PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jamielowndes said:
It's always the same. The moment you ask them to get even slightly granular with it, the best you're getting back is "well you're obviously cheating".

The discourse hasn't even been about guilty/not guilty, it's just been people fantasising about how ridiculous the punishments can get.

I saw someone claiming they could hold a retroactive open top bus for Gerrard as the 2014 PL would be given to Liverpool
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that someone was a club shop wearing wanker who no longer resides/works in Merseyside.
 
CC1 said:
Agree with your point - apart from the problem ethic-wise about being taken over by the UAE consortium

They have been a breath of fresh air in Manchester & envisaged the damage the cartel were going to do to the PL. They’re the only owners with the guts to challenge the red cartel.
Click to expand...
This and the sports washing tag, just shows our owners tolerance, the need to adapt to the challenges of modern life, it is wonderful to have such proactive owners.
 
jamielowndes said:
That's fair.

My original comment was in reference to someone saying their support of the club would waver if we were found to be cheating.

My ultimate point is that my football choices aren't rooted in any sense of morality
Click to expand...
Exactly - we support City, our club
 
No change in my camp.

We know nothing with any certainty, I fall back on do I believe the clubs leadership when they say they have done nothing wrong and they have irrefutable evidence to prove it.

There was no "evidence" to prove practically the same serious charges at CAS.

IMO the scandal is in fact UEFA circumvented its own rules to impose a ban for which there was no evidence (12 times) to sufficiently support their charges.

There is no "evidence" in the public domain to suggest otherwise. Have the PL acquired more documents, yes, but nobody knows what they are or if they prove City did anything wrong with respect to any of the charges, let alone the more serious allegations of fraud, to the necessary standard.

So now we learn from the APT case that the PL's rules in some aspects are unlawful and unfair, also have treated us like pariahs, have been disgraceful in the dealings with our sponsorships and been disingenuous and deliberately instigated delays in at least two cases.

Read their interpretation of the findings - Premier League Statement

Contrast this to the actual findings where their behaviour in dealing with us is outlined:

The APT Decisions​

As set out above, the APT Rules dictate that the PL must make a final decision as to all APT applications within a specific timeframe. City claimed that the PL had exceeded this limit in respect of the APT Decisions. The Tribunal decided that, in two of these instances, the PL had exceeded the time limit due to a lack of resources within their regulatory team, whilst the PL accepted that it had created a delay in the third instance.

The Tribunal decided that there was no evidence that City had been unable to make any APT transaction because of these delays, and that no potential sponsorships were compromised by them. However, the Tribunal also found that the PL had created an "unreasonable delay" in respect of the FAB APT (by three months) and the EP APT (by two months). City may seek damages because of these delays, although given the findings of the Tribunal, the loss suffered is not immediately apparent. It is noteworthy that the PL here was found to have broken the APT Rules rather than the rules themselves being found to be deficient, and that the Board subsequently revised its decision in respect of the EP APT following representations made by City.

The Tribunal also found that the Board's decisions relating to the EAG APT and the FAB APT should be set aside on the grounds of procedural unfairness. In relation to the EAG APT, the Tribunal found that procedural unfairness arose because the Board did not give City an opportunity to respond to the FMV benchmarking analysis before reaching its decision. Regarding the FAB APT, the Tribunal ruled that, prior to the Board's final determination, it did not give City access to the Databank transactions completed by other clubs to which the Board referred in its final determination.


The outfall of this is the current regulator the PL have been found to have treated us with utter disdain and with deliberate intent to use procedures unfairly. I believe this is utterly contemptible on their part, yet the media in this country have shovelled that part of the decision under the carpet.

I sincerely hope Lord Pannick was able to point this out to the Independent Commission members in charge of the 115 case. Whilst having no evidential effect it certainly portrays a "mindset" of the regulator in respect of legal matters with MCFC.

Now we await the IC's decision on the PL's rushed resolution to the APT deficiencies voted in by the usual suspects. Lets hope for another positive outcome for City.

So, do I believe our owners and executives, sponsors, auditors, accountants and other third parties have acted fraudulently, dishonestly, conspiratorially and knowingly submitted false accounts for a period of 10 years or more? Do I believe Simon Pierce and others including Etihad senior executives lied under oath at CAS? Do I believe those same individuals submitted false evidence in support of their statements and witness testimony?

No i do not! What's more if you can take that leap of faith you must therefore believe that there will be no smoking gun evidence to prove that they did any of those things.

I honestly believe that if City had been guilty of any of those major charges there would have been a settlement before litigation. It makes no sense to me to argue a case for which there would be clear evidence to substantiate the accusations.

However as anyone who knows anything about either criminal or civil court procedure and the legal system knows, entities can be found to have done things they did not on the balance of probabilities if they are unable to submit sufficient rebuttal evidence to that of their accusers or in the case of perverse findings by the judge, judges, panel or Commission. There are of course procedural appeal remedies in some cases of but findings of fact interpreted by the Commission would be difficult to overcome unless it was clearly perverse. These are the perils of litigation.

Let's all hope Lord Pannick and his team have presented our irrefutable evidence sufficiently well to be successful in repudiating the PL's accusations of financial impropriety, malfeasance, obfuscation and obstruction.
 
mancboy said:
ah another person who lives in the west and genuinely believes that the middle east is an awful place and the west is a bastion of free speech and no human rights abuses or bad things ever happen here, those in power are up to their eyes in it no matter where they come from and its just a nice easy way to distract people from all the nonsense that happens in plenty of places apart from the middle east.
Click to expand...


Yes but we’d never throw a journalist in jail for exposing war crimes……

1736336706976.gif
 
jamielowndes said:

Human rights in the United Arab Emirates - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Take your time.

I'm not saying this has ever been a sticking point to me. My phone is made via slave labor and I probably buy a shit ton of stuff that's tied to some type of international evil as well, but im not going to claim the UAE is some glorious haven of democracy just because one of their higher-ups bankrolled us winning the Champions League.
Click to expand...
Much of this report is out of date and inaccurate. The article makes no distinction between the Emirates and is largely written as though Dubai is the UAE.
Relying on Human Rights Watch as a source is dubious, some of that body’s claims need to be viewed with a certain amount of scepticism. Amnesty International is not even handed and that casts some doubts on its veracity.
Just one example of this reports failings: the Federal National Council by law should have 50% of its members as women. It falls short of that but about 30% of its members are women. The FNC is not mentioned in the report.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge that Human rights in the UAE leave a lot to be desired but a more reasoned criticism is needed.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
No change in my camp.

We know nothing with any certainty, I fall back on do I believe the clubs leadership when they say they have done nothing wrong and they have irrefutable evidence to prove it.

There was no "evidence" to prove practically the same serious charges at CAS.

IMO the scandal is in fact UEFA circumvented its own rules to impose a ban for which there was no evidence (12 times) to sufficiently support their charges.

There is no "evidence" in the public domain to suggest otherwise. Have the PL acquired more documents, yes, but nobody knows what they are or if they prove City did anything wrong with respect to any of the charges, let alone the more serious allegations of fraud, to the necessary standard.

So now we learn from the APT case that the PL's rules in some aspects are unlawful and unfair, also have treated us like pariahs, have been disgraceful in the dealings with our sponsorships and been disingenuous and deliberately instigated delays in at least two cases.

Read their interpretation of the findings - Premier League Statement

Contrast this to the actual findings where their behaviour in dealing with us is outlined:

The APT Decisions​

As set out above, the APT Rules dictate that the PL must make a final decision as to all APT applications within a specific timeframe. City claimed that the PL had exceeded this limit in respect of the APT Decisions. The Tribunal decided that, in two of these instances, the PL had exceeded the time limit due to a lack of resources within their regulatory team, whilst the PL accepted that it had created a delay in the third instance.

The Tribunal decided that there was no evidence that City had been unable to make any APT transaction because of these delays, and that no potential sponsorships were compromised by them. However, the Tribunal also found that the PL had created an "unreasonable delay" in respect of the FAB APT (by three months) and the EP APT (by two months). City may seek damages because of these delays, although given the findings of the Tribunal, the loss suffered is not immediately apparent. It is noteworthy that the PL here was found to have broken the APT Rules rather than the rules themselves being found to be deficient, and that the Board subsequently revised its decision in respect of the EP APT following representations made by City.

The Tribunal also found that the Board's decisions relating to the EAG APT and the FAB APT should be set aside on the grounds of procedural unfairness. In relation to the EAG APT, the Tribunal found that procedural unfairness arose because the Board did not give City an opportunity to respond to the FMV benchmarking analysis before reaching its decision. Regarding the FAB APT, the Tribunal ruled that, prior to the Board's final determination, it did not give City access to the Databank transactions completed by other clubs to which the Board referred in its final determination.


The outfall of this is the current regulator the PL have been found to have treated us with utter disdain and with deliberate intent to use procedures unfairly. I believe this is utterly contemptible on their part, yet the media in this country have shovelled that part of the decision under the carpet.

I sincerely hope Lord Pannick was able to point this out to the Independent Commission members in charge of the 115 case. Whilst having no evidential effect it certainly portrays a "mindset" of the regulator in respect of legal matters with MCFC.

Now we await the IC's decision on the PL's rushed resolution to the APT deficiencies voted in by the usual suspects. Lets hope for another positive outcome for City.

So, do I believe our owners and executives, sponsors, auditors, accountants and other third parties have acted fraudulently, dishonestly, conspiratorially and knowingly submitted false accounts for a period of 10 years or more? Do I believe Simon Pierce and others including Etihad senior executives lied under oath at CAS? Do I believe those same individuals submitted false evidence in support of their statements and witness testimony?

No i do not! What's more if you can take that leap of faith you must therefore believe that there will be no smoking gun evidence to prove that they did any of those things.

I honestly believe that if City had been guilty of any of those major charges there would have been a settlement before litigation. It makes no sense to me to argue a case for which there would be clear evidence to substantiate the accusations.

However as anyone who knows anything about either criminal or civil court procedure and the legal system knows, entities can be found to have done things they did not on the balance of probabilities if they are unable to submit sufficient rebuttal evidence to that of their accusers or in the case of perverse findings by the judge, judges, panel or Commission. There are of course procedural appeal remedies in some cases of but findings of fact interpreted by the Commission would be difficult to overcome unless it was clearly perverse. These are the perils of litigation.

Let's all hope Lord Pannick and his team have presented our irrefutable evidence sufficiently well to be successful in repudiating the PL's accusations of financial impropriety, malfeasance, obfuscation and obstruction.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well mate
 
mancboy said:
well the assumption there is that we were paying him twice and that his consultancy role with abu dhabi was a sham, in which case the accounts we submitted would not be accurate and therefore would be false accounting.
Click to expand...
This was before FFP was introduced, at the time City were making huge losses so, there wouldn't be any need to do anything. IF anything it was more likely to be done to suit Mancini tax liability. It was paid through his services company and Im sure that the contract will be produced, also the work didn't have to be carried out by Mancini he could delegate it.
Im pretty sure that Stefan has also pointed out that at the time the club only had to disclose the renumeration form them it was only later that changes were made so that a club had to include all the managers remunerations.
 
ancoats said:
It's funny how the Premier League, Sorry United want to fuck us over for cheating ? United do their cheating in the open and in clear daylight and nobody blinks an eye, The latest Cheating was the £75million in allowances when PSR was breached,

Manchester City must blow the whole system wide open to have any chance of winning, Let's start fighting back and calling them out, For a start nobody else got that amount of allowances and even other clubs got turned down for adding anything over £2million,

Also, Why has nobody bought up the rising debt? that under the rules should be reduced over 3 years,
plus annual losses over 3 years is a breach, Now, Why has the Premier League not opened a case against United because of failing Uefa FFP and false accounting found.

Nothing is ever going to change until Manchester City blow the fucking doors off the whole system
Click to expand...
Ditto my exact thoughts. This shit is not going to settle unless city go on full out offense , medieval style
 
Crooked_rain said:
If we are genuinely found guilty, I'll be extemely disappointed in the club. I've always felt the club was operated correctly.

Did we use money to get to where we are? Yes, it played a big part but also because the club had made good decisions with that money. If we find out we broke so many rules along the way, that would be shameful.

Let's be honest, if this was United, we would be tearing into them non-stop. So we can't really expect to be call anything other than cheaters if we are guilty, because we would do exactly the same, let's not pretend otherwise

Not sure how I'll feel about supporting any longer if it emerges we won that we did while not playing by the rules.
Click to expand...
How noble and fair minded of you. You'd be really disappointed if the club was "genuinely" guilty and you'd not be able to support the club any longer "if we won .... while not playing by the rules" Especially as we'd be "tearing into" United if they'd won in the same way. Well, my fair weather friend, that's exactly how they did win. They were fined £5000 - only £5000 - for making off the book payments, but they were never called "cheaters" and Busby was later knighted "for services to football"! Some 20 years later the club found it necessary to resort to an abrasive Glaswegian to try and knock Liverpool off their "******* perch" and, of course, he set about his task by spending unprecedented (before or since) sums of the club's owners' money. This continued for 20 years, until Abramovitch and then Sheikh Mansour appeared on the scene with a spending power that dwarfed that available to the red knight. Only then did the rags consider that rules might be necessary to protect small clubs (those small clubs United had helped cheat out of any share of gate receipts at away matches) from having to compete with Chelsea and City. So, the great spendthrifts of the PL proposed "fair rules" which allowed them to spend more than anyone else, introduced no measures to make the rags deal with their huge (and growing) debt and did their utmost to inaugurate a world for rags to thrive in.

So, if your lillywhite conscience can stand the stress, wait for the award and if it goes against us you can then decide to ditch our club and go elsewhere, but I don't think you'll be missed at the Etihad.
 
Crooked_rain said:
Not sure how I'll feel about supporting any longer if it emerges we won that we did while not playing by the rules.
Click to expand...
I don’t get this mate.

Let’s say we are guilty - that is on the owners. CITY was here long before them and will be here long after they’re gone. They are custodians.

If we’re found guilty and are really bang to rights, I personally won’t support the board anymore but I could never stop supporting CITY.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
How noble and fair minded of you. You'd be really disappointed if the club was "genuinely" guilty and you'd not be able to support the club any longer "if we won .... while not playing by the rules" Especially as we'd be "tearing into" United if they'd won in the same way. Well, my fair weather friend, that's exactly how they did win. They were fined £5000 - only £5000 - for making off the book payments, but they were never called "cheaters" and Busby was later knighted "for services to football"! Some 20 years later the club found it necessary to resort to an abrasive Glaswegian to try and knock Liverpool off their "******* perch" and, of course, he set about his task by spending unprecedented (before or since) sums of the club's owners' money. This continued for 20 years, until Abramovitch and then Sheikh Mansour appeared on the scene with a spending power that dwarfed that available to the red knight. Only then did the rags consider that rules might be necessary to protect small clubs (those small clubs United had helped cheat out of any share of gate receipts at away matches) from having to compete with Chelsea and City. So, the great spendthrifts of the PL proposed "fair rules" which allowed them to spend more than anyone else, introduced no measures to make the rags deal with their huge (and growing) debt and did their utmost to inaugurate a world for rags to thrive in.

So, if your lillywhite conscience can stand the stress, wait for the award and if it goes against us you can then decide to ditch our club and go elsewhere, but I don't think you'll be missed at the Etihad.
Click to expand...
couldnt of said it better myself although i would of phrased it "shut up you soft ****" :)
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
No change in my camp.

We know nothing with any certainty, I fall back on do I believe the clubs leadership when they say they have done nothing wrong and they have irrefutable evidence to prove it.

There was no "evidence" to prove practically the same serious charges at CAS.

IMO the scandal is in fact UEFA circumvented its own rules to impose a ban for which there was no evidence (12 times) to sufficiently support their charges.

There is no "evidence" in the public domain to suggest otherwise. Have the PL acquired more documents, yes, but nobody knows what they are or if they prove City did anything wrong with respect to any of the charges, let alone the more serious allegations of fraud, to the necessary standard.

So now we learn from the APT case that the PL's rules in some aspects are unlawful and unfair, also have treated us like pariahs, have been disgraceful in the dealings with our sponsorships and been disingenuous and deliberately instigated delays in at least two cases.

Read their interpretation of the findings - Premier League Statement

Contrast this to the actual findings where their behaviour in dealing with us is outlined:

The APT Decisions​

As set out above, the APT Rules dictate that the PL must make a final decision as to all APT applications within a specific timeframe. City claimed that the PL had exceeded this limit in respect of the APT Decisions. The Tribunal decided that, in two of these instances, the PL had exceeded the time limit due to a lack of resources within their regulatory team, whilst the PL accepted that it had created a delay in the third instance.

The Tribunal decided that there was no evidence that City had been unable to make any APT transaction because of these delays, and that no potential sponsorships were compromised by them. However, the Tribunal also found that the PL had created an "unreasonable delay" in respect of the FAB APT (by three months) and the EP APT (by two months). City may seek damages because of these delays, although given the findings of the Tribunal, the loss suffered is not immediately apparent. It is noteworthy that the PL here was found to have broken the APT Rules rather than the rules themselves being found to be deficient, and that the Board subsequently revised its decision in respect of the EP APT following representations made by City.

The Tribunal also found that the Board's decisions relating to the EAG APT and the FAB APT should be set aside on the grounds of procedural unfairness. In relation to the EAG APT, the Tribunal found that procedural unfairness arose because the Board did not give City an opportunity to respond to the FMV benchmarking analysis before reaching its decision. Regarding the FAB APT, the Tribunal ruled that, prior to the Board's final determination, it did not give City access to the Databank transactions completed by other clubs to which the Board referred in its final determination.


The outfall of this is the current regulator the PL have been found to have treated us with utter disdain and with deliberate intent to use procedures unfairly. I believe this is utterly contemptible on their part, yet the media in this country have shovelled that part of the decision under the carpet.

I sincerely hope Lord Pannick was able to point this out to the Independent Commission members in charge of the 115 case. Whilst having no evidential effect it certainly portrays a "mindset" of the regulator in respect of legal matters with MCFC.

Now we await the IC's decision on the PL's rushed resolution to the APT deficiencies voted in by the usual suspects. Lets hope for another positive outcome for City.

So, do I believe our owners and executives, sponsors, auditors, accountants and other third parties have acted fraudulently, dishonestly, conspiratorially and knowingly submitted false accounts for a period of 10 years or more? Do I believe Simon Pierce and others including Etihad senior executives lied under oath at CAS? Do I believe those same individuals submitted false evidence in support of their statements and witness testimony?

No i do not! What's more if you can take that leap of faith you must therefore believe that there will be no smoking gun evidence to prove that they did any of those things.

I honestly believe that if City had been guilty of any of those major charges there would have been a settlement before litigation. It makes no sense to me to argue a case for which there would be clear evidence to substantiate the accusations.

However as anyone who knows anything about either criminal or civil court procedure and the legal system knows, entities can be found to have done things they did not on the balance of probabilities if they are unable to submit sufficient rebuttal evidence to that of their accusers or in the case of perverse findings by the judge, judges, panel or Commission. There are of course procedural appeal remedies in some cases of but findings of fact interpreted by the Commission would be difficult to overcome unless it was clearly perverse. These are the perils of litigation.

Let's all hope Lord Pannick and his team have presented our irrefutable evidence sufficiently well to be successful in repudiating the PL's accusations of financial impropriety, malfeasance, obfuscation and obstruction.
Click to expand...
Brilliant post mate.

Like you said about everyone being in on the alleged conspiracy and fraud, that is a hell of a lot of people involved all being told to keep quiet and go along with it.

Common sense would tell you that someone in the chain would eventually let slip that we're acting up, there would be something on social media and eventually the press would pick up on it.

The actual fact is we are completely innocent.
 
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