• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Man City - 115 Charges

FoldingStars said:
Surely they provided the evidence to the independent panel? Who still need to decide if they believe it is irrefutable, also all clubs agreed on these rules so the time taken is down to the clubs too.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the failure to comply whist signing all the top players from the league and weakening other clubs, should most certainly not be allowed to happen.

This has been going on so long that in the meantime, ahead of any possible transfer embargo, they are making sure they are stockpiled to soften any potential punishment. It's beyond the joke.
 

chunkyshanhawk53 said:
You claim to have seen the emails that proves they are 100% guilty?

I keep asking, but you don’t seem to want to provide them?

The irony of this is not lost on me el skip
Click to expand...

"In 2018, the German magazine Der Spiegel published leaked internal emails provided by whistleblower Rui Pinto through the "Football Leaks" platform. These emails appeared to show Manchester City executives discussing how to circumvent UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
Key Evidence in the Emails
Disguised Funding: One email from CFO Jorge Chumillas suggested that the owner, Sheikh Mansour, was directly funding most of the £67.5 million Etihad sponsorship, with the airline only contributing £8 million.
Backdated Contracts: Documents suggested the club backdated sponsorship deals to meet break-even requirements.
Dual Contracts: Emails hinted at secret payments to manager Roberto Mancini through a "consultancy" role with another club (Al Jazira) to lower his official City salary."
 
A Visiting Villan said:
"In 2018, the German magazine Der Spiegel published leaked internal emails provided by whistleblower Rui Pinto through the "Football Leaks" platform. These emails appeared to show Manchester City executives discussing how to circumvent UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
Key Evidence in the Emails
Disguised Funding: One email from CFO Jorge Chumillas suggested that the owner, Sheikh Mansour, was directly funding most of the £67.5 million Etihad sponsorship, with the airline only contributing £8 million.
Backdated Contracts: Documents suggested the club backdated sponsorship deals to meet break-even requirements.
Dual Contracts: Emails hinted at secret payments to manager Roberto Mancini through a "consultancy" role with another club (Al Jazira) to lower his official City salary."
Click to expand...
Oh well. That’s it then :lol:

Case closed

Fuck me man
 
A Visiting Villan said:
They have refused to co-operate with any financial information from 2018 to 2023. The charges only relate until that point. After that, Man City have actively denied the PL access. That in itself is reprehensible and a FACT that are breaking the rules by not co-operating.

"Manchester City faces 35 charges specifically for failing to cooperate with the Premier League's investigation between December 2018 and February 2023. These charges allege that the club obstructed the probe by:

Withholding documents: Refusing to provide the necessary financial records and internal communications requested by the league.

Legal challenges: Launching various legal disputes to delay or block the investigation's progress.

Lack of transparency: Failing to provide "a true and fair view" of their financial position, particularly regarding sponsorship income and executive pay.

While the club maintains its innocence and claims to have provided "irrefutable evidence," the league contends this non-cooperation forced a multi-year delay in reaching a hearing."
Click to expand...
Villa think in a title race and start banging on about City

Shut lad your club has done a few dodgy things where’s that PSR lad Chelsea bought ?
 
A Visiting Villan said:
"In 2018, the German magazine Der Spiegel published leaked internal emails provided by whistleblower Rui Pinto through the "Football Leaks" platform. These emails appeared to show Manchester City executives discussing how to circumvent UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules.
Key Evidence in the Emails
Disguised Funding: One email from CFO Jorge Chumillas suggested that the owner, Sheikh Mansour, was directly funding most of the £67.5 million Etihad sponsorship, with the airline only contributing £8 million.
Backdated Contracts: Documents suggested the club backdated sponsorship deals to meet break-even requirements.
Dual Contracts: Emails hinted at secret payments to manager Roberto Mancini through a "consultancy" role with another club (Al Jazira) to lower his official City salary."
Click to expand...
Der Spiegal is hardly a trustworthy source following the ‘Claas Relotius scandal’.

‘Appeared to show’.
‘Suggested’.
‘Suggested’.
‘Hinted’.

Hardly irrefutable proof.
 
Ohnonotagain said:
Der Spiegal is hardly a trustworthy source following the ‘Claas Relotius scandal’.

‘Appeared to show’.
‘Suggested’.
‘Suggested’.
‘Hinted’.

Hardly irrefutable proof.
Click to expand...

Oh my word. Really? The media are legally bound to use such terminology until the conclusion of the case, regardless of it being there in black and white. I genuinely can't believe some of the hoops people are willing to jump through to defend that despicable club.
 
Last edited:
chunkyshanhawk53 said:
I love the fact that he’s used AI to tell us about the emails “he’s seen”

:lol:
Click to expand...

It's provides an independent source so it's irrelevant. What matters is the sources it's provided. And you should well know that if you weren't so desperate to refute everything I post.

I will just place you on ignore and leave the thread as it's turned into Blue Moon on here with the amount of support they are getting. Flabbergasting tbh.
 
Last edited:
A Visiting Villan said:
Oh my word. Really? The media are legally bound to use such terminology until the conclusion of the case, regardless of it being there in black and white. I genuinely can't believe some of the hoops people are willing to jump through to defend that despicable club.
Click to expand...
They are legally bound not to commit libel. Stating with certainty that something defamatory happened, that they have no proof of happening, would be just that.
 
A Visiting Villan said:
It's provides an independent source so it's irrelevant. What matters is the sources it's provided. And you should well know that if you weren't so desperate to refute everything I post.

I will just place you on ignore and leave the thread as it's turned into Blue Moon on here with the amount of support they are getting. Flabbergasting tbh.
Click to expand...
Oh go on then dear. Flounce. For someone who has been to 130+ countries, you’re incredibly thin skinned

You said you had 100% proof. You don’t. No one’s supporting them, they’re challenging the crap.
 
A Visiting Villan said:
Perhaps, but the failure to comply whist signing all the top players from the league and weakening other clubs, should most certainly not be allowed to happen.

This has been going on so long that in the meantime, ahead of any possible transfer embargo, they are making sure they are stockpiled to soften any potential punishment. It's beyond the joke.
Click to expand...
Aye but all clubs agreed to these rules, City are producing thousands of documents but so did Everton and Forest and they had 1 charge (which they admitted to). All the clubs including City agreed that there would be no time frame on how long a charge/case would take, again its on the PL as they shouldnt have went after 117 charges, they should have picked out the best 10/15/20 and went after them. Its basically been an example of how to be idiots by the Premier League the entire thing. They have been advised by the clubs on how to police the clubs, another example is clubs bypassing PSR and then having a meeting to decide if they should be able to get away with it or close the loophole. The whole thing stinks but the clubs all agree to it.

Swindon On Tour said:
Very true but change the name from Man City to Stoke City and the landscape would change.
Click to expand...
No it wouldnt, change the rule broken to a completely different one, in a totally different competition, change it from 117 charges to 1, change it to admitted fault to denying it and then add in that there will be a time frame accepted within Swindon's charge to absolutely no time frame for the EPL then it might be different but sadly there are 2 completely different things you are trying to compare its a waste of time trying to compare them.

If Man city are guilty I hope they get the book thrown at them BUT they are currently innocent, the length of time is due to the powers at the EPL allowing the clubs to agree that there would be no time frame when this was set up, its now changed as per the Everton and Forest cases. The amount of documents they produced in their defence is perfectly fine and the counter claims they are produced are fine as thats what happens in cases like these. We shouldnt compare them to totally different things as it helps nobody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top