PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Bald fraud]

Wondering what would happen if club failed SPR/FFP because their predicted income was lower than expected due to PL distributing less monies due to their legal expenses. Or is that a silly question

Good point. Maybe this is the next thing they’ll try to stop us with

 

[117 M34]

Didn’t Cardiff hire the plane and pilot?

No. The selling club and his agent did.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Good point. Maybe this is the next thing they’ll try to stop us with

It won’t be us. We’re nowhere near the PSR limit.

The answer should be that anyone failing it should be docked points in the same way as a Everton did.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Wondering what would happen if club failed SPR/FFP because their predicted income was lower than expected due to PL distributing less monies due to their legal expenses. Or is that a silly question

It would depend which club it was

 

[chris85mcfc]

It would depend which club it was

=IF("SHIRT COLOUR"=RED,0,100)

 

[BerkshireBlue]

As I posted months ago I am not going to post an opinion re the main charges until we hear the outcome from the IC. My take on many of the charges does accord with the majority view on here but there are some of the charges like the Mancini contract issue that will , if the email chain is indeed fact, will be down to the assessment of the panel members in terms on balance were payments from city and as a consequence I don’t think it’s even close to a foregone conclusion

In terms of your take about how City would behave I personally can’t see how they would have not carried on with the stadium project.If that project had been put on ice surely the whole of football save city would see that as a self sign of guilt

As for sponsors again the bulk of the football community outside City are of the opinion that there are direct links the narrative from many supporters is that the majority of Cities . That almost certainly isn’t the case indeed most clubs see the value offered through greater number of “ partners” as opposed to major sponsors exclusively . There is no way that City would be saying anything differently to new sponsors in term of their innocence.

As for Gundogan. Sorry he is only on a one year deal at City so the question of him playing in the Championship next season isn’t really an issue still a very good player at soon to be 34 he may indeed get another deal but at this time he is only a city player guaranteed till May 25.

As for Utd hiring Berrada that is an interesting one and there is an alternative narrative that particularly if it suited Utd and potentially the PL to have in effect access to someone that was close to the facts and should ultimately he, Berrada, be implicated then an exit from Utd would certainly follow.

Are you saying you think City didn't have a contract with Mancini that included termination clauses. That is the rule we've been charged with says. It makes no difference if Mancini had a separate contract with any other company at all as long as the contract between city and Mancini existed and was handed in on time. Also no fraud has been committed so statute of limitations apply. The Mancini charges are easy to prove that city haven't broken any of the PL rules

 

[Mancityphilfo2000]

Sounds like the prem know they can't win with the reports of them spending over their budget on this case.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Sounds like the prem know they can't win with the reports of them spending over their budget on this case.

Shouldn’t have thrown the first dig then, the cunts.

 

[Lord Blue]

Well said Big Sam.

is he angling for the job post Pep?

 

[TinFoilHat]

is he angling for the job post Pep?

Get him in now.

Ready made tactic of Eddie boot it to Erling and we win everything.