PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

PL charges were seemingly rushed out due to an expected announcement about a Government appointed Regulator which the EPL and 19 of its members do not want. The Regulator question has been deferred by a few weeks. I’m struggling with two questions :-
1. Do the charges brought against City (and the unseemly pile on by rival clubs and media interests) make a Regulator more or less likely ?
2. If a Regulator is appointed, what impacts would it have (if any) on the proceedings against City ?
I’m thinking a Regulator may now be more likely, very interested in people’s views on this and what would be best for City.
 
Kippax77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
City just don't want to be at the centre of these self-serving attacks. We want to be respectful & professional in our approach to business & not to be the cause of European football's downfall.

We've tried hard to be reasonable with the European elite, but this ploy has failed miserably. It's time to take the gloves off, don the bovver boots & go kick some fuckin heads in. It's war!
 
halfcenturyup said:
OK, one last post about it.

This was presumably the guy City selected from the approved list who voted for City every time, as opposed to the German guy UEFA selected who voted for UEFA every time?

Not sure this helps allay any suspicions people may have about independence ...
.
Click to expand...

We don't know who voted which way, we only know that all 3 were deemed to be fair and impartial.

The point is not that City had a man on the board, it's that at this level people are grown up enough to know everyone's going to have tangential connections somewhere in a small industry and it doesn't get in the way of doing their jobs fairly.
 
halfcenturyup said:
OK, one last post about it.

This was presumably the guy City selected from the approved list who voted for City every time, as opposed to the German guy UEFA selected who voted for UEFA every time?

Not sure this helps allay any suspicions people may have about independence ...
.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. Why would each side need to pick, if independence isn’t an issue?
 
champo said:
I just have no faith in the PL case being objective and fair. I appreciate that arbitrators must carry a high level of integrity but we all have biases. The same as how the UEFA panel found us guilty and then an independent panel at CAS saw it differently.

It is really concerning that our fate is with an ‘independent’ PL panel and that there is no route to the UK justice system. I have little knowledge of the law but please could you explain why we can’t take this to the high court?
Click to expand...
I see it as the same as me or you going into work and arguing the toss of the rights and wrongs of it with your red top workmates.
I had about six of them this morning taking the piss but didn’t want to listen to any logic from me.

Basically, if you have to explain you’re already losing.

That’s where we are in this boys club. We’re fncked either way.

It begs the question to the fans. Why do we want to be part of such a corrupt league?
 
Last edited:
projectriver said:
Come on, lets be serious. No court will strike down the agreement between MCFC and the PL. These are sophisticated parties with huge legal resources agreeing objectively reasonable clauses.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t suggesting they would. I was replying on a general basis to a poster who thought courts would automatically uphold all contracts.
I‘ll let you off, though, so much to wade through!
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
The Super League isn't happening. This is simply a play to redress the balance in the Premier League towards those clubs who believe they are the reason for the large TV deals in the first instance.

Each of the English clubs who signed up for the Super League were eventually forced to come back with their tails between their legs and sign an agreement not to try again, with a £300m fine for any such attempt.

So now they want a Super League under the umbrella of the Premier League, where mid to lower teams will vote for the vested interests of keeping United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and the Murderers in the equation.

City are the fall guy for it. Whether to take us to the wall or render us uncompetitive on and off the pitch for a period of time that provides no threat and tarred forever.

We want in independent regulator.

Even clubs like West Ham and Bournemouth don't want that.

Turkeys will always vote for Christmas, even if means taking their chances the butcher won't put them on the chopping block for a while.
Click to expand...
This scenario makes sense as anti competitive as it is with Newcastle being the latest perhaps to begin a journey to rattle the cage if their money trail and acumen of the owners is near ours however we have done ok without an independent regulator since 2008.

Are you suggesting Tolmie that this action by the Premier League is more politically motivated than a simple matter of us supposedly breaking rules when we knew what the rules were to force a change in the way the Premier League is overseen?
 
Dribble said:
City just don't want to be at the centre of these self-serving attacks. We want to be respectful & professional in our approach to business & not to be the cause of European football's downfall.

We've tried hard to be reasonable with the European elite, but this ploy has failed miserably. It's time to take the gloves off, don the bovver boots & go kick some fuckin heads in. It's war!
Click to expand...
Yes please
 
The slaughtered lamb said:
I agree that the ESL came a lot closer with the charges against us. You could argue this is an attempt by the cartel to force us out or weaken our bargaining position prior to a breakaway league. What is the PL anyway, except a cartel of powerful businesses? They can make their ruling on us then run off into the sunset to form another league, leaving us with little recourse except to appeal against an effectively defunct organisation. I suspect the timing of this is deliberate and not just re the government’s white paper.

On the point of corruption, it’s endemic in our country’s culture now. The poster above who referenced lobbying in parliament which is not regarded as corruption is a good example. Of course, these practices filter down to to big business. Media organisations who employ former players of clubs as pundits to skew the narrative. Pgmol appointing referees who are very much company men and know what’s expected of them. The var debacle, which adds another layer of interference. And on it goes.
Click to expand...
Lobbying is essentially a form of corruption. I have direct experience of how it works at Government level. They can deny it as much as they want but the whole point of it is that people win influence with senior people so they can promote their own vested interests. Most of the legislation passed in the UK is a result of pressure from media or lobbyists and most of it is not really needed to improve the living standards of people.
Corruption is endemic in most corporate organisations. It ranges from nepotism, expenses fiddling, pilfering, all the way up to overt financial fraud. A lot of people choose not to see it. Football is the same as everywhere else.
 
KS55 said:
I wasn’t suggesting they would. I was replying on a general basis to a poster who thought courts would automatically uphold all contracts.
I‘ll let you off, though, so much to wade through!
Click to expand...
Cool. We agree its technically possible but wouldn't apply here.
 
domalino said:
We don't know who voted which way, we only know that all 3 were deemed to be fair and impartial.

The point is not that City had a man on the board, it's that at this level people are grown up enough to know everyone's going to have tangential connections somewhere in a small industry and it doesn't get in the way of doing their jobs fairly.
Click to expand...
We don’t know for certain who voted which way, but a lawyer from the German arbitrators own office, after it was finished, wrote a piece “proving” we were guilty. Published in Der Spiegel iirc.
 
richards30 said:
we need either Soriano or Khaldoon to do a video interview in they are so confident we are innocent and start dropping in hints of dirt we will release if we indeed do have any? It would be then interesting to see if the media narrative changed from the joy we currently see?
Click to expand...
The closest you get to see about how the club feels will be clear to see in Pep’s demeanour in Fridays press conference. If he is bullish he’s been given good, strong news, which he believes, if he isn’t then god help us
 
Rory Bluelow said:
PL charges were seemingly rushed out due to an expected announcement about a Government appointed Regulator which the EPL and 19 of its members do not want. The Regulator question has been deferred by a few weeks. I’m struggling with two questions :-
1. Do the charges brought against City (and the unseemly pile on by rival clubs and media interests) make a Regulator more or less likely ?
2. If a Regulator is appointed, what impacts would it have (if any) on the proceedings against City ?
I’m thinking a Regulator may now be more likely, very interested in people’s views on this and what would be best for City.
Click to expand...

It's politics really.
Announcing charges to prove that the PL are capable of self-regulation had to be done prior to the govt White Paper (delayed as you noted).
I don't think it affects the likelihood of a regulator (I won't hold my breath on one appearing_), but it's the PL trying to justify special treatment.

2.
None at all, even if one was appointed overnight. The charges are laid, a regulator would have difficulty justifying scrapping them.
Realistically though, it will be a long time before a Regulator arrives - this is just the discussion paper, it's not a formal proposal. I would be amazed if one is in place before 2025.
 
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