PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Oldham Exile said:
It is blood joyous, but it also makes you think just how deliberate the red cartel actions have been towards CITY and how vindictive yhey have been

Before CITY became a genuine threat - they had the Champions League money all sown up - all other clubs would develop players and then they would cherry pick when it suited them. this was the model for years/decades before and it provided the scum with a guarantee of ever-increasing revenues and growth in the value of the club - what a business model for the Mall Kings - they must have been delighted

And then all of a sudden!!!!!

I just hope that the IC are genuinely independent and not 'minded' to overegg the judgement if they do find evidence of some attempts to 'workaround' the rules a they were being 'developed' and crafted to target CITY and stop others as that risk started to materialise.

They thought that their hegemony was the natural order of things and would last forever

If we can just get through this callous witch hunt we are home-free and they are fucking doomed

I cannot help worrying that the PL have been able to find some documents that they can suggest 'evidence' that we have guilt against this lower standard
Click to expand...
Has been Arsend driving this corrupt bus the most profusely more than the other red tops / white top twatz
 
jockblue said:
Honestly can't recall, but was one of the charges that we hadn't disclosed the Al Jazeera contract to the PL, and therefore broke their rules?

My concern is that, a bit like the huge fines for being 1 minute late out for the second half, we'll be pulled up for minor administrative issues whilst being cleared of the main thrust of the charges, and be subject to excessive punishment for those minor indiscretions. It gives the PL a get out for the whole exercise, and leaves City with the unenviable task of persuading Delaney that we were innocent after all....
Click to expand...
M8, whatever the findings, from total innocence to a non cooperation fine City WILL be portrayed as guilty. No matter what happens.

Our owners have to be good in that moment, they have to own or set the headlines, narrative.
 
jockblue said:
Honestly can't recall, but was one of the charges that we hadn't disclosed the Al Jazeera contract to the PL, and therefore broke their rules?
Click to expand...
I’m 99.9% certain that there was nothing in the rules about disclosing such a contract at that point in time

Much like there wasn’t with Ferguson’s gift of the Rock of Gibraltar

The Mancini contract is an absolute nothing of a charge imo
 
Maly said:
I’m 99.9% certain that there was nothing in the rules about disclosing such a contract at that point in time

Much like there wasn’t with Ferguson’s gift of the Rock of Gibraltar

The Mancini contract is an absolute nothing of a charge imo
Click to expand...
I was just going to post the same myself, although that's no guarantee we're correct :(
 
jockblue said:
Honestly can't recall, but was one of the charges that we hadn't disclosed the Al Jazeera contract to the PL, and therefore broke their rules?

My concern is that, a bit like the huge fines for being 1 minute late out for the second half, we'll be pulled up for minor administrative issues whilst being cleared of the main thrust of the charges, and be subject to excessive punishment for those minor indiscretions. It gives the PL a get out for the whole exercise, and leaves City with the unenviable task of persuading Delaney that we were innocent after all....
Click to expand...
Must be a concern I admit though unfair or extreme punishment can be appealed against as far as my understanding goes.
 
Maly said:
You forget the £13m team…..the most expensive ever built at the time (88/89). Obviously preceding the floatation

That £13m the spent in 2 seasons which I think was (can’t remember exactly how much) over 80% of their turnover for those 2 years

Pretty much all borrowed from the bank if memory serves

The further organic injection of cash did indeed come from floating, which circumnavigated the rules at the time

They got more organic cash from 1992 onwards with the deal they struck with Arse, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs & the Prem. Obviously an organic influence & increase in revenue

Then the G14 decided they wanted another organic decision on how to widen the gap between themselves & the rest with CL top 3 (then 4)

So that’s 4 examples of how to grow organically without even mentioning the abolishment of sharing gate receipts in the 80’s
Click to expand...
Wonder if their fruit is organic https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...atest-cost-cutting-sir-jim-ratcliffe-football

They really are fucked aren’t they? And it’s fucking glorious.
 
Maly said:
I’m 99.9% certain that there was nothing in the rules about disclosing such a contract at that point in time

Much like there wasn’t with Ferguson’s gift of the Rock of Gibraltar

The Mancini contract is an absolute nothing of a charge imo
Click to expand...
And it pre-dated PL FFP rules by at least three years. The biggest crock of shite ever. It really smacks of desperation by the PL leadership.
 
M18CTID said:
Spot on. They’ll have both outcomes covered for sure.

Much more significant is what Ornstein said. He’s well connected and if City have told him we’re confident at such a late stage in the process then that could indicate that the club know the outcome.
Click to expand...

The counter argument to this of course, is that the club are simply posturing and what they do now is for PR preparation on how they handle a potential negative verdict.

To be clear it's not my argument, just the one I've seen touted regularly in response to our obvious show of confidence. A big publicity stunt, our detractors would have us believe.

Let's hope we don't have to wait too much longer. Wasn't it once mooted that the earlier the verdict announcement, the likelier we have achieved a favourable outcome?
 
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