PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Wonder is news will start to filter out during the International break.

Got to keep the PL relevant and everyone has had just about enough of International football.
 
ysmsa said:
Wonder is news will start to filter out during the International break.

Got to keep the PL relevant and everyone has had just about enough of International football.
Click to expand...
There is no news of note. The hearing was scheduled for ten weeks, it looks like it will run for ten weeks, finish at the end of next week and then we can expect a judgment in several months.

I still think March for the outcome.
 
jaiguruKun said:
Given what is being inferred from the charges themselves what would have prevented Etihad & Etsilat from making a claim against the PL at an earlier stage?

It might have been a useful tactic to try and grease the wheels.
Click to expand...

All imho only:

I guess it would be difficult show a loss. I suppose, though, that if the allegations are proven without any criminal follow-up and Etihad had postponed their IPO as a result, incurring losses, then anything is possible, if not particularly likely.
 
Your handy cutout and keep guide to the 2 types of reporting when the verdict is reached:

Corrupt City guilty in PL case, see pages 2-6,8,10-14 and comment on page 16


PL Club has outcome - see page 84 in Stockport edition
Arsenal, United and Liverpool are the bestest Eva clubs, see pages 2-6,8,10-14 and comment on page 16
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
There is no news of note. The hearing was scheduled for ten weeks, it looks like it will run for ten weeks, finish at the end of next week and then we can expect a judgment in several months.

I still think March for the outcome.
Click to expand...
Can't see everything being kept quiet until then.

It will be good news and we will certainly release stuff one way or another.

There is a january window to navigate which could be huge for our season.
 
ysmsa said:
Can't see everything being kept quiet until then.

It will be good news and we will certainly release stuff one way or another.

There is a january window to navigate which could be huge for our season.
Click to expand...
Until the panel release their judgement then the rest is just froth. Both sides could brief that they have done well but it means nothing. As the club seemingly haven't briefed at all in the entire process I wouldn't expect it now anyway.
 
halfcenturyup said:
On your first point, I find it incredible that that is apparently legal. Sure, for the good if the sport, only put what the PL considers as fmv income in the FFP P/L. But no, they gave given themselves the authority to tell a third party, not governed by PL contract and very likely in a different country, to enter into a new contract for a lower amount. They have even given themselves the power to increase the amount the third party pays if they consider it undervalued. I still can't understand how that is legal.

On your other two points, I have been saying that since early last year. It's one of the many reasons I think the PL doesn't have a chance of finding the club guilty of the most serious charges. What panel is going to make a "guilty" finding then to have a criminal investigation not even started, refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence or to have one concluded without a guilty verdict. Yes, the lawyers can talk about different jurisdictions with different standards of proof, but it would be hugely destructive to the reputation of the PL and its disciplinary procedures. I am pretty sure the panel will bear that in mind when coming to their conclusions even applying a higher standard of proof than usual. Super-cogency, if you will.
Click to expand...
I would have said the same but somehow we are here with these proceedings despite arguments over jurisdiction at the beginning. Presumably for this reason. In which the court found against city in favor of premier league surely the correct setting was court but apparently not
 
halfcenturyup said:
On your first point, I find it incredible that that is apparently legal. Sure, for the good if the sport, only put what the PL considers as fmv income in the FFP P/L. But no, they gave given themselves the authority to tell a third party, not governed by PL contract and very likely in a different country, to enter into a new contract for a lower amount. They have even given themselves the power to increase the amount the third party pays if they consider it undervalued. I still can't understand how that is legal.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this? How would that work?
 
MCFC84000 said:
Anyone else thinking this is the same guy?
Listen to how he constructs his sentences and the pauses as he works out his next bag of bollocks

and
Click to expand...

I the first video whoever it is says that UEFA only had like 6 emails and said they where ok without the other evidence they where trying to get through discovery. That surely cannot be true
 
citizen_maine said:
*makes mental note not to believe anything he says in future*

:-)
Click to expand...

Always good advice when reading the rubbish I post on here.

Actually the rules say if a contract hasn't been executed before being presented to the PL then it should be adjusted to whatever the PL says is fmv (so presumably up or down). If the contract has been executed it should either be cancelled or be amended if it relates to income and is overstated, or to expense and is understated. Executed I have taken to mean signed and legally binding (unless the PL says so, which is my problem).

Anyway, so I was half right, which is pretty good going for me :)

All needlessly complicated though.

1000000944.png
1000000946.png
 
halfcenturyup said:
Always good advice when reading the rubbish I post on here.

Actually the rules say if a contract hasn't been executed before being presented to the PL then it should be adjusted to whatever the PL says is fmv (so presumably up or down). If the contract has been executed it should either be cancelled or be amended if it relates to income and is overstated, or to expense and is understated. Executed I have taken to mean signed and legally binding (unless the PL says so, which is my problem).

Anyway, so I was half right, which is pretty good going for me :)

All needlessly complicated though.

View attachment 137704
View attachment 137706
Click to expand...
But if the deal is below what they consider to be FMV they'll just confirm that it's at FMV and allow it.
We think it's worth £10 but your only being offered £8, so that's fine
 
citizen_maine said:
But if the deal is below what they consider to be FMV they'll just confirm that it's at FMV and allow it.
We think it's worth £10 but your only being offered £8, so that's fine
Click to expand...

That's not what the rules say, but who knows how that would work in practice? Which is always the problem with complicated rules. Just look at offside and handball.

Things always get too complicated when people try to be too clever.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's not what the rules say, but who knows how that would work in practice? Which is always the problem with complicated rules. Just look at offside and handball.

Things always get too complicated when people try to be too clever.
Click to expand...
I think you're looking for complication that doesn't exist. The purpose of the rules are to ensure clubs don't get deals that are higher than FMV, not that they only get deals that are bang on FMV
 
ysmsa said:
Can't see everything being kept quiet until then.

It will be good news and we will certainly release stuff one way or another.

There is a january window to navigate which could be huge for our season.
Click to expand...

Both sides will have a feel for how it’s gone.

Won’t take long before the hints start leaking out.
 
Any chance this quietly goes away now we can’t win a game?

After all they got what they wanted a city team not competing for the league.
-:)
 
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