That's what I meant by not sure where or if possible in the UK sorry. I know clubs sign up to say any arbitrition with the Prem will be settled out of court so not sure it would even be possible to challenge any final decision they make.Don't think we can use CAS over a dispute with the PL.
cant see us admitting guilt again we fell for that one already, prove it or shut upMy expectation with this PL investigation is as follows:
- They will charge us with some sort of wrongdoing after yet more lobbying from our rivals
- There will be some sort of settlement between us & the PL to draw a line in the sand as both parties clearly want this done with, probably with some sort of fine or withholding of PL revenues to us
- If City refuse the above it'll go down the CAS route (not sure where in the UK or if possible) & we'll end up with another fine for non-cooperation.
Most of this is based purely of the article Slbsn did in the Daily Mail.
I agree, I just don't know if any final PL ruling can be challenged & where. Maybe someone more clued up on this can advise @Prestwich_Blue etccant see us admitting guilt again we fell for that one already, prove it or shut up
And I don't think the club would want to or do any sort of "deal" with the Premier League.Don't think we can use CAS over a dispute with the PL.
My understanding is that appeals to CAS have to be agreed as part of any dispute resolution procedure. Otherwise CAS won't intervene. I don't believe the PL rules include the possibility of CAS arbitration so that avenue would be closed.I agree, I just don't know if any final PL ruling can be challenged & where. Maybe someone more clued up on this can advise @Prestwich_Blue etc
My understanding is that appeals to CAS have to be agreed as part of any dispute resolution procedure. Otherwise CAS won't intervene. I don't believe the PL rules include the possibility of CAS arbitration so that avenue would be closed.
However, nothing stops us escalating any dispute via the legal system, if there appear to be grounds to do so. We have done this already about procedural aspects of this investigation and I'm sure we'll have no hesitation in doing so again if the need arises.
Independent Regulator is also coming , American owners will lose power soon
Independent Regulator is also coming , American owners will lose power soon
Independent.Independent Regulator is also coming , American owners will lose power soon
hahahahaha - quality!I think our time is up, they've found our Achilles heel, millions in fines, points deducted, all because of the day we ran out of chips !
View attachment 35129
Ahh, I've misread it. The third party comment threw me.That may be why they’re excluding player transfers. Though I’m not sure what other third party transactions might be of dubious value. Surely sponsorships involve only two parties.
Just to clarify any existing deals in the 5 year period currently being collected to determine 'fair market value' are not open to scrutiny under the new rules, only deals signed after their implementation (ie 2022).Ahh, I've misread it. The third party comment threw me.
Perhaps they mean any deals NOT involving the owners and the club directly? Although I'm not sure why they would exclude them anyway.
If Mcfc was a young black man who had been investigated and exonerated so often, the liberal press would, quite rightly, be up in arms over what can only be perceived as discriminationThis.
Law firm Brabners might have reported these details on the 17th Jan but there isn't anything new in there that wasn't posted in this thread before Xmas.
Also I think we have already passed the deadline for PL clubs to have given the league details of the historic sponsorships. The deadline was sometime the middle of this iirc but cba looking for the exact date.
Doesn't alter the fact that it is all BS and the usual suspects will always want to stir, sling mud etc.
It would certainly be interesting to see the level of hassle/investigation the other clubs in the PL are put under.If
If Mcfc was a young black man who had been investigated and exonerated so often, the liberal press would, quite rightly, be up in arms over what can only be perceived as discrimination
They are using the historic deals of the PL clubs to determine benchmarks for market value for any future deals they determine to be with "associated" parties, so clearly there is no point included inflated related party deals.Ahh, I've misread it. The third party comment threw me.
Perhaps they mean any deals NOT involving the owners and the club directly? Although I'm not sure why they would exclude them anyway.
The PL are amazinglly stupid. How long will it take to scrutinise every deal over £100,000 done by ALL PL clubs in the last five years. Who will do the scrutinising? At present the accounts of all clubs are independently audited at least once every 12 months. Those playing in Europe already have extra scrutiny and have to pass a "fair value" test carried out by independent finance experts. This just sounds like another ridiculous witchunt which will be comprehensively rejected once it reaches a proper court of law.I don't get this article at all. It may be that they're worried about deals between City and the other CFG clubs but I think they're few and far between anyway.
"Law firm Brabners reported on Monday (17 January) that the league has demanded details from all clubs of third party deals dating back to 2016.
Every transaction over £100,000, excluding player transfers, will be scrutinised for fair market value.
The aim is to prevent clubs from using covert methods to bypass profit and sustainability regulations.
Maguire argues that the demand for backdated details looks like a pointed attack on City."
Surely the above would terrify Chelsea above everyone else? And what about Coutinhoe's £146 million transfer?