PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
Thanks for reminding me that I meant to say much the same thing. The image rights sale to Fordham was a case of selling something we owned to someone else, who we might have some sort of association with. Very much the same as Chelsea have done, or have tried to do.
Click to expand...

Agreed with a couple of caveats.

First, we don't know much about Fordham, do we? It may not be the transaction itself with which the PL has a problem, but some of the terms. The ADUG indemnity, for example.

Second, we don't even know the image rights issue is about Fordham. It may just be about Toure. The alleged breaches referred to the panel more closely reflect the timing of Toure's contracts than Fordham's, tbh. It may be both, of course.

This is the one allegation where we are short of enough information to come to a conclusion, I think. That doesn't mean I think it's a problem. Just that more information would have been helpful in the assessment of the allegation.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Thanks for reminding me that I meant to say much the same thing. The image rights sale to Fordham was a case of selling something we owned to someone else, who we might have some sort of association with. Very much the same as Chelsea have done, or have tried to do.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t Fordham run by a mate of Soriano? Did Soriano work for them at one time? Was Fordham supported financially by ADUG. Were Fordham already handling City players’ image rights when we ‘sold’ them? These questions may come up. I don’t know the answers, do you PB? Could be worse than a small irrelevance.
 
KS55 said:
Wasn’t Fordham run by a mate of Soriano? Did Soriano work for them at one time? Was Fordham supported financially by ADUG. Were Fordham already handling City players’ image rights when we ‘sold’ them? These questions may come up. I don’t know the answers, do you PB? Could be worse than a small irrelevance.
Click to expand...
Whatever it was we did though don’t think we hid it and when we were told we couldn’t do it we stopped. As far as I understand anyway.
 
halfcenturyup said:
On the basis of what we know at the moment, there is no way that the panel will find in favour of the PL on the most serious issues. So the whole thing is moot, really, but what we are discussing at the moment is what happens if the PL does have something we don't know about and the panel finds in favour of the PL.

It seems to me, at the very least, in view of the public interest in the case, the profile of the individuals involved, their other shareholdings and directorships and the egregious nature of the conduct there would have to be an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for a Companies Acts prosecution.

If there isn't, it reflects badly on the panel's judgement, irrespective of the different burdens of proof (talk about a "technicality"). If there is, but the prosecution fails, likewise. Which is (one of) the reason(s) why I think the panel finding in favour of the PL on the most serious issues is very unlikely unless they really have a slam dunk that will hold up to the higher burden. It won't be painted like that, of course, but there cogency-o-meter will be at atmospheric levels, I think.

But ...

wtf do I know

Edit: Good to have you around, btw. Hope everything is good with you and yours.
Click to expand...
The PL want us to disclose all that they ask for, or else be accused of failure to cooperate. Well, would it not be the same if the PL come up with something in the hearing that has not been disclosed to City. Could we accuse they of failure to cooperate?
 
KS55 said:
Wasn’t Fordham run by a mate of Soriano? Did Soriano work for them at one time? Was Fordham supported financially by ADUG. Were Fordham already handling City players’ image rights when we ‘sold’ them? These questions may come up. I don’t know the answers, do you PB? Could be worse than a small irrelevance.
Click to expand...
This might interest you. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2...illand-abu-dhabi-prince-was-known-as-the-boss

David Rowland's son and Graham Robeson were Fordham directors.
 
its grim up north said:
The PL want us to disclose all that they ask for, or else be accused of failure to cooperate. Well, would it not be the same if the PL come up with something in the hearing that has not been disclosed to City. Could we accuse they of failure to cooperate?
Click to expand...

The club should know by now everything the PL has. I think the PL can only introduce new evidence with the approval of the panel and if it is fully disclosed beforehand with sufficient time available to defend against it. I think.

I was more meaning the likes of us. I think we understand most of the issues pretty well. The exception, for me at least, is the image rights allegation.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I always get an uneasy feeling about all of this when I think about Yaya and his agent. Although it is reported that they have denied anything underhand going on, I still feel uneasy…
 
Delboy352 said:
I always get an uneasy feeling about all of this when I think about Yaya and his agent. Although it is reported that they have denied anything underhand going on, I still feel uneasy…
Click to expand...
We've had a few like that over the years. Tevez too had an agent who seemed to think that he was the owner of the player and before that there was an agent by the name of Willie McKay who sounded like he'd drunk three or four bottles of whisky before slurring his way through a radio interview. I suppose it always happens when a club comes into money but without a Chief Executive who knows the game inside out. I don't think we'll ever suffer that fate again.
 
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
✖
  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.