PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jrb said:
You'll have to scroll through add after add to read the full article, if you can be arsed?

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Premier League CEO Masters scores huge own goal with two Man City blunders

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has given a wide-ranging interview that conveniently avoided the most important issue he faces this year: Manchester City.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Click to expand...
Brilliant article.

Not one word about city and the 115.

Someone is trying to deliberately NOT mention the hiding they have gotten over this at the tribunal.

He couldn’t help himself saying something if we had been found guilty of fraud. His rag/dip paymasters wouldn’t allow it.

This is good news. Softly softly catchy monkey -:)
 
wolviedinho said:
Brilliant article.

Not one word about city and the 115.

Someone is trying to deliberately NOT mention the hiding they have gotten over this at the tribunal.

He couldn’t help himself saying something if we had been found guilty of fraud. His rag/dip paymasters wouldn’t allow it.

This is good news. Softly softly catchy monkey -:)
Click to expand...

First time no one asked “whatabout Citeh” & as this seems a coordinated interview if it was looking bad for City they’d have got a dig in.

This **** needs putting in front of select committee & that May Fyfield the lying **** will be giving her MBE back like the post office Witch.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think anyone has disputed that the most serious allegations are those around the funding of the AD sponsorships, especially Etihad, of course.

But I am surprised you think the question of RPT and FMV is so inconsequential. Is it any more so than the allegations in respect of Mancini and Touré? Yet here we are.
Click to expand...
I think anything other than the sponsorship question is relatively inconsequential. We may have technically transgressed in the other matters but none would be considered fraudulent.
 
Just some clarification on the RPT issue and forgive me if it’s a stupid question. Who gets to decide what transactions is a RPT? My understanding (entirely from BM) was that the conditions were very specific, laid out in IS24(?) and not negotiable. So if Etihad tick all the boxes for IS24 they are a RPT, if they don’t, they aren’t and whatever City, the Premier League or UEFA think and/or would like doesn’t make a scrap of difference hence the introduction of APT’s.
 
halfcenturyup said:
But it would be absolutely crushing from a PR point of view. Would it not?

Don't get me wrong. It would be a difficult win for the PL but I am not sure we should just be disregarding its importance as an issue.
Click to expand...
As Stefan says, yes it would. Unless the PL has evidence that we're not aware of, the related party question is potentially the only chink in our armour as far as the AD sponsorships are concerned. But it's a very, very small one.

And for the cynic in me, it's yet more corroboration that this isn't about the PL acting independently of its shareholders, nobly trying to ensure there is a level financial playing field in accordance with its rules and regulations. It's about our competitors trying to nail us in any small way they can.
 
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.