PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bridgeno1 said:
I don't think of BM as a 'rivals website' more of a 'football forum' where there's actually a lot more interesting chat going on than on other sites. Yes I know City are a rival but that's not why I'm here.

Re being mentally unwell - well most men have mental health challenges at some stage in their lives, I'm sure I'm just as likely to as the next guy and if I did it wouldnt be anything to be ashamed of.

I will say though that on forums where people display overt hostility to complete strangers that's often a sign that all's not always well with them on an emotional level - I'm not having a go as honestly it genuinely doesn't bother me getting flak as I'm getting it from people who've never met me and therefore don't know me - they might just as well be shouting at a cow in a field. But I'd question why hostility seems to be the first port of call for some folk anyway and what's behind that. Because being unpleasant to someone often makes the recipient feel bad, but just as likely makes the giver feel uptight as well. It's easier just to chill IMHO - it just feels better.
Click to expand...

 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...

No. That's not true. If the rules are deemed unlawful, then they have been all along.

I agree punishments can't/shouldn't be applied retrospectively, both for the practicality of this or just basic logic.

But that doesn't change the fact that what Arsenal and these clubs did over the last 3 years was unlawful, doesn't make it currently or historically legal. It just means they went along with it, unknowingly or knowingly, because the league thought it was ok.
 
Damanino said:
you can bet your life on it if PL would do the forensic investigation on our account going back 15 years on all 20 PL clubs they would find something they could base charges on it against every club. but they dont do it, only with us and maybe Chelsea who had to self report some dirt on themselves lo for PL to look into...

still i wish we were not so friendly at the scouting hacking to accept a 1m fee and moving on quietly, seeing the media attack in last few years can anyone imagine media reaction, PL reaction today if we are found guilty doing the same vs Arsenal or dippers scouting database. would Arse or dippers accept a quiet hearing and fee of 1m? we wouldnt hear the end of it how its cheating, how we got caught, PL would start investigation on nother 19 clubs IT system if we hacked those as well and the media frenzy of all that with constant questions to Pep from media about it.
Click to expand...
im convinced most of the delay has been caused by the PL giving the other clubs time to 'improve' their records / accts to hide their own indiscretions
 
Last edited:
spinney said:
im convinced most of the delay has been caused by the PL giving the other clubs time to 'improve' their records / accts to hide their own discretions
Click to expand...
Resistance to independent regulation is telling. Why on earth would you fight against someone letting you keep the money making element of your business while taking the regulatory stuff (that costs money) off you?
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
City did not vote in favour of the current rules. They voted in favour of the principle at the first vote but when the final draft was up for votes, City pointed out that they were likely unlawful and abstained. If I have got this wrong, please correct me.
 
D
KS55 said:
City did not vote in favour of the current rules. They voted in favour of the principle at the first vote but when the final draft was up for votes, City pointed out that they were likely unlawful and abstained. If I have got this wrong, please correct me.
Click to expand...
oes Seem strange why City just didnt follow suit at issued £500m of interest free shareholder loans like the rest. Although unethical it was in tge rules. If we did inflate sponsorship just to match the dodgy loan investments well that's fraud on a big scale = why do it? Modern football is sh*te at top level. Fancy having more time devoted to discussing shareholder loans, governence and finance regs than whose playing right wing on a Saturday! Miss those days
 
lasereyes said:
I dont follow this. Man City has substantial Equity injections - Sheikh Mansour owns 81%, Silver Lake 18%, etc. I assume the reason shareholders make loans is they can withdraw these at their behest (or subject to some finite term) vs Equity which is permanent capital. it is also highly beneficial for the club/company as debt is cheaper than Equity - particularly if you are paying minimal interest.
Click to expand...
Owner loans are also 1000 times more risky and has already bankrupted clubs in the past. This is exactly the thing PSR is supposed to stop. Cash injection should be fine, owner loans should be banned.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
It's not looking good for us so don't build your hopes up.

Click to expand...

To think our Legal Team didn't have any defence to the charges referenced before the APT verdict is just fanciful. The original defence would have been strategised before the successful APT verdict was announced, it may now form part of the argument but that would be in addition to the original defence.
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...

It’s not like Arsenal to bend the rules or even cheat much is it.
 
bridgeno1 said:
I think this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings that's happening. Arsenal, Everton, Brighton etc haven't done anything wrong re shareholder loans as the current rules (that City voted for btw) state that shareholder loans don't bear interest.

City have subsequently challenged this (and had this challenge upheld) meaning that moving forward this rule is likely to be amended. At that points clubs will need to comply with it but that's only after an amendment is made. At the present moment it's perfectly legal - I suspect it won't be after the rules get amended (assuming 60% of PL clubs vote for it - they may also decide not to of course).
Click to expand...
But being such paragons of virtue, it's somewhat at odds with them then wanting City, and others, highly regulated and litigated. Sponsorship deals bad - money out of dodgy trousers, good.
 
Had talksport on this morning. Dean Saunders was singing the Wrexham ownership from the rooftops. They want to build a 55 thousand seater stadium. (Wrexham population 44 thousand) he was saying it was amazing their owner pumping his own money into the club and what a fantastic story it was. So why aren’t we hearing the Wrexham project is cheating. Sports washing? Think we all know the answer! They’ll be in the prem soon but it will all be fine as it’s a Hollywood story
 
Bald fraud said:
Had talksport on this morning. Dean Saunders was singing the Wrexham ownership from the rooftops. They want to build a 55 thousand seater stadium. (Wrexham population 44 thousand) he was saying it was amazing their owner pumping his own money into the club and what a fantastic story it was. So why aren’t we hearing the Wrexham project is cheating. Sports washing? Think we all know the answer! They’ll be in the prem soon but it will all be fine as it’s a Hollywood story
Click to expand...
And another Yank vote?
 
After reading the entire APT ruling I was struck by the witness statements of the PL executives Mai Fyfield and Jamie Herbert. All very defensive and not too accusatory, mostly about justification of the APT framework and the process used to reject our sponsorship deals. Fyfield got to mention how hard she had worked to ensure our FMVs were knocked back, sometimes she even started work at 6am, bless, and one night she worked till after midnight. What martyrdom.
The contrast with the 115/130 hearing will be stark, because the same people will be 100% on the attack. It will be mind blowing if Fyfield and Herbert gave witness statements where they accuse the owners, executives and employees of City of a criminal conspiracy lasting over nine years. Will they accuse City's CAS2020 witnesses of committing perjury and will they tetsity that HHSMs affidavit also submitted at CAS2020 was false. This going to get very very serious.
 
Last edited:
Bald fraud said:
Had talksport on this morning. Dean Saunders was singing the Wrexham ownership from the rooftops. They want to build a 55 thousand seater stadium. (Wrexham population 44 thousand) he was saying it was amazing their owner pumping his own money into the club and what a fantastic story it was. So why aren’t we hearing the Wrexham project is cheating. Sports washing? Think we all know the answer! They’ll be in the prem soon but it will all be fine as it’s a Hollywood story
Click to expand...
Hollywashing
 
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