PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

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

I’m really not.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

It's most likely both, I think.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Ill do neither and tbh mate if you have been here that long then you should absolutely know that an assertion such as the one you made with zero context to it is obviously going to create melodrama anyone whos been here ten mins would know that.

I don’t give a shit about a bit of online melodrama mate - I’ll have forgotten all about it in about an hour.

Whereas if I’d given any further detail which I felt could compromise me, I’d probably be worried about it all night!

Anyway, this is (I’m hoping) my last post on this, as I’m sure we’re all bored of it now - but just to be clear:

I’m not saying the people I spoke to told me they’d read the detail of the case, or that they’d heard the final judgement.

This didn't give me the impression of being based on anything more detailed than a corporate position of confidence in their position.

It’s interesting (to me) because it suggests the PL hasn’t heard anything recently which indicates City are in the clear, or have won on the substantive points of the case - which has been suggested by others on here.

That’s all.

People trying to argue the finer points of why the PL or City would or wouldn’t have struck a deal at various stages of the process, and therefore whether this information is likely to be correct based on those positions are missing the point.

 

[manimanc]

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.

Hey pal you don't need to apologise, it was a yes or no answer.

To be honest my head is spinning with this 115 bollocks.

The sooner it's done the better.

 

[Centurions]

Just in light of the post, I'd be interested to know if @slbsn has had any information that the club are in receipt of the verdict or otherwise? I know the last we heard was definitely not - as of last Friday PM - has anything changed with that regard?

The post doesn't indicate in any way that the award has been delivered.

 

[AshtonBlueMooner]

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.

Thanks for putting your head above the parapet. Many others wouldn’t have bothered for fear of backlash.
One observation from my reading of your posts, and we all know messages can be lost in translation, is that initially it seemed a fait accompli that these premier league representatives were without doubt of the mind that we were guilty… of the charges, with a slight inference of arrogance attached to someone who may be in the know as to how the case has progressed or even finalised.
Your latter posts seem to step away from this assertion, more in line with they are confident we had a case to answer and equally confident the charges will be proven.
Which in essence means we know nothing more today than we did yesterday.
You’ve certainly generated a few more pages of interest, fear (not me, but for some) and debate.
As my dear old grandmother used to sing to me,
‘Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be’

 

[Inter Me Nan]

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.

If it makes you feel any better I'm extremely optimistic we'll dry bum them.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.

I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of your post, but just out of interest, when you use the abbreviation PL are you referring to the Public Library?

Despite all the "Sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh - No talking!" bullshit they perpetuate about themselves, in my experience those librarians are right blabbermouths ;)

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

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.

Lynn, I’m not coming to your Baptist church.

You always kick people when they’re down.

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.

Did they know they were talking to a City fan?

 

[Kakhaber The Great]

I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.

 

[CTID1988]

Is there a date set for when this is all sorted and we get a verdict?

 

[MeatnSpudsMCFC]

Is there a date set for when this is all sorted and we get a verdict?

Oh mate.

 

[Centurions]

Oh mate.

I'd post an Osmonds video but couldn't be arsed looking for it.

Edit: sod it, some posters just deserve it ;)

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

I'm calling bullshit on the story.

Not one paper has leaked this supposed bullish feeling from the premier league pricks, there would be more leaks than a broken sieve if this was true from the usual city haters in the press.

Sorry Nicholas my pedigree chum, it is rubbish.

Mate, all he's said is that he was in the company of some people and that the conversation included (however briefly) a discussion about their thoughts on "the City case".

He's told us what they said.

It's not a press release from the PL, it's a chat with people that he knows in some capacity or other.

Their opinion might well be rubbish but I imagine the events are probably true.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Thanks for putting your head above the parapet. Many others wouldn’t have bothered for fear of backlash.
One observation from my reading of your posts, and we all know messages can be lost in translation, is that initially it seemed a fait accompli that these premier league representatives were without doubt of the mind that we were guilty… of the charges, with a slight inference of arrogance attached to someone who may be in the know as to how the case has progressed or even finalised.
Your latter posts seem to step away from this assertion, more in line with they are confident we had a case to answer and equally confident the charges will be proven.
Which in essence means we know nothing more today than we did yesterday.
You’ve certainly generated a few more pages of interest, fear (not me, but for some) and debate.
As my dear old grandmother used to sing to me,
‘Que sera, sera, whatever will be, will be’

Thanks mate.

Reading back - what I said was that they were confident, bullish, and dismissed City’s position as lacking credibility.

That’s still what I’m saying now.

I never claimed this was presented as being based on an informed view of the final judgement from the panel - quite the contrary.

My opinion, as I set out in my first post, was that this would instead more than likely indicate the ruling wasn’t in yet - as has been suggested on several occasions.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

The post doesn't indicate in any way that the award has been delivered.

I know it doesn't and I never suggested it did. I just think it might be helpful, if Stefan has had any (very) recent update (as in since Friday PM) - because it would hint towards the information on the original post by NVW being about Bravado and bullishness by the PL figures mentioned and not something more of concern.

 

[Stoned Rose]

But if he posted he heard that they're not confident (the PL) it would be a "soft signal" and everyone becoming ecstatic over it?

It has to work both ways, Shirley?

If he did that, you know as well as me, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence would ask all the same questions and consider him to be wumming if he was unwilling to back it up.

 

[Cobwebcat]

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.

That’s what I thought.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

A couple of PL exec's don't know the result but are publicly confident about their position.

I'm shocked..

I'm less shocked that a few have got their knickers in a twist about absolutely nothing though.