PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...
Some brilliant points made there mate. And yes, I know that there is no way a commercial business like the Prem can lawfully deny an entity like us access to justice. Rules are one thing, but they're not laws. My guess is that one route to the courts would be via finding something unlawful in the Prem's handling of this so far.
 
Wardley Blue said:
Can I add a question. As football is also a business we have to obey the rules of the country we live in. Despite the fact that we signed up to the rules of the league we still have our rights to run our business to achieve the best results without being restricted by our competitors. So I believe that we have the nuclear option of challenging this in the courts because of it's anti competitive nature. Is this reasonable?
Click to expand...
wish I had the answer to this... all I can say is that you would very much hope so.

I've always thought that people waving contracts around whilst shouting "you signed up to this" could be dealt with by the courts, if what was in the signed contract contained things that were against the law of the land...

Otherwise, what would stop, for instance, liverpool from issuing contracts to its supporters with a clause stating something like...

'you must be prepared to drop a paving stone on a Bulgarian waiter's head at a moment's notice'?

... or the rags issuing one to their's stating that...'you shall only start fights with opposition supporters when you have them outnumbered by at least ten to one'... or...'by signing this contract, you agree to punch any woman seen wearing a Sky Blue scarf after a derby match in her face, providing the local constabulary can't see you'??
 
Fred_Quimby said:
No, if you join a club you sign up to obey their rules even if they are anti-competitive.
Click to expand...
Surely not correct, otherwise all rules would just be handed down with no say for the participants. You join and agree to the rules but you are entitled to try to get those rules changed. Suing to show they are illegal may not be the best way to do that, but think back: the old retain and transfer rules were clearly unfair to players. They were challenged in court by George Eastham and he won. The next big move was, the Belgian Bosman who sued and effectively opened up freedom of contract.
 
projectriver said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could City take subsequent civil action against the PL for reputational or financial damage. The PL charge decison was briefed to the media before City received it for example. That is certainly the PL acting in bad faith. It seems incredible we would have no redress for something which could devastate our business wth job losses, delayed developments in Manchester city-centre, ruin careers and local sub-contractors, and create stress for thousands of our fans. Is it really the case in the UK that a three-person panel can have those sort of powers without any protection for the accused party?
 
kaz7 said:
I am feeling strangly relaxed today , what will be will be a long time off, hope the team will pull together now it is out in the open , pep isnt going anywhere , get singing ironic, abusive songs to the **** journos in the posh seats

We have been through similiar before
Click to expand...
I feel so upset and fucked off about it all kaz
I only go for the memory of my dad who passed 5 years ago but do you know what I'm done with it all now it's exhausting
Maybe that's what they wanted all along
Cunts
 
halfcenturyup said:
There must be plenty of experienced KCs who don't have a season ticket at a rival who can gain from the outcome. Why put yourself in the position, if you are the PL, where that can even be mentioned in the public sphere?
Click to expand...

Well there's fewer than 2,000 KCs to begin with.

25% of those would be senior enough for this?

How many of those have decades of experience in sport? How many have been deputy high court judges? And how many have spent the last 8 years specialising in arbitration and mediation?


This guy was voted into his position overseeing all disciplinary cases by the 20 PL clubs 3 years ago. That means 19 (including City) were voting for someone who supported another team.
 
inbetween said:
Indeed, if anyone think's that the other clubs aren't upto no good then they are only thinking of football allegiances before using their brain.

If you put all of this in comparison to United, they're ultimately registered in the Cayman Islands for tax reasons. No-one will investigate that because apparently with the Premier League you can't structure your company to invest your own money but you can structure your company to pay less tax.
Click to expand...
So are we saying the rags pay no UK taxes ?
 
Here's my naive little blue tinted view of things.....

A few questions. Unless the answer is No to the majority, it is a witch hunt and we should have nothing to answer to:

- Have City added to the success and marketability of the Premier League? I.E. have we helped create value for the League, their Directors, employees, other clubs, etc.?
- Has City's presence been a force for good in the Community?
- Have City generally set an example of how to run a Football Club in a 1st class way?
- Have City been solely or largely responsible for creating an environment in the League where success is impossible without money?
- Has City's way of running the club unfairly affected club staff, young players, coaches or other employees?
- Have City been unethical in their business practices, employment contracts, external Contractor dealings, or in any other way to consistently draw justified criticism?

I could go on and on.

Compared with other big clubs, I don't think any club has contributed more to the excitement of the Premier League, improvements in the Community and forcing other Clubs to look at and improve themselves more than City have.

If we are criminals, where are the victims?

and improvenim
 
If the premier league are against the idea of an independent regulator then why have we been referred to an independent panel?

Why have the premier league not found us guilty of rule breaking and punished us accordingly? Rather than insinuate we have broke rules?

Why do we need the verdict of an independent panel?

An independent panel would surely only be necessary for any kind of Appeal against the Pls decision in the first instance?
 
Jazzman said:
But the ESL would be pushed and run by the same set of ****-clubs trying to destroy us here. So I do not think it would be better.
Click to expand...
Worse actually. More **** clubs. At the mo we are being marginalised by english **** clubs. A ESL would comprise of not only english **** clubs but also european **** clubs. And the european **** clubs are probably bigger cunts than the english **** clubs
 
The one thing that worries me and as done for years is why the club have never really responded to the constant shit thrown at us from different sectors season after season.
Yes we can call it jealousy but it seems really strange that in the cesspit of the footballing industry we kept turning the other cheek to be attacked again and again and again.
The final straw for me was the joint statement with the Dippers.
It seems we really wanted "friends" that badly that the club would put up with anything as just not to upset the warlords.
I hope to God this wasn't done because we'd made mistakes and are guilty of something and that it's just the style of our club not lowering itself to the "English disease" that is journalism.
 
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