Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[terryefc]

What was his market value at the time? Say circa £15-20million yet he was suspended by the FA so in effect we couldn't sell him and likely had to buy a replacement for him. I shudder to think at the STATE of our solicitors as these are clear mitigating factors just on the one issue.

Did we have legal represenation or just employees giving evidence? As you say - this is a pathetic legal defence that any decent barrister would drive a coach and horses through.
Moshiri - put your hand in your pocket and hire the lawyers City are using.

 

[kenada_blue]

You are wasting your time. Some folks simply want to blame the Premier League rather than take a good look at those responsible for the investigation in the first place. They also don't seem to understand that we accepted we were at fault and that our mitigating factors were largely b/s and the panel saw through them.

The fact we lost 120M or thereabouts in 3 years doesn't seem to trouble them either. It's really remarkable that this has now become the acceptable threshold for running a football club.

Who's blaming the league for how poor we've been ran mate?

They're blaming the fact that 10 points is unfair.

But you and other RS seem to think it is

 

[IllinoisBlue]

Apparently we over inflated the impact of Covid much more than other clubs, but when you look at the dross we had sitting on 100k salaries who we couldn’t get rid of, it’s a much longer list than other teams had.

 

[Gilbert..]

Net spend figures are pretty dire for all clubs tbh

Man City leapfrog Liverpool in net spend table with January splurge

Forget the league table, it's all about the Premier League net spend table. And neither Man City nor Liverpool are in top five.

www.football365.com

https://www.si.com/fannation/soccer/futbol/news/all-20-epl-clubs-ranked-by-net-transfer-spend-over-last-5-seasons

Its a proper cut throat league now. You would think clubs would work with each other to have a cap. But thats never going to happen. You'll always get paranoia that one club is going to do the dirty on another. Its to the detriment of the clubs as there is another money there. But its one greedy league now.

 

[IllinoisBlue]

Wasn’t it determined that we gained so sporting advantage? So what case do they have to sue us? Still haven’t heard an explanation that makes sense as to how they could sue us and not the Premier League.

Much of the overspend went on the stadium so how did we get competitive advantage from that?

 

[Vintage]

 

[Tony’s Carp]

DBB's posturing against the Super League was a huge mistake. I agreed with the sentiment but she shouldn't have gone public with that opinion. I thought that at the time and said it. The dye was already cast then in terms of what we were ultimately charged with. She should have said nothing. People in glass houses. Those comments were definately noted for future reference.

That was the day the club's cards were marked. Now we pay for it.

But the Premier League as an entity had the most to lose from the Super League. The fact we stood so steadfastly against it makes it even more galling we are the ones being targeted.

 

[Milk]

Did we have legal represenation or just employees giving evidence? As you say - this is a pathetic legal defence that any decent barrister would drive a coach and horses through.
Moshiri - put your hand in your pocket and hire the lawyers City are using.

City’s lead lawyer is Lord Pannick…. Really

Mind you, IIRC he’s on £10k per hour or £400k per week

Think I could sit there and call PL lawyers names too for that fee

 

[kenada_blue]

One thing is for sure though....won't happen when the Miami Coke dealers come in

 

[LinekersLegs]

You keep his registration until his original contract ends. Even though he is no longer an employee and is no longer being paid.

What evidence do you have that he was not paid for the duration of his contract? The report has a rather ambiguous ”dismissed” but no financial arrangements were detailed that I could see.

Given that no charges were ever filed, let alone a conviction, I’d have thought that Siggurdson would have had a strong legal case if his salary was not paid until his contract officially ended.

 

[Moderatelywarmwater]

What was his market value at the time? Say circa £15-20million yet he was suspended by the FA so in effect we couldn't sell him and likely had to buy a replacement for him. I shudder to think at the STATE of our solicitors as these are clear mitigating factors just on the one issue.

He wasn’t suspended by the FA at all was he? We suspended him.

 

[gwladysnight]

So we've given false accounts to the league then? That's what you're basically saying. You can't "mislead" financials that have been audited.

Yet we haven't. It's been a case of we say it was £9mill over, they say £19.5mill, and argued over what was conjecturous to be allowed for P&S.

You're adamant that we've lied and are duly deserving of a 10 point deduction (something the commission refused to agree on how it was calculated).

We haven't lied. We took the piss within the framework with factors and elements they didn't agree were part of P&S (war in Ukraine, stadium funding, players being sacked for eg) which ended up being a difference of selling 1 fringe player.

And yes. A points deduction is what they've come to. No one is arguing that and we take that.

The argument is the level.

You are confusing two different things. The accounts are a legal requirement and are audited. It is not false accounting because the accounts we have supplied to companies house will almost certainly be accurate.

We clearly did lie. We stated that the stadium loans were interest-bearing when they were not. We stated we intended to sell Keane when we clearly didn't. We stated that the deductions meant we were well inside P&S limits and then finally admitted they were not.

It was only when Moshiri was bang to rights that we changed tack and tried to look for mitigating factors. The fact that we misled the Premier League and carried on spending were clearly aggravating factors and led to a harsher punishment. What seems to be missed here is that the Premier League is a private company owned by its member clubs. Part of that is to treat the fellow stakeholders with utmost good faith.


If you fail to adhere to that pre-requisite then any punishment is bound to be harsher. What made it worse was the club shouting from the rooftops that it had done nothing wrong whilst then admitting at pre-trial that it was guilty.

 

[Swagger]

He wasn’t suspended by the FA at all was he? We suspended him.

I thought he was suspended by the FA?
Even so, realistically we couldn't sell him due to the ongoing circumstances of his case. It's still a mitigating factor either way.

 

[roydo]

He wasn’t suspended by the FA at all was he? We suspended him.

That is my understanding.

 

[Gilbert..]

The whole point of P&S rules is to stop clubs from being utterly dependent on rich owners. We are the perfect example of why the League needs those rules.

If Moshiri calls in his loans or walks away then we instantly become insolvent and go into administration. Basically, a founder member of the League and a club with a storied history goes under because Moshiri is an idiot. If anything P&S rules need strengthening not weakening.

If there weren't P&S rules that actually to an extent reined in Moshiri's excesses we would be in an even worse situation. He would have just bought even more rubbish players and we would be in even more debt.

Thats simply not happening at the top of the table. That argument is flawed.
I think a few clubs. Esp those promoted are now sh!t scared to get into that situation so i endorse that. Moshri was a cock. Im never going to dispute that.