Can someone spell out in layman's terms exactly what all this is about? I've seen acronyms like PSR, FFP and now feckin APT thrown about. I can't be arrrrsed with the detail. All I want to know is - are City fecked or not?
I think there is a bit of danger that we're looking at their recent success solely as a product of blatant cheating and it represents how football will look going forward should they succeed in their case against the Premier League. It's not. Their recent success is down to brilliant management and a superb recruitment system. Most clubs that inflate earnings and spend a fortune don't have the kind of success City have had. Just look at Chelsea. Once Pep leaves, regardless of the outcome of this case, City won't be the machine they currently are. They've both cheated AND been brilliant on the football side. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by House (U17162)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
If you consider that a large part of City's 115 charges are in fact about undisclosed payments from different parties fed through their official sponsors then a success with this case APT would immediately impact on their 115 charges case as how can they be found guilty of an offence which is now judged as being an unlawful rule.
City have never supported the APT rules and why would they because in doing so, if they lost the 115 charge case, they would be condemning themselves.
Some will say these 2 cases are not related but a win here massively increases the likelihood of a win in the parent case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would have absolutely no impact on the initial case, it’s a completely different allegation and nothing to do with the APT rules. Any journalist suggesting it is just wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it would. Why else would they sue now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the rules changes in Feb this year. Even if they’d done it three years ago, it’s still nothing to do with the other case and it can’t be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
totally disagree with you on this one.
The ATP rules came in when NUFC were bought by the Saudis, 2021. They were subsequently paused and then revised this Feb.
Any allegation against City that they have taken sponsorship money from sources linked to their ownership is completely blown away if the ruling here is that the rules restricting sponsorship from ownership linked sources is unlawful.
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it isn’t! The original charge is for providing false and misleading financial statements, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After so many years, and so many articles, I can't believe people still don't understand that the majority of the 115 charges are accusations of fraud. Accounts that were allegedly cooked and passed audits by world renowned organisations, and accepted by HMRC. It would also incriminate high profile people for conspiracy as they gave evidence at the CAS hearing.
Now they're conflating this with testing a PL rule with the law.
I love this place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this (the 115) was a pure legal/HMRC/criminal fraud matter then they would have been charged by a higher authority than the PL.
The 115 case is a PL hearing, so will be tried against the PL rules, not the rules of the land. If some of those PL rules are quashed this month, because they go against the rules of the land, then some of the parent case accusations will go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they won’t. None of the rules that city were charged with are being challenged and don’t have any link to the APT rules being challenged either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are indirectly linked.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I get it now. You're playing stupid in an attempt to wum.
In the wise words of Duncan Bannatyne: I'm oot.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I get it now. You're playing stupid in an attempt to wum.
In the wise words of Duncan Bannatyne: I'm oot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a bit of a hissy fit....i would have chosen Deborah Meaden's offer anyway
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I get it now. You're playing stupid in an attempt to wum.
In the wise words of Duncan Bannatyne: I'm oot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a bit of a hissy fit....i would have chosen Deborah Meaden's offer anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha.... That was a hissy fit?
Sorry that I have upset you. I wasn't aware you're such a sensitive guy.
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so you missed the rewording of your original quote. I know that it was very subtle, but should have been noticeable for someone who isn't playing stupid.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by House (U17162)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
If you consider that a large part of City's 115 charges are in fact about undisclosed payments from different parties fed through their official sponsors then a success with this case APT would immediately impact on their 115 charges case as how can they be found guilty of an offence which is now judged as being an unlawful rule.
City have never supported the APT rules and why would they because in doing so, if they lost the 115 charge case, they would be condemning themselves.
Some will say these 2 cases are not related but a win here massively increases the likelihood of a win in the parent case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would have absolutely no impact on the initial case, it’s a completely different allegation and nothing to do with the APT rules. Any journalist suggesting it is just wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it would. Why else would they sue now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the rules changes in Feb this year. Even if they’d done it three years ago, it’s still nothing to do with the other case and it can’t be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
totally disagree with you on this one.
The ATP rules came in when NUFC were bought by the Saudis, 2021. They were subsequently paused and then revised this Feb.
Any allegation against City that they have taken sponsorship money from sources linked to their ownership is completely blown away if the ruling here is that the rules restricting sponsorship from ownership linked sources is unlawful.
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it isn’t! The original charge is for providing false and misleading financial statements, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After so many years, and so many articles, I can't believe people still don't understand that the majority of the 115 charges are accusations of fraud. Accounts that were allegedly cooked and passed audits by world renowned organisations, and accepted by HMRC. It would also incriminate high profile people for conspiracy as they gave evidence at the CAS hearing.
Now they're conflating this with testing a PL rule with the law.
I love this place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this (the 115) was a pure legal/HMRC/criminal fraud matter then they would have been charged by a higher authority than the PL.
The 115 case is a PL hearing, so will be tried against the PL rules, not the rules of the land. If some of those PL rules are quashed this month, because they go against the rules of the land, then some of the parent case accusations will go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they won’t. None of the rules that city were charged with are being challenged and don’t have any link to the APT rules being challenged either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are indirectly linked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they aren’t, there’s no link at all, they’re just concerning the same parties. Associated parties is a term the PL has created themselves.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a sensitive guy.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7zU30xHrSaiQO6prfj51G1
Good listen at the start of that that covers all the main points, interesting to hear a football finance experts take who’s read the full submission and how much it differs from the journalists take on it…
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 minutes ago
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7zU30xHrSaiQO6prfj51G1
Good listen at the start of that that covers all the main points, interesting to hear a football finance experts take who’s read the full submission and how much it differs from the journalists take on it…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
same link on a different platform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2BkW__woUk
Thanks melton.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stomped off.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stomped off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was in a right mardy strop when I doffed off my hat and waved Devonsplodge toodle-oo!
Greavesie...I have tried in the past to understand the FPR and failed miserably. It always seemed to me that there was a law suit to challenge it somewhere.
Now it seems Man City have decided to do it.
The only winners will be the lawyers!
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stomped off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was in a right mardy strop when I doffed off my hat and waved Devonsplodge toodle-oo!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's made his mind up and anyone who disagrees with him is apparently brainwashed.
Statements like 'We haven't heard the evidence yet' or 'Let's wait until the hearing begins' are merely brushed aside because he knows more than anyone else.
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Greavesie...I have tried in the past to understand the FPR and failed miserably. It always seemed to me that there was a law suit to challenge it somewhere.
Now it seems Man City have decided to do it.
The only winners will be the lawyers!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The governance at the PL is an absolute mess. Rules comes in ad hoc whenever and however, even when the season is in-flight. I wouldn't be surprised that Richard Masters will become the scapegoat when all this comes to a conclusion.
You are correct when you say that the only winners are the lawyers.
The lack of foresight from the PL is dreadful considering they govern a multi-billion pound industry.
They seem to be utterly conflicted with 1. making more and more money and 2. doing what is good for the game/PL as a whole.
They react to scenarios such as the Saudi's buying NUFC rather than being proactive, seeing the potential issues and agreeing new rules.
There will be no doubt that the likes of Levy will have been lobbying the PL hard about the risks of state and state-linked ownership, and it's not as if we haven't already seen it with City, yet their response to NUFC is reactionary, it then gets paused and then it gets revised mid season (Feb 2024).
To me they turned a blind eye to Man City, and the risk of others doing similar things, and only react when things like the NUFC buyout gained negative press on Saudi human rights. That's why i would not be surprised if the 115 charges are a reaction to the threat of independent regulation, because they couldnt' turn a blind eye any more to the accusations and perceptions against City without having first investigated and gone through a proper process (that one would expect of in an inde. reg). I see it as no coincidence that with the threat of independent regulation, suddenly in the last 12/18 months FFP/PSR is being enforced and teams are being docked points.
The NUFC Saudi owners gave unequivocal statements that there was no link between their ownership and the State and since then one of their owners has claimed diplomatic immunity in respect of the LIV golf case in the US on the basis that as a member of the Govt they cannot be summonsed , which basically contradicts their statement to the PL that there were no ties with the State - where's the investigation into this arrangement?
I agree. The PL are a shambles and to me suffer from the same issue that FIFA and UEFA execs all suffer from, and that is to prioritise making more money over everything else , with little concern about the sources of that money, or any human or environmental consequences. Greedy, self serving bastads, basically!
I’m personally glad that ADUG’s takeover has turned everyone into unqualified Human Rights lawyers, and Chartered Accountants.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 46 minutes ago
I’m personally glad that ADUG’s takeover has turned everyone into unqualified Human Rights lawyers, and Chartered Accountants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic as none of us are professional footballers, or qualified football coaches, or football club owners, we cannot hold any sort of opinion on football whatsoever
You continue to bury your head in the Qatari sand
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 46 minutes ago
I’m personally glad that ADUG’s takeover has turned everyone into unqualified Human Rights lawyers, and Chartered Accountants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic as none of us are professional footballers, or qualified football coaches, or football club owners, we cannot hold any sort of opinion on football whatsoever
You continue to bury your head in the Qatari sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Qatari Sand’ 😹
This is the uninformed tripe we have to put up with days
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is the uninformed tripe we have to put up with days
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd defend City if they did a half time execution of homosexuals.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is the uninformed tripe we have to put up with days
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd defend City if they did a half time execution of homosexuals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Qatar and the UAE are the same place you massive clown
Sign in if you want to comment
Is this the end
Page 4 of 5
posted on 6/6/24
Can someone spell out in layman's terms exactly what all this is about? I've seen acronyms like PSR, FFP and now feckin APT thrown about. I can't be arrrrsed with the detail. All I want to know is - are City fecked or not?
I think there is a bit of danger that we're looking at their recent success solely as a product of blatant cheating and it represents how football will look going forward should they succeed in their case against the Premier League. It's not. Their recent success is down to brilliant management and a superb recruitment system. Most clubs that inflate earnings and spend a fortune don't have the kind of success City have had. Just look at Chelsea. Once Pep leaves, regardless of the outcome of this case, City won't be the machine they currently are. They've both cheated AND been brilliant on the football side. Both of those things can be true at the same time.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by House (U17162)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
If you consider that a large part of City's 115 charges are in fact about undisclosed payments from different parties fed through their official sponsors then a success with this case APT would immediately impact on their 115 charges case as how can they be found guilty of an offence which is now judged as being an unlawful rule.
City have never supported the APT rules and why would they because in doing so, if they lost the 115 charge case, they would be condemning themselves.
Some will say these 2 cases are not related but a win here massively increases the likelihood of a win in the parent case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would have absolutely no impact on the initial case, it’s a completely different allegation and nothing to do with the APT rules. Any journalist suggesting it is just wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it would. Why else would they sue now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the rules changes in Feb this year. Even if they’d done it three years ago, it’s still nothing to do with the other case and it can’t be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
totally disagree with you on this one.
The ATP rules came in when NUFC were bought by the Saudis, 2021. They were subsequently paused and then revised this Feb.
Any allegation against City that they have taken sponsorship money from sources linked to their ownership is completely blown away if the ruling here is that the rules restricting sponsorship from ownership linked sources is unlawful.
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it isn’t! The original charge is for providing false and misleading financial statements, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After so many years, and so many articles, I can't believe people still don't understand that the majority of the 115 charges are accusations of fraud. Accounts that were allegedly cooked and passed audits by world renowned organisations, and accepted by HMRC. It would also incriminate high profile people for conspiracy as they gave evidence at the CAS hearing.
Now they're conflating this with testing a PL rule with the law.
I love this place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this (the 115) was a pure legal/HMRC/criminal fraud matter then they would have been charged by a higher authority than the PL.
The 115 case is a PL hearing, so will be tried against the PL rules, not the rules of the land. If some of those PL rules are quashed this month, because they go against the rules of the land, then some of the parent case accusations will go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they won’t. None of the rules that city were charged with are being challenged and don’t have any link to the APT rules being challenged either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are indirectly linked.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
posted on 6/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I get it now. You're playing stupid in an attempt to wum.
In the wise words of Duncan Bannatyne: I'm oot.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I get it now. You're playing stupid in an attempt to wum.
In the wise words of Duncan Bannatyne: I'm oot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a bit of a hissy fit....i would have chosen Deborah Meaden's offer anyway
posted on 6/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 44 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 7 minutes ago
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where you're going with this. The CAS hearing made a ruling on this. Or are you talking about something else?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CAS, it was ruled either to be time barred or that there was insufficient proof that the money came from other sources - the leaked emails were only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
I assume that the PL (115 charges) must have more of a smoking gun OR just that they have to pursue this, actually have little or no more evidence, but need to keep the threat of independent regulator off their back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on your comment: I have insufficient proof that you're playing stupid to wum. Your posts here are only evidence of intent but not actual evidence of the deed.
Your assumption that the PL are continuing to press the 115 charges to get the independent regulators off their back is damning if true. Manchester City are currently being accused of exploding the PL legal fees where, if your assumption is true, it is the other way around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was cryptic !!
Are you serious or just another blinkered Boris with a couple more IQ points?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, I get it now. You're playing stupid in an attempt to wum.
In the wise words of Duncan Bannatyne: I'm oot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That was a bit of a hissy fit....i would have chosen Deborah Meaden's offer anyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha.... That was a hissy fit?
Sorry that I have upset you. I wasn't aware you're such a sensitive guy.
posted on 6/6/24
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
posted on 6/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK so you missed the rewording of your original quote. I know that it was very subtle, but should have been noticeable for someone who isn't playing stupid.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
posted on 6/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by House (U17162)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 6 minutes ago
If you consider that a large part of City's 115 charges are in fact about undisclosed payments from different parties fed through their official sponsors then a success with this case APT would immediately impact on their 115 charges case as how can they be found guilty of an offence which is now judged as being an unlawful rule.
City have never supported the APT rules and why would they because in doing so, if they lost the 115 charge case, they would be condemning themselves.
Some will say these 2 cases are not related but a win here massively increases the likelihood of a win in the parent case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would have absolutely no impact on the initial case, it’s a completely different allegation and nothing to do with the APT rules. Any journalist suggesting it is just wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it would. Why else would they sue now?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the rules changes in Feb this year. Even if they’d done it three years ago, it’s still nothing to do with the other case and it can’t be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
totally disagree with you on this one.
The ATP rules came in when NUFC were bought by the Saudis, 2021. They were subsequently paused and then revised this Feb.
Any allegation against City that they have taken sponsorship money from sources linked to their ownership is completely blown away if the ruling here is that the rules restricting sponsorship from ownership linked sources is unlawful.
Its then a case of "so what if the money didnt come from Etihad and actually came from ADUG"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it isn’t! The original charge is for providing false and misleading financial statements, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the APT rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After so many years, and so many articles, I can't believe people still don't understand that the majority of the 115 charges are accusations of fraud. Accounts that were allegedly cooked and passed audits by world renowned organisations, and accepted by HMRC. It would also incriminate high profile people for conspiracy as they gave evidence at the CAS hearing.
Now they're conflating this with testing a PL rule with the law.
I love this place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this (the 115) was a pure legal/HMRC/criminal fraud matter then they would have been charged by a higher authority than the PL.
The 115 case is a PL hearing, so will be tried against the PL rules, not the rules of the land. If some of those PL rules are quashed this month, because they go against the rules of the land, then some of the parent case accusations will go away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they won’t. None of the rules that city were charged with are being challenged and don’t have any link to the APT rules being challenged either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are indirectly linked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they aren’t, there’s no link at all, they’re just concerning the same parties. Associated parties is a term the PL has created themselves.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's a sensitive guy.
posted on 6/6/24
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7zU30xHrSaiQO6prfj51G1
Good listen at the start of that that covers all the main points, interesting to hear a football finance experts take who’s read the full submission and how much it differs from the journalists take on it…
posted on 6/6/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 minutes ago
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7zU30xHrSaiQO6prfj51G1
Good listen at the start of that that covers all the main points, interesting to hear a football finance experts take who’s read the full submission and how much it differs from the journalists take on it…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
same link on a different platform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2BkW__woUk
Thanks melton.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stomped off.
posted on 6/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stomped off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was in a right mardy strop when I doffed off my hat and waved Devonsplodge toodle-oo!
posted on 7/6/24
Greavesie...I have tried in the past to understand the FPR and failed miserably. It always seemed to me that there was a law suit to challenge it somewhere.
Now it seems Man City have decided to do it.
The only winners will be the lawyers!
posted on 7/6/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 11 hours, 33 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
not sensitive at all actually otherwise i would have left here years ago.
Just wondering why in an exchange of views you start asking whether im stupid or wumming (not much of a choice) I ask you if you are brainwashed like Boris or serious and you call me a wum and stomp off.
I'd say the one who stomped off is the sensitive one, and that weren't me. Although i note you came back anyway. Bannatyne would be outraged with how quickly you reneged on your "I'm oot"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if he is replying to you he cant have stomped off ??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stomped off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was in a right mardy strop when I doffed off my hat and waved Devonsplodge toodle-oo!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's made his mind up and anyone who disagrees with him is apparently brainwashed.
Statements like 'We haven't heard the evidence yet' or 'Let's wait until the hearing begins' are merely brushed aside because he knows more than anyone else.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
Greavesie...I have tried in the past to understand the FPR and failed miserably. It always seemed to me that there was a law suit to challenge it somewhere.
Now it seems Man City have decided to do it.
The only winners will be the lawyers!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The governance at the PL is an absolute mess. Rules comes in ad hoc whenever and however, even when the season is in-flight. I wouldn't be surprised that Richard Masters will become the scapegoat when all this comes to a conclusion.
You are correct when you say that the only winners are the lawyers.
posted on 7/6/24
The lack of foresight from the PL is dreadful considering they govern a multi-billion pound industry.
They seem to be utterly conflicted with 1. making more and more money and 2. doing what is good for the game/PL as a whole.
They react to scenarios such as the Saudi's buying NUFC rather than being proactive, seeing the potential issues and agreeing new rules.
There will be no doubt that the likes of Levy will have been lobbying the PL hard about the risks of state and state-linked ownership, and it's not as if we haven't already seen it with City, yet their response to NUFC is reactionary, it then gets paused and then it gets revised mid season (Feb 2024).
To me they turned a blind eye to Man City, and the risk of others doing similar things, and only react when things like the NUFC buyout gained negative press on Saudi human rights. That's why i would not be surprised if the 115 charges are a reaction to the threat of independent regulation, because they couldnt' turn a blind eye any more to the accusations and perceptions against City without having first investigated and gone through a proper process (that one would expect of in an inde. reg). I see it as no coincidence that with the threat of independent regulation, suddenly in the last 12/18 months FFP/PSR is being enforced and teams are being docked points.
The NUFC Saudi owners gave unequivocal statements that there was no link between their ownership and the State and since then one of their owners has claimed diplomatic immunity in respect of the LIV golf case in the US on the basis that as a member of the Govt they cannot be summonsed , which basically contradicts their statement to the PL that there were no ties with the State - where's the investigation into this arrangement?
I agree. The PL are a shambles and to me suffer from the same issue that FIFA and UEFA execs all suffer from, and that is to prioritise making more money over everything else , with little concern about the sources of that money, or any human or environmental consequences. Greedy, self serving bastads, basically!
posted on 7/6/24
I’m personally glad that ADUG’s takeover has turned everyone into unqualified Human Rights lawyers, and Chartered Accountants.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 46 minutes ago
I’m personally glad that ADUG’s takeover has turned everyone into unqualified Human Rights lawyers, and Chartered Accountants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic as none of us are professional footballers, or qualified football coaches, or football club owners, we cannot hold any sort of opinion on football whatsoever
You continue to bury your head in the Qatari sand
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 46 minutes ago
I’m personally glad that ADUG’s takeover has turned everyone into unqualified Human Rights lawyers, and Chartered Accountants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By that logic as none of us are professional footballers, or qualified football coaches, or football club owners, we cannot hold any sort of opinion on football whatsoever
You continue to bury your head in the Qatari sand
----------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Qatari Sand’ 😹
posted on 7/6/24
This is the uninformed tripe we have to put up with days
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is the uninformed tripe we have to put up with days
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd defend City if they did a half time execution of homosexuals.
posted on 7/6/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
This is the uninformed tripe we have to put up with days
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd defend City if they did a half time execution of homosexuals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Qatar and the UAE are the same place you massive clown
Page 4 of 5