PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

If I had some inside information on the case I’d keep it to myself. Really not worth the interrogation or hassle.

 

[cheekybids]

So we just end back in court on essentially the same charge year after year? Yea that makes sense for both parties!

Well you’ve taken the view that City lost the first year of charges & I believe City could have defended it.

It’s quite simple you charge City for the first year & most serious charges. You win quickly & then having proved your case either follow it up with the subsequent years which would likely be settled as you’ve already proved your case.

I know you like to be a contrarian but if you seriously think charging City over 130 times over a 9 year period at great delay & expense rather than establishing guilt first then you could work for the premier league. I seem to remember you work for bookies, how would they minimise their risk? Prosecutors use odds also.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

tbf dave what has he backed up? Im not trying to get at nicholas but what he has said doesnt amount to anything as i keep on saying if the daily mail or sun said the same thing everybody would laugh at such nonsense, without context to the claim its just more noise. I could say exactly the opposite as like yourself im privvy to pieces of information every now and again but without context it means nothing.

I'm just saying that he's stated his info and stuck around to face the music. He's under no duty to provide further information, just like everyone else who posts on here.

 

[pgransden]

Long time lurker! The bit that stands out is the argument our position has no credibility… apart from a CAS ruling that says we did not disguise owner funding as sponsorship revenue (sounds fairly credible to me!) - very odd argument even if you don’t believe we’ll win.

 

[Braggster]

tbf dave what has he backed up? Im not trying to get at nicholas but what he has said doesnt amount to anything as i keep on saying if the daily mail or sun said the same thing everybody would laugh at such nonsense, without context to the claim its just more noise. I could say exactly the opposite as like yourself im privvy to pieces of information every now and again but without context it means nothing.

It's interesting information that you can assess and take or leave as you think best.

The reaction on here is largely, if not entirely, explained by the fact that it's not what people want to hear.

As for me, I'd say it's mildly concerning. But the reality of these charges (and the facts as we know them) has always been that the case against the club is concerning, with a realistic prospect of the club being found to have breached on the more serious charges. Is that a 20/30/50/70% likelihood? I've no idea without being privy to the evidence in full. But based on what we know, there is and always has been a case to answer.

 

[theholysmurf]

MEN put out a piece this moning about the whole case, what it means, the charges etc. Could be due to the public interest picking up with a few quoting early October, or could mean that things are starting to move quickly.

 

[mancboy]

I'm just saying that he's stated his info and stuck around to face the music. He's under no duty to provide further information, just like everyone else who posts on here.

Absolutely agree but i stick to my assertion that he hasnt said anything at all really.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

I have a question, did they buy you a pint?

No - the ungrateful bastards!!

It’s not like they can’t afford it!!

 

[halfcenturyup]

Of course your firmly believe we are innocent you're a Blue, most rags firmly believe we are guilty of the lot!
Bar whataboutery evidence not enough is in the public domain for any party to be that confident.

I don't believe the PL can't prove their allegations just because I am a City fan.

I have reviewed what we know about the detail of the allegations, I have reviewed what we know will be the likely defences to the allegations and then balanced the weight of evidence the PL would need to prove those allegations to the standard and with the level of cogency required against the club's counter-evidence.

There is just no way the PL can prove the most serious allegations without smoking gun witnesses or accounting information from Abu Dhabi. And smoking against Mansour in Abu Dhabi will seriously damage your health. Not going to happen. The less serious allegations I don't care about.

 

[mancboy]

It's interesting information that you can assess and take or leave as you think best.

The reaction on here is largely, if not entirely, explained by the fact that it's not what people want to hear.

As for me, I'd say it's mildly concerning. But the reality of these charges (and the facts as we know them) has always been that the case against the club is concerning, with a realistic prospect of the club being found to have breached on the more serious charges. Is that a 20/30/50/70% likelihood? I've no idea without being privy to the evidence in full. But based on what we know, there is and always has been a case to answer.

As i keep on saying its saying alot while saying absolutely nothing, if the daily mail said exactly the same it would be laughed at.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Can I ask you a fair question?

Where was you when you got told this? Was you part of the group talking or did you get a text saying hey guess what!

I just feel you should put some meat on the bones which could stop posters like myself asking these questions.

To put that post on you have to be ready for the barrage of questions and hopefully reply with answers that could explain.

I don't think you are wumming, I think it's nonsense that pl execs would be so flippant about something as huge as this case.

It was part of a wider conversation that a few of us were involved in - and was in person, so it wasn’t something related to me via text.

I’m not saying where it was mate - sorry.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Interesting that all of the implications appear to relate to us being found to have breached the rules

Noticed that myself. Naughty.

Some other things that spring out of that piece are that they say or imply:

• The decision will be handed down with sanctions, when Stefan has said this is unlikely to be the case, and that a separate hearing will take place place to discuss any sanctions.
• They say there is no appeal, bar in very narrow circumstances but that isn't quite the case, as we can appeal to another PL tribunal I believe.
• They say that the default position is that the findings remain confidential until disclosure is agreed by the parties (unless the tribunal decide some disclosure is in the public interest) and that full disclosure may never happen. So in theory it's possible that the outcome could be known at some stage but no one will say anything because both parties agree not to, which would imply there no sanction, or an insignificant one, has been applied, and the tribunal decide there is no public interest in disclosure. If that's the case we literally might never know.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

No - the ungrateful bastards!!

It’s not like they can’t afford it!!

Shysters!!!

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Having been in corporate litigation for 25+ years, I would be pretty surprised if the PL (or City, for that matter) wasn't being bullish about their chances of winning right up to the moment they got the decision. In most cases, you don't fight a fight like this and not become something of a true believer. And with the "political" nature of both the PL and this particular dispute, I think that's only more likely to be true.

I think the most important kernel from @Nicholas van Whatsisface is that the PL still doesn't know anything. We've been told no one will know until it actually drops, and this seems to me to be further indication of that being the case.

Exactly mate - I wasn’t suggesting it was a forensic evisceration of City’s case which indicated a closeness to the detail, nor was it presented as being the result of having seen the final judgement.

It was a general position of confidence which definitely suggested people relatively senior at the PL still don’t know the final result.

 

[citizen_maine]

Noticed that myself. Naughty.

Some other things that spring out of that piece are that they say or imply:

• The decision will be handed down with sanctions, when Stefan has said this is unlikely to be the case, and that a separate hearing will take place place to discuss any sanctions.
• They say there is no appeal, bar in very narrow circumstances but that isn't quite the case, as we can appeal to another PL tribunal I believe.
• They say that the default position is that the findings remain confidential until disclosure is agreed by the parties (unless the tribunal decide some disclosure is in the public interest) and that full disclosure may never happen. So in theory it's possible that the outcome could be known at some stage but no one will say anything because both parties agree not to, which would imply there no sanction, or an insignificant one, has been applied, and the tribunal decide there is no public interest in disclosure. If that's the case we literally might never know.

or they're wrong

 

[blueste41]

Well you’ve taken the view that City lost the first year of charges & I believe City could have defended it.

It’s quite simple you charge City for the first year & most serious charges. You win quickly & then having proved your case either follow it up with the subsequent years which would likely be settled as you’ve already proved your case.

I know you like to be a contrarian but if you seriously think charging City over 130 times over a 9 year period at great delay & expense rather than establishing guilt first then you could work for the premier league. I seem to remember you work for bookies, how would they minimise their risk? Prosecutors use odds also.

It's quite simple and yet your the first person in over a year to suggest this should have been the approach taken?

 

[Zenmanc]

It was part of a wider conversation that a few of us were involved in - and was in person, so it wasn’t something related to me via text.

I’m not saying where it was mate - sorry.

You don't have to name the bar. Was it seated at the bar itself or a high top- or standing in the bar?

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

You don't have to name the bar. Was it seated at the bar itself or a high top- or standing in the bar?

Lol!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Long time lurker! The bit that stands out is the argument our position has no credibility… apart from a CAS ruling that says we did not disguise owner funding as sponsorship revenue (sounds fairly credible to me!) - very odd argument even if you don’t believe we’ll win.

I'm guessing that the issue of disguised equity investment maybe wasn't part of the charges though. I've said all along that my suspicion is that thr main target of that group of charges was our supposed failure to declare Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsors as related parties.

That could potentially be classed as 'false accounting' as it's a legal requirement to report transactions with related parties, even though the figures reported in the accounts are accurate and give a true and fair view. But if that's the crux of the PL's case then they're even more insane than I thought they were.

 

[DJBusinesscake]

Sooooooo, we're fucked?

That was a big negative and right now I need 2 positives. Ya know, one to cancel out the negative and another just so I can have a positive.