6 + 2 Point Deductions

[WestStandLower]

City's are lying about payments and what they withheld from their accounts. Same with Chelsea I think.

Cities charges are that players and ex managers were paid sums that were in respect of their services to city via sources that weren’t Man City FC . They are also charged that companies who they had commercial deals with didn’t pay the money but it was part funded by other sources with links with their owners.
The claims re Chelsea are that they too paid individuals for services to the club via non clubs funds

 

[WestStandLower]

It all comes down to PSR with the City charges. The broad thrust is that they systematically cheated PSR by fraudulently hiding off the books payments and covering them up.

So yeah there are specific breaches of PSR charged in there but you can’t separate them from the other charges because the allegation is that IF they did cheat the numbers THEN they did in fact breach PSR for those years. But you need to prove the fraud stuff first before you can prove the PSR breach. That’s why it’s taking so long to put together, it’s way more complex.

I would have thought that if there were indeed PSR charges on top of those listed then they would have also been included . I genuinely don’t think that a separate set of charges will follow even if the ones already out there are proven.

 

[kenada_blue]

Cities charges are that players and ex managers were paid sums that were in respect of their services to city via sources that weren’t Man City FC . They are also charged that companies who they had commercial deals with didn’t pay the money but it was part funded by other sources with links with their owners.
The claims re Chelsea are that they too paid individuals for services to the club via non clubs funds

Basically what I said but for the simple people (like me)

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I would have thought that if there were indeed PSR charges on top of those listed then they would have also been included . I genuinely don’t think that a separate set of charges will follow even if the ones already out there are proven.

I'm not talking about charges on top, I'm talking, as I think was the post I replied to, about the 7 specific "breach of PSR" charges within the 115. My point being if these are financial breaches of the limit like ours or Forests they will be a consequence of the other charges. IE they couldn't be heard separately or before the other charges, as they follow on from them.

 

[WestStandLower]

Basically what I said but for the simple people (like me)

Chelsea supposed indiscretions don’t include the claim re disgued equity

 

[Dorset Red]

Sniff, Sniff, Snifff

He says after 1940 pages of saltiness .
I think we've both been royally shafted by the EPL and if we fancy a moan then we should bloody well moan.
Anyway I'm off to erm , enjoy?? the match now

 

[WestStandLower]

I'm not talking about charges on top, I'm talking, as I think was the post I replied to, about the 7 specific "breach of PSR" charges within the 115. My point being if these are financial breaches of the limit like ours or Forests they will be a consequence of the other charges. IE they couldn't be heard separately or before the other charges, as they follow on from them.

Apologies misunderstood

As far as I am aware Cities PSR charges have nothing to do with the limit they are to do with equity and far value

 

[PeregrineT]

I can’t see how Forest would have been told yet. Yes, the PL said it can be no longer than a week but they’ve shown how all over the place they are with our case.

If Forest have been told it would have to be announced and the league table adjusted accordingly.

Well, the PL is corrupt and incompetent in everything they do. It didnt just become incompetent with the things involving us, so its par for the course for them and further proof to the government that they cant govern their own affairs and even their own rules.

 

[matty1878]

let forest
win and take 12 of

 

[blulouie]

It all comes down to PSR with the City charges. The broad thrust is that they systematically cheated PSR by fraudulently hiding off the books payments and covering them up.

So yeah there are specific breaches of PSR charged in there but you can’t separate them from the other charges because the allegation is that IF they did cheat the numbers THEN they did in fact breach PSR for those years. But you need to prove the fraud stuff first before you can prove the PSR breach. That’s why it’s taking so long to put together, it’s way more complex.

Not so mate.
There are also specific PRS breaches.
View attachment 248994

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Not so mate.
There are also specific PRS breaches.
View attachment 248994View attachment 248995

I know mate, I said there were specific PSR breaches. My point is that if they are the same type of breach as ours they would be as a result of the other charges, so they can't be heard separately before the rest of the charges, they all interconnect.

The reason I mention is is that people have asked "why not try the PSR breaches first then do the rest of the stuff later?" On the numbers they submitted they did not breach PSR. But the allegation in all these charges is that they covered up spending and therefore their numbers were false. So you need to prove the fraud stuff to even get to the PSR breach.

 

[Victus]

Our next big result this lol

 

[blulouie]

I know mate, I said there were specific PSR breaches. My point is that if they are the same type of breach as ours they would be as a result of the other charges, so they can't be heard separately before the rest of the charges, they all interconnect.

The reason I mention is is that people have asked "why not try the PSR breaches first then do the rest of the stuff later?" On the numbers they submitted they did not breach PSR. But the allegation in all these charges is that they covered up spending and therefore their numbers were false. So you need to prove the fraud stuff to even get to the PSR breach.

I listened to a Sports Lawyer on 5 live one night months ago .
He said there is no reason they could not be tried on a specific charge for PSR particularly that 3 year period, the reason they aren't is the Prem chose not to.

The Prem for what ever reason want to bundle together the 115 charges , this of course suits City & their Legal Eagles.

 

[Jacko93]

Except it appears that we we're in contact with both Tottenham and the Premier League about the Johnson transfer and if we do have evidence of this and that the Premier League okay'd it , as has been suggested , then that does equal a substantial mitigation .
I don't think the double jeopardy thing will hit us , the allowable losses will go up quite a bit and we have since sold more players , but then again it could.

The PL response, as in all of our cases will be, do what you want, buts it's your responsibility to adhere to PSR rules.

 

[BullensRoad]

Cities charges are that players and ex managers were paid sums that were in respect of their services to city via sources that weren’t Man City FC . They are also charged that companies who they had commercial deals with didn’t pay the money but it was part funded by other sources with links with their owners.
The claims re Chelsea are that they too paid individuals for services to the club via non clubs funds

Incredible rules really.

Irrelevant to what you said, but the way round it is by your owners using their companies that are state owned to launder cash into the clubs does make me laugh.

And yes I know we did the same with Usmanov.