PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[El_george]

I hope the lawyers working for City this week have a look at the Tevez to West Ham situation in 2006.

W. Ham were fined 5.5 million, but no points deduction, Sheffield United were relegated and they have struggled ever since in the lower leagues.

Just saying.

 

[SWP's back]

Seems pretty clear View attachment 68448

Am I reading this wrong then?

 

[meltonblue]

Still think the motivation behind some of it is more down to the state of the companies sponsoring us rather than us directly, which is what I find frustrating. None of it should have needed to happen.

 

[Vic]

Guilty without giving our side of the story

Alice in Wonderland stuff. Sentence first, verdict after. Oh, and no evidence heard yet.

 

[Corky]

For disputes about the rules. City have already been to the High Court about disputes re the rules. But there is no provision to access the courts for disciplinary processes and the evaluation of charges.

Maybe, but when it comes to it that will be for the court to decide, not the PL.

 

[chaddblue]

Oh come it’s his first post, I’m sure we can trust him

Not only his first post he joined at 4pm yesterday so definitely all true

 

[Silva2021]

That’s not quite right either. Right about JR not being directly applicable, but not right that the court can’t have a supervisory role and look into procedural elements of the decision making. The Fallon case is the one to look at. Essentially the HC would step into a JR style role. If they didn’t see evidence in PL decisions that the high standards needed to assert fraud/deliberate bad faith CAS did (see projectrivers previous post on that) then the HC could effectively make them. The court won’t be the final decision maker, they’d send it back to the PL. But the steer would be v clear.

Just my take as an (ex) lawyer with a bit of experience in this.

Oh, and Panncik represented Fallon ;-)

Pannick - The David Silva of lawyers, he’ll create an angle!!

 

[SWP's back]

For disputes about the rules. City have already been to the High Court about disputes re the rules. But there is no provision to access the courts for disciplinary processes and the evaluation of charges.View attachment 68451

I see, thanks.

Must say I am now far less confident although I know you have written that the fact it's an Arsenal ST holder shouldn't actually mean anything bad.

 

[HarrytheBlue]

Are we sure about that?

What they're saying is 'You can appeal to our Kangaroo Court and that's it - we're going to screw you'. I have no legal qualifications but I reckon our lawyers will find a way of getting this to a proper courtroom.

 

[jgmcfc]

So you mean yes!

Not entirely, but with the government white paper on the horizon, the PL cannot risk any damage to the integrity of their internal regulatory processes - so whilst on the face of it there is no recourse to challenge the actual decision in court, the reality for the PL of any assessment by the courts of their processes either directly or in obiter could have serious implications on how the government choose to proceed

 

[slbsn]

Maybe, but when it comes to it that will be for the court to decide, not the PL.

It won't though. The rules literally say the opposite.

 

[meltonblue]

Am I reading this wrong then?

View attachment 68449

I read that as if you want to challenge the rules
themselves rather than arbitration of the application of them.

 

[Shads]

Look I am no expert but the PL charge sheet put out early yesterday appeared unintelligible to me. Now I know I understand very little about their rule book but the presentation to me look like a school project. After four years you would think they would have come up with something more impressive.
Our response in contrast was short sharp and to the point.

Almost as if it was written by Lord Pannick even before the press knew we had instructed him…hmmmm

 

[HarrytheBlue]

I see, thanks.

Must say I am now far less confident although I know you have written that the fact it's an Arsenal ST holder shouldn't actually mean anything bad.

Right, so we're being told we have no access to natural justice ?

 

[SWP's back]

Right, so we're being told we have no access to natural justice ?

It would appear thus.

 

[slbsn]

I read that as if you want to challenge the rules
themselves rather than arbitration of the application of them.

Work on the basis we aren't going to court for this - not for the trial of the facts anyway

 

[argyle]

Right, so we're being told we have no access to natural justice ?

Looks that way. PL get to find us guilty no matter what, decide the outcome and then the only appeal hearing is by the PL again.

 

[cleavers]

Oh come it’s his first post, I’m sure we can trust him

True....

 

[JewelZee]

The PL handbook stated exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts, which certainly doesn't rule out High Court then Supreme Court if needed, but County Court is unlikely :)

My man! I knew this idea we can't take the PL decision to the courts was nonsense.

 

[kippax123]

Yesterday night I was in touch with one of the chefs at the grounds brother in law (can’t reveal much more) he told me that his brother in-law overheard some of the players speaking about the charges and the severity of the issue,he then said one of the senior players then made a remark saying it’s worse then we think and that a “4 year investigation means they already know” he believes that some of the players are aware of the charges and have become complacent.Some are even considering their futures especially the senior starting players.Do take this with a pinch of salt this was only heard from a family member during a dinner.

hahaha and 1 message