57 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I think it says it's for the victims of the war .It didn't define who the victims are, because Russians and famine hit Africans are.  Another thing i read is that they don't want to be seen negotiating with a Russian Oligarch to get funds released.

Which doesn't make sense to me unless it's still held in Roman's Fordstam bank account.

Dunno, but it's been stuck somewhere for years while everyone argues about it.

So much for the Government rushing through our sale.

 

Hmmm, then that's as vague as can be.

The UK gov can't dictate who "victims" or say Ukraine are the only "victims".

I guess that's why it's in limbo, and UK gov trying to negotiate privately to get the money because if it went to the high courts then UK gov would lose. Its already accepted by the UN, etc...(no idea about the UK high courts) that the Ukraine isn't/arent the only victims of that war.

(If in America, they would argue the club are also victims of this war...technically they could.)

2 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

Hmmm, then that's as vague as can be.

The UK gov can't dictate who "victims" or say Ukraine are the only "victims".

I guess that's why it's in limbo, and UK gov trying to negotiate privately to get the money because if it went to the high courts then UK gov would lose. Its already accepted by the UN, etc...(no idea about the UK high courts) that the Ukraine isn't/arent the only victims of that war.

(If in America, they would argue the club are also victims of this war...technically they could.)

It's the variously charities that are claiming that whoever they represent are victims..

You'll laugh at this, at one time our Government wanted to claim that families in Britain who took in Ukrainian refugees are victims too and therefore should be considered for some of the money !

It's hard for any of us fans to understand why it's proving almost important to sort it out.

And yes! We are victims too!

5 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

It's the variously charities that are claiming that whoever they represent are victims..

You'll laugh at this, at one time our Government wanted to claim that families in Britain who took in Ukrainian refugees are victims too and therefore should be considered for some of the money !

It's hard for any of us fans to understand why it's proving almost important to sort it out.

And yes! We are victims too!

Lol, tbh all can be classed as victims. But yeah sometimes i wonder how some of our gov members and politicians don't or can't hear themselves speak! 

Ugh.

Edited September 7, 20241 yr by Simplymo

The prospect of a points deduction last season wouldn't have bothered me too much.

Points deduction this season that has been absolutely fantastic so far, would be devastating.

I thought it was "drawing to a conclusion" ages ago?

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

The prospect of a points deduction last season wouldn't have bothered me too much.

Points deduction this season that has been absolutely fantastic so far, would be devastating.

I thought it was "drawing to a conclusion" ages ago?

Urgh, never thought of that until now. 
 

Imagine we make CL and they hit us with a point deduction. Doesn’t bear thinking about. 

I don’t think a points deduction will be viable form of punishment for something the previous owners did.

I imagine our current owners would fight that and win.

14 hours ago, JM7 said:

Urgh, never thought of that until now. 
 

Imagine we make CL and they hit us with a point deduction. Doesn’t bear thinking about. 

I would be astonished if we get a points deduction so large it means we slip out of CL. 

16 hours ago, JM7 said:

Urgh, never thought of that until now. 
 

Imagine we make CL and they hit us with a point deduction. Doesn’t bear thinking about. 

That would be horrible indeed, but the absolute nightmare scenario for me is that we actually win the PL, and then get a points deduction which hands it to Liverpool (or even worse Arsenal) instead.

16 hours ago, Simplymo said:

I don’t think a points deduction will be viable form of punishment for something the previous owners did.

I imagine our current owners would fight that and win.

Yes, especially as they have self-reported and been completely transparent and helpful throughout.

Points deduction seems a stretch - I don't even recall what the infringement was, but do recall UEFA jumped at the chance to get paid.  Hopefully some of the funds that were set aside during the sale will cover a fine, and it ends there.  Saying that, always get the sense officials operate with a lot of emotion and bias when Chelsea are involved, but then, I am also biased!

3 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I would be astonished if we get a points deduction so large it means we slip out of CL. 

Yeah, would have to be around 7 or 8 points deduction at the moment to drop out, can't see it .

But, suppose it ends up that just ,2 points deduction does it at the end of the season?   As a Chelsea fan, the worst case scenario always dominates my thoughts,.!!🤣

I reckon Clearlake already know the outcome and it'll be a fine at worst. 

This was self reported by Clearlake, and the 'perpetrators' have been forced out of the club. Which in itself is a punishment. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Yes, especially as they have self-reported and been completely transparent and helpful throughout.

 

5 hours ago, PhilH930 said:

Points deduction seems a stretch - I don't even recall what the infringement was, but do recall UEFA jumped at the chance to get paid.  Hopefully some of the funds that were set aside during the sale will cover a fine, and it ends there.  Saying that, always get the sense officials operate with a lot of emotion and bias when Chelsea are involved, but then, I am also biased!

 

4 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I reckon Clearlake already know the outcome and it'll be a fine at worst. 

This was self reported by Clearlake, and the 'perpetrators' have been forced out of the club. Which in itself is a punishment. 

 

All of the above basically...

Previous owners were forced out with new owners buying on a basis of "what you see is what you get" and given time to go through everything after the purchase.

£100,000 was put aside for the FA as payment, oops sry, I meant any bullsh*t they can get off the theft of the club by the UK government! Nope that ain't the correct phrasing either...mehh, you get what I mean.

Anyway...imho

Any serious or disproportionate retrospective punishment like points deductions would bring up too much rubbish and I also think blueco would fight it. Maybe bring back questions like why they still haven't used the 1.5bil for casualties of the war.

It will be a fine and/or even a transfer ban to go along with it at most. Although I doubt the transfer ban too and it'll just be a fine.

20 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I reckon Clearlake already know the outcome and it'll be a fine at worst. 

This was self reported by Clearlake, and the 'perpetrators' have been forced out of the club. Which in itself is a punishment. 

 

Is there any requirement for the club or PL to make the outcome public? Never even thought of that. 

On 18/12/2024 at 21:21, Simplymo said:

 

 

 

All of the above basically...

Previous owners were forced out with new owners buying on a basis of "what you see is what you get" and given time to go through everything after the purchase.

£100,000 was put aside for the FA as payment, oops sry, I meant any bullsh*t they can get off the theft of the club by the UK government! Nope that ain't the correct phrasing either...mehh, you get what I mean.

Anyway...imho

Any serious or disproportionate retrospective punishment like points deductions would bring up too much rubbish and I also think blueco would fight it. Maybe bring back questions like why they still haven't used the 1.5bil for casualties of the war.

It will be a fine and/or even a transfer ban to go along with it at most. Although I doubt the transfer ban too and it'll just be a fine.

I hope you are right. I know we self reported and cooperated etc etc, but wasn't there additional charges arising from those leaked Cyprus papers, or aren't those issues included or maybe dismissed ?

But isn't any potential punishment aimed at the club itself for benefiting from any wrongdoing, it doesn't matter if those owners are no longer at the club ?  Do you know when it will be decided? Be good to get it out of the way now. 

Evening all, 

Very sry guys, I haven't been on in a while and I have tons of threads/posts to catch up on.

I can't find the man city atp thread atm, so for now I'm just posting it here till I've read everything I've missed in the last month and find that thread.

Sry again guys...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c78xpp3vlkko

 

 

 

 

I was going to tag you! Glad you're back. It's in our post history in the Todd Boehly thread.

You were right. The tribunal found in City's favour and declared the previous rules wholly invalid, as opposed to partly invalid like I argued.

The current rules, adopted in November 2024, are not invalid. This means that any agreement denied previously could be reassessed under the current rules, and possible compensation sought as the PL used a flawed process in its previous determination. The onus is now on the PL to prove a deal is not market value, shifting the onus from the clubs.

However, they would be unlikely to succeed, since the previous Tribunal decision affirmed the market-value test used by the PL (a decision I don't agree with) and the right of the PL to subject all sponsorships to a fair market value test.

The big losers are Brighton, Spurs and Arsenal etc. who are all financed by low-interest shareholder loans. Either shareholder loans are included in any new APT rules, or the whole APT scheme must be thrown out.

 

 

Anyone know about Citehs charges yet ?

The investigation finished in December..

Taking a long time, you would think it has to be before the season starts ..

The PL will need to consider the outcome of the above APT rules, because even if the PL find City guilty as expected, it might limit the punishment they are able to dole out.

If City persist with their legal challenges and shareholder loans are no longer exempted from FFP, more than half the clubs in the league are utterly f**ked. This means that even with a guilty verdict, City can effectively blackmail the other clubs into dropping any serious sanctions. My guess is they'll get a slap on the wrist and their 'dodgy' deals will be re-assessed favourably in light of the Tribunal's ruling. I have no idea what happens to a club's voting rights if they are expelled from PL, though.

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The PL will need to consider the outcome of the above APT rules, because even if the PL find City guilty as expected, it might limit the punishment they are able to dole out.

If City persist with their legal challenges and shareholder loans are no longer exempted from FFP, more than half the clubs in the league are utterly f**ked. This means that even with a guilty verdict, City can effectively blackmail the other clubs into dropping any serious sanctions. My guess is they'll get a slap on the wrist and their 'dodgy' deals will be re-assessed favourably in light of the Tribunal's ruling. I have no idea what happens to a club's voting rights if they are expelled from PL, though.

The PL stakeholders - the other clubs - will be torn between revenge (City are, hands down, the most unpopular club amongst their peers) and self-interest, leaving loopholes for themselves. Sleepless nights for the buggers.

I'd've thought a club's voting rights cease to be if they are expelled. In the same way they are surrendered if they are relegated

2 hours ago, dermott said:

The PL stakeholders - the other clubs - will be torn between revenge (City are, hands down, the most unpopular club amongst their peers) and self-interest, leaving loopholes for themselves. Sleepless nights for the buggers.

I'd've thought a club's voting rights cease to be if they are expelled. In the same way they are surrendered if they are relegated

Yeah and City have been shameless in courting allies among the new breed of owners, none of whom were directly affected by City at the time. It's potentially that bloc vs Arsenal/Liverpool/Brighton and the relegation clubs, with Chelsea and Man U sitting on the fence since our ownership have a lot to gain despite the traditional rivalry.

6 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The PL will need to consider the outcome of the above APT rules, because even if the PL find City guilty as expected, it might limit the punishment they are able to dole out.

If City persist with their legal challenges and shareholder loans are no longer exempted from FFP, more than half the clubs in the league are utterly f**ked. This means that even with a guilty verdict, City can effectively blackmail the other clubs into dropping any serious sanctions. My guess is they'll get a slap on the wrist and their 'dodgy' deals will be re-assessed favourably in light of the Tribunal's ruling. I have no idea what happens to a club's voting rights if they are expelled from PL, though.

See I come at it from a different angle because should the IC find City guilty of the most serious charges, which do indeed have mention of FFP as opposed to PSR I am not sure that the PL will have any input save recommendations re sanctions and in accord with the PL rules the possible fines/ sanctions are basically limitless

In other words the claims are that basically city have knowingly produced incorrect accounts and FFP submissions to the PL who issue UEFA licences. The APT issues I don’t see have any consequences in the 115 charges.

When it comes to us I can’t believe that the extent of our issues haven’t been determined but I can’t but help feel that the sanctions, which there will likely be the case, won’t be signed off till cities have.

46 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Yeah and City have been shameless in courting allies among the new breed of owners, none of whom were directly affected by City at the time. It's potentially that bloc vs Arsenal/Liverpool/Brighton and the relegation clubs, with Chelsea and Man U sitting on the fence since our ownership have a lot to gain despite the traditional rivalry.

There is absolutely no way that beneficial owner loans won’t be included when assessing APT going forward .Thats if APT in any form remains . The issue will be how do the early years get dealt with, if at all and that to a degree seems to be Cities current route to tie the PL up in litigation / arbitration

If retrospective charges come about due to the PL being forced into re assessing then I would expect the sanctions if any to clubs like Arsenal, Brighton etc will be moto such a degree as to be meaningless

On 02/07/2025 at 12:01, terraloon said:

See I come at it from a different angle because should the IC find City guilty of the most serious charges, which do indeed have mention of FFP as opposed to PSR I am not sure that the PL will have any input save recommendations re sanctions and in accord with the PL rules the possible fines/ sanctions are basically limitless

In other words the claims are that basically city have knowingly produced incorrect accounts and FFP submissions to the PL who issue UEFA licences. The APT issues I don’t see have any consequences in the 115 charges.

When it comes to us I can’t believe that the extent of our issues haven’t been determined but I can’t but help feel that the sanctions, which there will likely be the case, won’t be signed off till cities have.

It seems years ago, probably because it was, but wasn't it announced that our stuff would be announced first , and then Citeh's ?

Surely it'll be before the season starts ?? I id forgotten about us, it's about allegations during Roman's time ?