PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jimharri said:
Even if I had fuck all to do, that would not be my idea of a fun way to pass the time! And if only factual posts, rather than conjecture or guesswork nonsense, or stuff like "my sister's boyfriend's milkman's hairdresser's postman has an ITK know friend and he swears blind yada yada yada", you'd get it down to 3 or 4 pages.
Click to expand...
What did your sister’s boyfriend’s milkman’s hairdresser’s postman actually say? Come on, we need to know …
 
Maybe the guy awaiting united winning 5 on the trot is in charge of releasing the verdict, which will be just after his visit to the barbers.
 
jockblue said:
This was a point that Kieren Maguire made the other week on The Price of Football. For clubs like Brighton, where there is no benefit if we lost all 115 or won all 115, they will wonder why they are having to shell out a seven figure sum when it doesn't impact them.

As an aside, and this may have been discussed before, but we know the PL's costs are shared by its members - what about the clubs like, say, DirtyLeeds, who weren't even in the PL when our "crimes" were said to have been committed. What about teams like Watford or Leicester who were, but are now not part of the league...
Click to expand...

I suspect normal costs are being paid on a monthly basis and so are spread over the teams who are in the league in each of the years, as they are paid.

There would likely be a up front payment which will have been funded out of the PL's reserves, I suppose. Where clubs may have a shock is when each of them ends up paying their share of City's costs. I hope they are accruing for it :)

Anyway, screw Brighton. They were the club that started the ball rolling on APT when they sent their email saying the Gulf states needed to be stopped. And then weaseled out of it in the tribunal saying that isn't what they meant, even though they said exactly that. The cunts should have to pay twice as much as the others. Tell Maguire to choose a better example next time. The tosser :)
 
crystal_mais said:
Although I agree there are some members who have greater influence and there have been moves against City by said clubs. If we did have full irrefutable evidence to counter the claims, I'm not sure the process would have taken the full 12 weeks and we would be waiting this long for a verdict. My personal opinion is there is some sensitivity here that may have implications hence they are taking this long. Whether thats on City or the PL, I've no idea. I also am in the camp that City have no clue as to the verdict as per Pannicks email etc.

Those emails that were published post the UEFA charges, if taken in isolation are quite damning and I was told they were genuine emails. I had a chat with someone back in June who is still in contact with people at City after leaving a senior post there last year, he said the legal team were quietly confident and all will hopefully be good. Although I'd expect City to say that to everyone.

You and I have worked across similar industries in large corporations, we both know how they like to spin things when things maybe dicey. Do I fully believe every press release and everything that comes out of the chairman's mouth, "No".

I know you have contacts at City and you are closer to the stuff going on, so I hope everything that you suggest is true. I'm optimistic most days but am also pessimistic too
Click to expand...
The whole point of the emails published by Der Spiegel was that they were deliberately taken out of context to appear far more damning than the bigger picture actually was. I said at the time that they posed what apparently were very awkward questions but we needed to see the full email chain to know the truth. And when CAS saw the full evidence they dismissed the substance of the sponsorship charges.

And you're quite right about the organisations we've worked for spinning things. A previous employer blew tens of millions on a failed (badly failed) attempt to build a new computer system. In the annual report for the period that covered the cancellation of that project there was no mention of this whatsoever. Fortunately they're privately owned but had they been a publicly quoted company, with the amount involved being material, that would have been tantamount to misrepresentation.

I believe the CEO paid with his job but that was spun as well.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The whole point of the emails published by Der Spiegel was that they were deliberately taken out of context to appear far more damning than the bigger picture actually was. I said at the time that they posed what apparently were very awkward questions but we needed to see the full email chain to know the truth. And when CAS saw the full evidence they dismissed the substance of the sponsorship charges.

And you're quite right about the organisations we've worked for spinning things. A previous employer blew tens of millions on a failed (badly failed) attempt to build a new computer system. In the annual report for the period that covered the cancellation of that project there was no mention of this whatsoever. Fortunately they're privately owned but had they been a publicly quoted company, with the amount involved being material, that would have been tantamount to misrepresentation.

I believe the CEO paid with his job but that was spun as well.
Click to expand...
And I'm hopeful this will be the case again. I'm sure I read more emails came out after CAS which UEFA did not have access to. The common sense in me say they would have proved it all at CAS and this should have been a "Look this is the evidence again" -

The other in my head says "why go through all the same shit again at a cost of £50m" there must of been some minor element of risk.

We're going round in circles on semantics. Lets wait until the damn thing is released. Anyway hope you're well an enjoying all the AI stuff - mind blowing and scary at at the same time.
 
citizen_maine said:
My understanding is that the costs are deducted from the pot available for distribution to the clubs in any particular year. So, it will depend when the PL gets/got the bill(s) from their legal team, and when the award is finally made
Click to expand...
So, in that logic, we get penalised because we are part of that pot that pays for the PL idiocy?

My head is spinning now :-)
 
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