PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Platini has said as much in interview. The concept was a good idea but was manipulated to keep the cartel in power and kill off anybody else challenging.

And that is what happens with a cesm in charge.

 

[City Man]

I can't help but wonder how the respective UK and Abu Dhabi governments are viewing this? Nobody is going to tell me that they won't be keeping an eye on it, given the potential of the PL to blunder unwittingly into a result that could seriously embarrass CFG, ADUG and, by association, the Abu Dhabi state in terms of how its agents conduct their financial business.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Isn't that a picture of Mancini next to the star wars poster? Cred level through the roof.

Haha that’s what I thought.

 

[KS55]

Something nagging?

If the Premier League have us bang to rights, why do they even need an independent commission to seal the deal?

Why extend us that courtesy, is it the chain of rule book procedure?

I don't understand why the Premier League would want to run the risk of their own findings being dismissed out of hand?

Especially so, when City are the ones who have been pushing for four years for our name to be cleared by an independent panel?

Something doesn't smell right, I had the same sense prior to CAS that a piecemeal arrangement had already been weighted in our favour?

It’s the rulebook Tolmie. Nothing to worry about.

 

[blueparrot]

and our name tarnished again

Maybe, but most people I speak to are only casual footballfans and the the odd Newcastle s/c holder. The overwhelming reaction seems to be we'll be fine and pretty much indifference to it all.

 

[blueparrot]

They could have done that the day after the CAS verdict. Could have closed the investigation there and then. Even keeping it open another couple of years, they could have closed it based on the cas verdict alone, taking a bit longer to get there.

If there is one thing this almost certainly is not, it is some token appear to have investigated and tried but failed posturing attempt. And neither was Uefa's shot at it, which people also claimed at the time.

Don't think anyone can know for sure either way to be honest. Especially as they can be pretty certain of hedging their bets with a big non coperation fine.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Something nagging?

If the Premier League have us bang to rights, why do they even need an independent commission to seal the deal?

Why extend us that courtesy, is it the chain of rule book procedure?

I don't understand why the Premier League would want to run the risk of their own findings being dismissed out of hand?

Especially so, when City are the ones who have been pushing for four years for our name to be cleared by an independent panel?

Something doesn't smell right, I had the same sense prior to CAS that a piecemeal arrangement had already been weighted in our favour?

That's the procedure in the PL handbook. Got to follow it or we go to court. Unless you play in red of course, in which case it can be safely ignored.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Wouldn't mind being a pound behind him when he gets his wages.

Wouldn’t mind being £79,500 a day behind him pal

 

[solley attwell]

Fans of Wimbledon, Coventry and Luton would like this. My brother-in-law's family are all big Coventry City fans and detest Liverpool to this day for them having missed out on Europe in 1987/88.

One other upside to this is if there was a lawsuit against LFC by those clubs it would delay the sale of the club thereby keeping FSG there and pissing off the dippers fanbase whilst pitting other members of the hateful 8 against the dippers


We could even suggest to those clubs that we would financially support them with a crack legal team that FFP cant even touch

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I can't help but wonder how the respective UK and Abu Dhabi governments are viewing this? Nobody is going to tell me that they won't be keeping an eye on it, given the potential of the PL to blunder unwittingly into a result that could seriously embarrass CFG, ADUG and, by association, the Abu Dhabi state in terms of how its agents conduct their financial business.

There’s £10 billion pound worth of investment coming from Abu Dhabi into the U.K. The country at the moment hasn’t got a pot to piss in, the Premier league branding Mansour and Khaldoon criminals won’t be good for U.K. plc. We saw this with the Newcastle purchase, one minute it wasn’t happening then a quiet word in the ear from the Government and then it was back on again. The country stands to lose a lot more compared to some weird Liverpool and United supporters demanding they should be awarded retrospective Premier Leagues.

 

[Coatigan]

I highly doubt they have any 'smoking gun' or a whistleblower/s.

This is the PL not government/international agencies who have the means to investigate.

If they had evidence of 9 years of fraud then the CFG and any other offices would have been raided by now.

I think they have the same evidence as UEFA and there are some things that need explaining, i.e. renumeration for players and managers, if we're being funded by the owner through Etihad etc.

Hopefully. Time will tell.

It is daft to think they have nothing. No matter how well a young lad puts it across in his bedroom, on youtube. They either have something, or they have enough to think they have something, or enough to think that this panel might see it differently to the cas panel. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

 

[carlosthejackal]

Maybe, but most people I speak to are only casual footballfans and the the odd Newcastle s/c holder. The overwhelming reaction seems to be we'll be fine and pretty much indifference to it all.

Surprisingly had a pint with a couple of mates from the dark side yesterday, they were very much indifferent and described it as all bollocks .

 

[Len Rum]

Do you think there is anything new out there that the premier league have on the accounts that wasn’t there as evidence when City went to CAS? City have obviously said there’s the published account you find the wrongs in there and we are giving you nothing else, hence why the non compliance charges come in.

If it’s no new evidence and there is nothing to link ins and outs to any wrong doing, isn’t what they are trying to hang on City opinion that they’ve done wrong rather than cold hard evidence?

Good points there.
IMO the PL may have requested more documents than City were prepared to release hence the non cooperation charges.
Hopefully City will have further documentation to submit to the arbitration panel which will exonerate us.
IMO there must be something in this because generally speaking if all the relevant information is available then compliance/breaches of accounting rules are not rocket science even allowing for any 'judgemental' issues that might apply.
So it may all come down to the submission of the documents M'lud!

 

[Gaz in Zurich]

This will be laughed out of court..the only problem is, until it is our name is mud..We should then sue the PL for defamation

 

[blue61]

I'm not sure that the PL are risking as much as some people think with this action. It has the feel of a "free hit" for them, just as it did when UEFA tried to do us. If they're being pushed into it by certain clubs and they have a flimsy case that collapses, they can just say to those clubs that at least they tried to get us done, and that may appease those clubs enough to stop them reviving the Super League idea. As for the notion that we might go after them if we come out on top, well I'm not sure we'd want to do that. The domestic league is our bread and butter and we can ill afford to destroy it. If we win, we'd be better advised trying to effect change from within.

I actually think we've got more to lose which might sound daft as I don't believe we're guilty of any of the main charges.

We might well see a wind of change in the EPL, if united get new owners from Qatar.

It would break up the USA cartel. I would rather we break up the EPL cartel though ourselves, by winning this latest attack on us

 

[ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN]

This will be laughed out of court..the only problem is, until it is our name is mud..We should then sue the PL for defamation

The way its going the PL wont even exist by the time this is all completed

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m guessing here, but can the PL impose sanctions/charges if they’ve not got all the evidence? If we’ve not cooperated they can’t have all the evidence. If that makes sense?

I’ve no idea why, and only have a basic knowledge of law. But i get the feeling the PL aren’t that committed to this. And their commitment and confidence must surely have taken a hit with the clubs fairly robust reply and some half decent journalists questioning the whole thing.

Same as CAS, I get the impression they have charged us with what they can without any co-operation from the club.

And like CAS we will present evidence for each charge that the committee will have to accept.

I seem to be the only one on the whole forum who is pretty relaxed about all this and not at all concerned by stories of accounting fraud and misleading auditors.

So I am probably wrong. :)

 

[ayrshire_blue]

No need to apologise mate, it can get quite complex and confusing.
I'm basing what I know on experience as a former union rep and corporate trainer which included training managers on company disciplinary procedures and processes.

They have to notify you what they are charging you with and they would need to be specific so that you can prepare a defence (preparation).
For example, they couldn't accuse you of robbery and then spring a charge of assault at the hearing with evidence relating to this.
With regard to evidence, they can produce this at the hearing (presentation stage) just as we could do likewise providing it is relevant to the charge they have alleged during the notification stage.
This works both ways as I suspect they don't know what our "irrefutable evidence" is and we have every right not to divulge this to our accusers until the hearing just as they have every right not to divulge anything they have or think they have.
It would be up to the judge or judges (in this case arbitration panel) to look at the evidence presented from both sides and draw a conclusion. In this case, the panel would be akin to a jury in a standard court case.
If the case is on the basis of Civil Law (which I believe this is) then the judgement is based on the "balance of probability", in other words they must reach an outcome or conclusion based on what a reasonable person would think most likely happened.
In Criminal Law the judgement is "beyond reasonable doubt" and the accuser has to prove their case using a higher threshold in other words, the burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove their allegation rather than what likely happened.
The best example I can think of is to explain is OJ Simpson who was found not guilty in a criminal trial but found guilty in a civil trial after the family of the victims pursued this.
Every process has to have some kind of appeals process at the end of it if either party are unhappy with the outcome.

Hope this makes sense.

Brilliant mate, appreciate that reply. Makes sense, cheers.

 

[champo]

It was but Darwin Nunez was holding the gun :-)

Well played

 

[Coatigan]

Don't think anyone can know for sure either way to be honest. Especially as they can be pretty certain of hedging their bets with a big non coperation fine.

In the same way we can't know for sure Khaldoon didn't slyly bribe the PL to accuse us of 100+ breaches just to see how people on BM would react.

It just makes no sense, therefore safe to say it is almost certainly not that, even without outright knowing so.