PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

nellyonthewing said:
As the Season opens I really am struggling to raise any enthusiasm for it.
The shadow of this enquiry has sucked the joy out of football in general as it becomes apparent how deep the dislike of our club has penetrated the sport thanks to the the poisonous drip drip drip of media venom against us . Fans of the big 4 to the lowliest club giving us shit about how we stole all our trophies and should be condemned to the lower leagues. I speak to people I would consider rational human beings but they too have been brainwashed by the constant undermining of Manchester City FC.
We are the bastard prince never to be recognised for the power we fought for.
Only a total acquittal will clear our name and legacy - we know that is never going to happen and anything less will hang around us like a bad stink for years as all our achievements are forever tarnished by this campaign of hate.
We usurped the cartel and will never be forgiven .We challenged a corrupt system designed to protect them and throw clubs like City an occasional scrap from the top table,
I suspect we may have had to bend rules because there was no other way to force our way into a position to take on the mafia family of legacy clubs.
The media and the League are still their attack dogs and will never give us a moments peace.
So no forgive me for not being enthused at season 2024/5 and what we may or may not achieve.
Click to expand...
I hope I don't sit next to you at the game....
 
BerkshireBlue said:
You must have missed my post from the other day. We can only go off past charges of non co-operation and there's only been one, Evertons. They were found guilty of it and were given a 4 point penalty deduction for it. Remember the commission said in the Everton's case that a financial penalty is not appropriate for rich teams only sporting sanctions will be considered (sounds like discrimination if you ask me). That was for Everton imagine how rich they consider City to be. Everton managed to get the 4 points back on appeal due to not actually being charged for it in the first place. This was a major fuck up from the Premier League and the original commission but I question whether they did this for preparation for our case (tin foil hat stuff maybe). So make no mistake about it if we're found guilty on the non coperation charges we will be deducted points it's just a question of how many.
Click to expand...
Yes, aplogies, must have missed your previous or skimmed it.
I must admit to not considering the Everton decisions in any detail although I thought I remembered the reference to financial penalties being insufficient but remembered it as being in relation to sporting breaches.
If it was indeed in relation solely to none co-operation I suspect Everton would have appealed on the basis that there was no provision in the rules for sporting sanctions for none sporting offences. In any event, as you say, they withdrew the charge and sanction for the matter not being in the original list of charges, so couldnt be applied on consideration in an appeal.
Any chance you can link me the decision indicating points deductions for none sporting offences?
I'd be interested in Stefans opinion on this @slbsn
 
Milesvk said:
In my line of work I look at contractors contracts for defence. If for example I see a manager working on contract A as a full time equivalent and then I see the same manager on contract B as a full time equivalent and both of those contracts overlap in a time period. This would be classed as double accounting and the funding for say contract B would not happen until contract A has finished. As I see as Mancini is, if both contracts are running side by side then city would have to prove that he conducted other work for the group other than managing city. If they could not prove that I can see why prem league would deem this as extra non declared payment. I'm sure @Prestwich_Blue could go a bit deeper into it, I'm only on a certain pay grade and know my place!!
Click to expand...

I am no @Prestwich_Blue but I think it is clear that AJ would be able to show that Mancini was in AD for the limited number of days referred to in the contract (3 p.a. was it? Or 5?). The PL wouldn't have had access to that information yet, so I suppose the first port of call would be to show that the contract was fulfilled, followed by all the other arguments I tried to make earlier and, presumably, many more.
 
Does anyone have any information about the company who are supposed to be deciding whether sponsorships are fair value and their links with Liverpool?

I've read on here a few times that they have worked for Liverpool?
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Yes, aplogies, must have missed your previous or skimmed it.
I must admit to not considering the Everton decisions in any detail although I thought I remembered the reference to financial penalties being insufficient but remembered it as being in relation to sporting breaches.
If it was indeed in relation solely to none co-operation I suspect Everton would have appealed on the basis that there was no provision in the rules for sporting sanctions for none sporting offences. In any event, as you say, they withdrew the charge and sanction for the matter not being in the original list of charges, so couldnt be applied on consideration in an appeal.
Any chance you can link me the decision indicating points deductions for none sporting offences?
I'd be interested in Stefans opinion on this @slbsn
Click to expand...

Everton weren't sanctioned for non-cooperation were they? They were sanctioned for acting in bad faith, which to he PL have alleged in the City case (we don't know what it is they are alleging to be in bad faith, though). I think the original Everton decision didn't allow mitigation for their cooperation, whereas the appeal did.

I don't know if any of the other cases have had a sporting sanction for non-cooperation. I could have a look.

Fwiw, this is what CAS said about City's sanction for non-compliance:

1000000665.png
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
Does anyone have any information about the company who are supposed to be deciding whether sponsorships are fair value and their links with Liverpool?

I've read on here a few times that they have worked for Liverpool?
Click to expand...

From the Liverpool Echo (yes I know):

"A report in The Guardian has now claimed City are unhappy with the use of Nielsen Sports for how their commercial revenue is being judged, despite the company's reputation as an industry-leading expert in providing analysis and data to sporting institutions regarding media valuation, fan insights and digital and social analysis.

Nielsen describe themselves as "the leading source of sports measurement and analytics around the world" but City are unhappy the American firm's data is being used to judge if there is a case to answer at the Etihad.

Liverpool used the influential Nielsen's data to measure analytics involving TV audiences around Champions League fixtures in 2022/23, with the company's numbers cited to claim that the Reds had been the most watched team in world football across the last five years in their most recent financial announcements, released in February.

The club have also previously credited specific Nielsen figures around TV viewership for Liverpool's 5-0 win at Manchester United in October 2021 while the Reds were able to lay claim to being the most watched team in European football across the globe with 415m cited by the firm between August 2023 to May 2024."

nielsensports.com

Nielsen Sports

The global leader in sponsorship media valuation and data analytics. Helping rights holders and brands optimize sponsorship portfolios.
nielsensports.com nielsensports.com
 
argyle said:
He moved to a better paying job and to further his career.

Thank you for explaining what is obvious to many.

Maybe you should stop assuming things.
Click to expand...
What is obvious
I also know that the media and PR team do a thankless job in the face of the shit that is thrown at City and for someone to describe them as mates and that is why they don’t do an effective job is disingenuous to say the least I would doubt very much it would be the media department that would decide to sue in the first place
 
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.