PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

blue moony said:
Is this the end of the premier league as we know it ????
Click to expand...
I would say, if they lose, yes.

From searches of public domain information, I believe BDO are City's auditors. Surely the PL would be sued by both if they were defeated?

The PL, in my eyes, has by their actions, insinuated collusion between City and their auditors in a fraud. This can potentially massively damage the reputations of both our beloved club and the auditor??

In addition, they're calling into account a second set of big 4 auditors, Deloitte, to a lesser degree which produces the football rich list. Are you telling me, whilst possibly not having full access to City's financials, that they wouldn't blow the whistle? (Maybe they did?!!)

The PL has gone about this as a self preservation exercise.

Are City going to want to remain in a league where X amount of clubs are writing letters, bitching and alleging this sort of shit every few years?

Or would they want to join a ESL which they can help establish and try and mould into a competition with true financial fair play??

I genuinely think this could be the start of the decline or end of the PL in its current form.

If the PL lose, and get taken to the cleaners by City BDO and potentially a lesser extent Deloitte, are you as a sponsor going to want your organisation name linked to the shit show that will follow?
 
domalino said:
Maguire is a solid contributor IMO. He’s not on our side but he’s not out for blood either.

He’s also the biggest proponent of the “very suspicious timing 1 day before the white paper” theory.
Click to expand...
Respctfully Dom, he didn't sound like that on Monday. I'll try and listen to it again with fresh ears.
 
HarrytheBlue said:
Right, so we're being told we have no access to natural justice ?
Click to expand...
Yes we do.

Hence why we just hired the sharpest legal mind in the country before the Premier League hearing, to send an unambiguous message to the Premier League.

Message being " We know what comes next,we are already preparing for the High Court".

We will be challenging the expected finding of guilt irrespective of our innocence by a Kangaroo Court made up of our enemies, and their sycophants.As well as what will likely be an unprecedentedly harsh punishment that will benefit all the Cartel Clubs.
 
SidJames said:
Yes we do.

Hence why we just hired the sharpest legal mind in the country before the Premier League hearing, to send an unambiguous message to the Premier League.

Message being " We know what comes next,we are already preparing for the High Court".

We will be challenging the expected finding of guilt irrespective of our innocence by a Kangaroo Court made up of our enemies, and their sycophants.As well as what will likely be an unprecedentedly harsh punishment that will benefit all the Cartel Clubs.
Click to expand...
Let’s hope
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
My take.

The law says that decisions of private orgs aren’t subject to judicial review in the same way as public authority decisions are.

The general approach of the courts to decisions made by bodies like the PL is not to interfere with their decisions. They are the experts. Regardless of what the rules do or do not say about where final says are had the high court DOES retain a supervisory role over the procedure such bodies use to make their decisions.

That’s helpful to us because if the PL panel do not apply the high bar reasoning CAS did to support any finding of deliberate book cooking then that in itself is something the high court can look at. See paras 12 and 13 here


vlex.co.uk

Kieren Fallon v Horseracing Regulatory Authority

Kieren Fallon v. Horseracing Regulatory Authority, filed at England & Wales
vlex.co.uk vlex.co.uk

I am sure the PL won’t do a thorough job at first instance, either through cock up or conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

I note the following at para 17 and 18:

'But it is equally well established that the High Court retains a supervisory jurisdiction over such decisions, and the approach to be adopted is essentially that which the Administrative Court would adopt in public law cases'.

"The most important point, as it seems to me, is that it (that is to say the court's supervisory jurisdiction) is supervisory. The function of the court is not to take the primary decisions but to ensure that the primary decision maker has operated within lawful limits. It is a review function very similar to that of the court on judicial review … In each case the essential concern should be with the lawfulness of the decision taken, whether the procedure was fair, whether there was any error of law, whether any exercise of judgment or discretion fell within the limits open to the decision maker, and so forth."

I am in the legal field and have studied administrative law. The principles to be applied in our matter (should we get an adverse finding) are very similar to public law cases. That is, we would be arguing that the panel made a number of errors of law, and that the exercise of judgement based on the evidence was manifestly unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

This means we have a long way to go in this matter. For a start, there must be procedural fairness. This of itself means there will be debates about evidence etc. before we even get to the point of a hearing.

Overall, I still have the feeling the PL have bitten off more than they can chew. The decision to attack City, while they consider may burden us for years, may very well come back to bite them, and given the looming White Paper could well see independent regulation of the PL, which to my mind can't come soon enough.
 
domalino said:
Maguire is a solid contributor IMO. He’s not on our side but he’s not out for blood either.

He’s also the biggest proponent of the “very suspicious timing 1 day before the white paper” theory.
Click to expand...

He comes across honest, he may get things wrong but honest mistakes are acceptable but dirty agendas aren’t.
 
Keeper! said:
Well if those 8 pages are true we are in serious trouble.

That's the only issue here, are we guilty or innocent.
Click to expand...
The only issue is we are guilty whether we are innocent or not. There is no winning this. The entirety of the known universe outside City fans and a few stragglers who understand the purpose of FFP will make no distinction among technical breaches of Prem-only rules, outright fraud and cleared of all charges. We will. No one else.
 
We have to follow the premier league laws and the they have to follow by UK’s laws.
Laws on business for one.
Doesn’t matter what’s in their shitty little handbook, if they don’t follow the laws of the land then it ends up in a court of law.
Doctored hacked emails would be a good starting point.
Failing that we could always call one of these no win no fee companies that deal with unfair dismissal ; )
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
The only issue is we are guilty whether we are innocent or not. There is no winning this. The entirety of the known universe outside City fans and a few stragglers who understand the purpose of FFP will make no distinction among technical breaches of Prem-only rules, outright fraud and cleared of all charges. We will. No one else.
Click to expand...
100% agree and in many ways the red shirts have already achieved what they set out to do.
 
It is what it is. I can’t control it as a fan and it certainly won’t stop me being a citizen.

Fully prepared for the rival fan abuse, but we get that anyway! It’s part of the tribal nature of the game.

What will be will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top