PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[OB1]

No - the parties agreed to the rules freely having taken advice (or least being able to).

Define freely ! (No need to actually define it).

 

[BringBackSwales]

There’s nothing illegal in Manchester City paying Roberto Mancini a wage, then another company paying him a wage as well. If all the correct tax, national insurance has been accounted for. It’s not in the spirit of the rules but it’s not illegal.

Similar if Mansour wanted to invest money into Etihad. Etihad then pays City funding for sponsorship and naming rights to the stadium. How do the premier league get the paper trail externally from what City show in their accounts? They will have to demonstrate that and do Etihad even have to open up their books to the premier league if it’s not them in the dock?

If the Etihad deal isn’t at fair market value, how come Arsenal’s sponsorship with Emirates is around the same number. This is Arsenal who haven’t won a premier league for nearly two decades. If there’s tax avoidance going on here the premier league and inland revenue need to throw to book at City and it becomes a criminal case. Why has it taken them so long to deem accounts from 2009 wrong? As another poster highlighted ‘it’s all a bit woolly this from the Premier league’.

I think what you’ve described wouldn’t be illegal from a tax and accounting standpoint, but in terms of PL rules it may well be; I imagine it would depend on what that remuneration was for

 

[mcfcpride]

4 years?

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Can we appeal?, Can we not appeal? Blah, Blah, Blah!

The reality is that whatever that rule book says to one person, it does not necessarily mean the same to another. Remember, this is the organisation who couldn't even get the charges correctly listed for a heralded press release.

When it comes to points of law, I would put my money on our legal team, rather than defending the work of some office clerk at the Premier League, who, at the league's inception, probably just cut and pasted most of that rule book from a copy of her local weight-watchers group.

Remember too, City have been here and done it previously. The Premier League haven't and it's their arses that will be squeeking when we get to the business wnd of this process, not ours!

If push comes to shove we can always appeal about not being able to appeal.

 

[domalino]

Extract from a BBC article about Kompany’s scepticism of the criticism:

“The charges against City, who were taken over by the Abu Dhabi United Group in 2008, relate to a period between 2009 and 2018 - during which the club won all six of its Premier League titles.”

Despite three of the titles being after.

The mistake there is that the charges actually go up to 2023.

 

[Newman Noggs]

You can argue it all day. It will not be an irregularity in terms of the Arbitration Act

Thank you for your patience in dealing with us.

I hope you won't find it tiresome if I ask you something that may seem naive, but, given what could be an existential threat to the club/company's business, as a "nuclear option", do you consider that there could there be any legal recourse with regard to FFP as a breach of competition law or restraint of trade ?

I take the point that we "signed up to" the PL rules but a) as a shareholder we voted against it and b) football was a business, and we were in it, long before the FFP rules were introduced so, at the point we were outvoted by the other shareholders, there was no alternative but to "sign up" or cease trading c) the shareholders change every year and, indeed, some of those who voted for it are no longer members. Maybe it is voted on every year and renewed ?

I seem to recall, we voted against something recently on the basis that our advice said it was illegal but I can't recall what it was. It was adopted by the PL anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm not sure if the 115 charges thing is giving a distorted impression of the size of the case.

I said yesterday reading through the breaches, the Mancini thing could be responsible for 30 of them. Failure to cooperate post 2018 is 36. If @Prestwich_Blue is right about Fordham/image rights being the 2012/13 to 2017/18 player remuneration issue, that's over 40.

So I don't think this is 115 breaches that need to be litigated seperately, it's more like half a dozen issues which spread across multiple rules and seasons.

Spot on.

 

[Agueroooo9320]

The clause that tries to prevent access to High Court. It's what I'd call unfair if it was in a contract but you are the lawyer, I'm just a simple accountant.

the clause says the decision of the panel is final. it does not however say we cannot go to the court if we are wronged in the process of making the conclusion and if the panel does not follow its own rules.

 

[AdamMarrett]

The more I speak to people surrounding City, the less I am fretting.

It's as if we already know we will be more than fine.

I'm not going to invest much more angst into this, as everything else is just partisan and misinformed bollocks.

Our summer transfer window could make Chelsea's January one resemble a car jumble.

Outside of the cartel clubs benefit from this something utterly stinks about the entire thing. It beggars belief the Premier League could release a statement that was so flawed in the first place. For a multi billion pound organisation that was a amateur move, and embarrassing. You could almost bet your bottom dollar our lawyers seized on that as soon as possible. It was a free hit for lawyers who are paid more in a week then I earn in 4 bloody years.

They clearly briefed the media before hand that Martin Ziegler had his piece and opinions out within a minute of the statement being released, plus the other buffoons piling on after the original statement release from Simon Jordan and the other shills.

The more I've read about it, and things that have happened since something is well and truly off. We all know the white report is due out, and the UK government's want for a regulator for the Premier League etc and certain clubs and the Premier League's desire to avoid that as it will even the playing field off field for everyone, something certain clubs don't want. Then all of a sudden there's Qatari interest in the Rags and posturing from them saying they'll do exactly as we have spending wise can't be a coincidence.

The hints and inside word from yourself and others which are greatly appreciated hint that we as a club know it as well. This feels like a fight that is a lot more then us vs the Premier League, there's a lot more at stake.

Of course I could be wrong but for me something stinks about the entire thing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If push comes to shove we can always appeal about not being able to appeal.

Fuck me, it's like the off-side rules.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It expressly says "Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act." So that leaves s67,68,70 and 71 of the Arbitration Act as routes to appeal to the courts.

67 is substantive jurisdiction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/67
68 is serious irregularity https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/68
70/71 are supplementary (basically process) provisions relating to 67 and 68

So, the ONLY realistic route to end up in the Courts is serious irregularity. It is almost definitely not ending up in the courts.

Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a)failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b)the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d)failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e)any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g)the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h)failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i)any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

What’s interesting, to me at least, is the presumption that the PL will appeal should they not ‘win’. Given their hold over this process and that they are, after all, only a member organisation, that would be hugely disappointing and would risk real damage to their ‘brand’.

 

[mrbelfry]

It's not just that, the investigation started in 2018.

Yet 30 of the charges relate to us not handing over documents for the 2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons.

I mean 4 of those seasons hadn't even happened when the investigation started and the other season we were in the middle of.

So why should City hand over those documents when they aren't at all relevant to the investigation.

Whilst we're at in do they want Sheikh Mansours pin number?
Probably fine us for not disclosing that.

Investigation started in 2018. They have accused us of not cooperating with that investigation for that time. Interesting that they haven't charged us with the same accounting breaches for that period though so either we changed something or they are just running with the de Spiegel leaks

 

[Bez]

I just looked at the documents de Spiegel released as I also couldn't understand this but I think the issue is RM had a contract with Al Jazira but there are bank transfers from City paying that salary .

If City paid him directly for Al Jazira contract then I guess this issue will be hard to defend.

 

[M18CTID]

4 years?

I'm not sure he's saying our case will take 4 years. He's alluding to "other big sports cases" in that tweet.

 

[halfcenturyup]

the clause says the decision of the panel is final. it does not however say we cannot go to the court if we are wronged in the process of making the conclusion and if the panel does not follow its own rules.

Also, spot on. In the same CAS rulings are always described as final (in that process) but can be challenged in the Swiss courts. I think :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

If City paid him directly for Al Jazira contract then I guess this issue will be hard to defend.

Paid the salary directly to Mancini, or loaned the money to AJ to pay Mancini?

Edit: Were the monies reimbursed by AJ?

Was there a contract whereby City paid Mancini on behalf of AJ?

Were any services provided to AJ in the period by Mancini.

Nothing is ever clear without all the information.

 

[Father Paul]

From a quick look I agree that the grounds for appeal to arbitration are very narrow (certainly not a re-hearing). The bar is very very high. Effectively City would have to show the PL’s ruling was fraudulent,
seriously irregular in a procedural sense or so unreasonable that no other body could have reached the same conclusion on the same facts. Happy to be told I’m wrong!!

The River project sets this argument out in detail and it is a strong one on paper. However, there is imo enough scope to engineer some form of High Court appeal should it become necessary. Time will tell.

 

[Indaparkside]

Not a bad idea

The rags disrupted horse racing and other venues when protesting about magnier etc
We’re to soft let’s get heard big banners look into the coutinho money etc :)

 

[we are really here]

After having a look through the Premier league handbook in which all the charges we have been handed. There's a lot of trivial stuff. The 2 K charges (k.12 and K.20) in the Premier league handbook they are down as not having a drug test area close to the players and officiating staff, and pitch dimensions, grass length and pitch pattern. Another is our scouts not acting in accordance with code of conduct.

But what gets me. If these are the charges from the handbook. Then it's the way its reported. Its down as 115 financial rule breaks. Now if the Premier league handbook is the Bible in which the rules we have broken. I've already found 3 charges that aren't financial.

The only charges that are financial are section D and E in the handbook.

If people want I can post the official wording of each charge. Unless they're secret laws that noone can find anywhere because its a major witch hunt, to prove to the government that they can clean shop themselves without any independent jurisdiction overlooking their corrupt acts.

 

[Kippax77]

Outside of the cartel clubs benefit from this something utterly stinks about the entire thing. It beggars belief the Premier League could release a statement that was so flawed in the first place. For a multi billion pound organisation that was a amateur move, and embarrassing. You could almost bet your bottom dollar our lawyers seized on that as soon as possible. It was a free hit for lawyers who are paid more in a week then I earn in 4 bloody years.

They clearly briefed the media before hand that Martin Ziegler had his piece and opinions out within a minute of the statement being released, plus the other buffoons piling on after the original statement release from Simon Jordan and the other shills.

The more I've read about it, and things that have happened since something is well and truly off. We all know the white report is due out, and the UK government's want for a regulator for the Premier League etc and certain clubs and the Premier League's desire to avoid that as it will even the playing field off field for everyone, something certain clubs don't want. Then all of a sudden there's Qatari interest in the Rags and posturing from them saying they'll do exactly as we have spending wise can't be a coincidence.

The hints and inside word from yourself and others which are greatly appreciated hint that we as a club know it as well. This feels like a fight that is a lot more then us vs the Premier League, there's a lot more at stake.

Of course I could be wrong but for me something stinks about the entire thing.

Don't ever doubt yourself for thinking all this stinks.
It stinks to high heaven.
It's the English Premier League remember