ago, the cunts. I rest my case."

Could work. And my last post on Mancini ....

 

[KS55]

Fair enough. What about this as a suggested defence to the panel?:

"Oh, just tell the PL to fuck off will you? All they have is a couple of emails chosen to show the club in the worst possible light. We have valid contracts signed by the appropriate people in the appropriate companies and UK legal and tax clearances to support the contracts, the services provided and the amounts involved. And you can tell them not to even think about using the new rules. It was 13 fucking years ago, the cunts. I rest my case."

Could work. And my last post on Mancini ....

I think that is the case our KC will put forward, couched in more legal language, with a few hereinafters, prima facies and mutatis mutandis. Piece of piss this KC business.

 

[Son of Merv]

As I remember it pre Sheikh M there was no money left after investment into Salford Quays and other South Manchester area.
This left the carcigenic contaminated Clayton Aniline and other industrial remnants to dacay via nature.
Similar fate was left to Ancoats.

In the absence of State and Local Gov Funding our owner decontaminated some of the land then built over a number of years in association with the local council.

In short our owner provided the money, the council made the land and buildings available.

I think that was how it happened but as an east Manchester resident at the time I was disgusted how our area had been discarded for investment.

Thinking about it Sheikh M's investment saved Manchester Business Plan yet he is paradoxically charged with over investment into his own part of that investment.

Yes. Manchester Council should be backing him more.

I can understand why they don't back him more.
I'm thinking of the NW Tonight piece on the topping out of the new arena as an example. Nearing completion of Europes largest, state of the art indoor arena, Burnham is interviewed and is naturally buoyant about the project. So what does Annabel Tiffin ask.. 'this is all well and good, but how do you feel about accepting investment from a country with such an appalling human rights record?'. (The way she emphasized 'appalling', I thought she was going to throw-up)
Anything positive MCC say about any investments will be totally twisted into a 'whatabout...?' and it's just not worth their while to stick their head above the parapet.
Frankly, if some people dont appreciate what UAE (and Chinese, for that matter) investment has done for the residents of Manchester, they should piss off to one of the many bankrupt shithole cities that will charge them a fortune in CT to not empty their bins.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think that is the case our KC will put forward, couched in more legal language, with a few hereinafters, prima facies and mutatis mutandis. Piece of piss this KC business.

But the same number of fucks and cunts, hopefully .....