City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with numerous FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th September 2024

NotChatGPT said:
Imo i'm a bit surprised there isn't specific rules that would allow the PL to hand down rather harsh punishments just for refusing to provide the documentation within a certain amount of time.
Click to expand...

This. There should be a rule that failing to provide documentation receives an automatic punishment. It's like not complying with an audit, you just don't do it and if you deliberately fail in some regard then there are consequences. It's actually amazing the PL have never basically come out and said this, unless something specific in the PL membership terms and conditions/rules specifically states you don't have to comply with requests for information, or doesn't adequately state you should.
 
I can't see How City would get a fine while Everton and Forest were deducted points for far less than City's blatant money laundering. Athough there does seem to be one rule for the bitters and another for everyone else. I just read that City were about to sign Christian McFarlane from NYCFC (A team owned by City) while United were refused permission to sign Jean Clair Todibo as SJR has a stake in Nice. One rule for bitters and another for everyone else. Money talks!
 
grahamo said:
I can't see How City would get a fine while Everton and Forest were deducted points for far less than City's blatant money laundering. Athough there does seem to be one rule for the bitters and another for everyone else. I just read that City were about to sign Christian McFarlane from NYCFC (A team owned by City) while United were refused permission to sign Jean Clair Todibo as SJR has a stake in Nice. One rule for bitters and another for everyone else. Money talks!
Click to expand...
No, we were forbade due to the fact we play in the same competition - City have been clever that they register players at the clubs outside of their competitions if they have an interest so they can circumvent that rule
 
AngeloHenriquez said:
No, we were forbade due to the fact we play in the same competition - City have been clever that they register players at the clubs outside of their competitions if they have an interest so they can circumvent that rule
Click to expand...
Yeah. If Lausanne had signed Todibo and loaned him to Nice, we would have been fine.
 
I can see the longer this rumbles on, the more likely it will be the case that it quietly goes away.

It's hard to believe they are still allowed to compete while facing so many charges, they have the means to keep this tied up in legal confusion for as long as they like.

It's odd that the PL haven't said the hearing is set for a certain time, the only reason for that, I imagine is they are hoping to come to a compromise.

If the average person was charged with an offence they would be a given a date when it would be heard in court.
 
I have noticed that they are all flipping out over on Bluemoon about the plans for our new stadium. Saying how outraged they are that the Government are funding it.

THE GOVERNMENT AREN'T FUNDING A NEW STADIUM

We need the government onside to speed up the planning process, and to upgrade the local transport links, namely a train station for Gorse hill. This would serve the whole community. As the train doesn't currently stop there. The road network may also need to change to accommodate 100,000 fans.

MUFC have also opened up the opportunity of building new homes on the existing site, which would bring a 24/7 economy to an area that is mostly quiet on non match days. It is going to be a multi-development site, in partnership with investors, sponsors, retailers, property developers and the local council. It will provide homes and jobs for thousands.
 
Lay said:
They'll get away with it. It will hit the EPL brand hard if the last decade has been pointless.
Click to expand...
But if they get away with it, that is the definition of the PL past, present and future becoming pointless. Its literally saying that clubs can cheat the rules without consequence, so why even have a competition at all?
 
Wheato said:
I have noticed that they are all flipping out over on Bluemoon about the plans for our new stadium. Saying how outraged they are that the Government are funding it.

THE GOVERNMENT AREN'T FUNDING A NEW STADIUM

We need the government onside to speed up the planning process, and to upgrade the local transport links, namely a train station for Gorse hill. This would serve the whole community. As the train doesn't currently stop there. The road network may also need to change to accommodate 100,000 fans.

MUFC have also opened up the opportunity of building new homes on the existing site, which would bring a 24/7 economy to an area that is mostly quiet on non match days. It is going to be a multi-development site, in partnership with investors, sponsors, retailers, property developers and the local council. It will provide homes and jobs for thousands.
Click to expand...

They have a point. It's not fair. The only proper thing to do is wait for a stadium to be built and for it to be gifted to us.
 
I think City will get a severe punishment in concordance with whatever ramifications the league impose legally. The main issue isn't the conduct itself from City but more the implication of what a light punishment means for the long-term integrity of the competition.

There are multiple high value owners in the league including the likes of Newcastle, Chelsea, Villa, Fulham etc and if there's little to no serious ramifications for City why should other clubs adhere to the rules if the impetus to breaking them is dealt with little rebuttal?
 
padzilla said:
I can see the longer this rumbles on, the more likely it will be the case that it quietly goes away.

It's hard to believe they are still allowed to compete while facing so many charges, they have the means to keep this tied up in legal confusion for as long as they like.

It's odd that the PL haven't said the hearing is set for a certain time, the only reason for that, I imagine is they are hoping to come to a compromise.

If the average person was charged with an offence they would be a given a date when it would be heard in court.
Click to expand...
From the BBC:

There have been reports a hearing date is in place for the autumn of 2024, with the same reports suggesting a decision by the summer of 2025 – still more than a year away. City have neither confirmed nor denied this. However, the case will be detailed and the arguments multi-faceted.
Click to expand...

We've got a long while to rumble on yet.
 
grahamo said:
I can't see How City would get a fine while Everton and Forest were deducted points for far less than City's blatant money laundering. Athough there does seem to be one rule for the bitters and another for everyone else. I just read that City were about to sign Christian McFarlane from NYCFC (A team owned by City) while United were refused permission to sign Jean Clair Todibo as SJR has a stake in Nice. One rule for bitters and another for everyone else. Money talks!
Click to expand...
Do NYCFC play in the Europa/Champions League also? Because that's why we weren't allowed to sign Todibo.
 
Dave Smith said:
Why do people keep saying The FA?

City aren't being tried by The FA. They're being tried by the PL whose rules are made up by the clubs who are the 20 shareholders of the PL. It is also the reason why City have ran scared of this one.

Firstly, City have done their best to limit the discussion of the case in the press - which is the real reason why it has not had as much coverage as people would expect - and they've got so desperate they've even asked for 'legal hearings with the PL'. Anyone remember this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...against-premier-league-over-sponsorship-rules

Well since that finished the PL has republished it's rules a few days ago with zero changes, so the liklihood is that City's legal argument did not win.

That argument was also never likely to win if people actually understood how the PL operates.

Unlike The FA - a non-for- profit organisation - the PL is a purely capitalist organisation that is run in a 'membership club format' (think golf club.) Unlike The FA, which has a very ingrained old boys club set up, with close ties to the Government/monarchy. The PL is purely about the self interest of the member clubs. So, unlike the FA who can be influenced/pressured politically the PL only really gets influenced by status and money. Or put another way, do you think the likes of the Glazers, Henry, PIF, Clearlake and Korenke are going to care more about foreign investment into the UK or increasing the value of their asset/status by having a more successful PL club (which will happen if they kill off City)? I know what I believe.

This is also before we even get to the fact the PL actually went ahead and charged City when they could've easily have brushed it under the carpet after the UEFA case imploded and how moronic they're going to look if City get off lightly.

For me, the only way City get out of a serious punishment is if they cam find a real and legitimate legal technicality that isn't some colloquial football one. Could that happen, for sure. However, it isn't going to be some timed barred sh*t this time.
Click to expand...

And that's why the lads that took over Newcastle sent to few texts to Boris, who got his mates on the case and suddenly all the concerns about Saudi Arabia owning a football team disappeared.
 
Sassy Colin said:
The whole Todibo thing could have been easily circumvented by UEFA forbidding him to play in the Europa League.

We would have still had him for English competitions, just not for Europe.

It's a load of bollocks.
Click to expand...

They’d argue you’re still weakening a rival club in the competition by taking one of their starting CB’s, even if he isn’t able to play.
 
Sassy Colin said:
But they are selling him to someone else anyway, so that's a non arguement too.
Click to expand...

The difference being the other clubs that may sign him aren’t owned by the same person and may not be in the same European competition. I agree the whole thing is bollocks but that’s UEFA’s fecked up rules for you.
 
If they are found guilty, will the others leagues feel pressured to investigate other CFG clubs? Any indication that they could have benefited?
 
Oranges038 said:
And that's why the lads that took over Newcastle sent to few texts to Boris, who got his mates on the case and suddenly all the concerns about Saudi Arabia owning a football team disappeared.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
I thought it was the referee’s job to stop and start the game. Does he have to wait until both teams have 11 players on the pitch before he does so?
 
that's pretty harsh in isolation

PL probably just had enough of city messing them about at this point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.