PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

domalino said:
Your "can we go after the PL for lost sleep" comments made it to the Guardian football podcast. Only in passing but always funny to realise journalists are reading the forum.

Hello Kieran Maguire if you're reading still.




And I know Nick Harris is always lurking.
Click to expand...

Of course journalists will lurk in here, most are too lazy and stupid to do their own work so will grab snippets from here.

It's not that far fetched that fans could have a case depending on how this unfolds. If you're a paid up member/season ticket holder spending thousands for that privilege and the club you are a member of is constantly having it's honesty and reputation questioned, it can have a detrimental effect on fan's mental health. Football fans are emotionally involved, clubs are like family and for some with no family they are family.

If the unthinkable happened and we were found guilty with cast iron proof then I have no doubt our club would be open to being sued by any paying customers in that period for being hoodwinked. I'm not saying people would do it but I'm sure there would be a case to be had.

Hopefully we win.
 
Matt.D said:
Appreciate everyone has different views on this. I know some of our fans would be disgusted if the accusations were proven. I know that the majority don’t think we have broken any rules and I know some won’t ever believe that even if we get found guilty.

Personally do not give a fuck if we have cooked the books and looked for as many loopholes as possible over the years to enable the owners to invest their own money in making us a competitive club. Everyone knows the rules were introduced and advocated for by the elite clubs to try to stop City and prevent another power club developing in England and same for Europe with PSG and City. Having to try and disguise our owners investment is a result of bullshit anti competition rules, it’s not like match fixing or cheating in a sporting sense. Why should the rags and scousers be the clubs with access to the biggest budget for transfers and wages every single season forever? How does a mid - lower table team ever get a right to challenge and then if they somehow did (Leicester) how would they ever stay at the top?

I find it very unlikely we haven’t flouted some rules to some extent when looking at our revenue and expenditure each year - what that looks like and whether that constitutes the seriousness of accusations is a different matter. I also find it unlikely that other clubs haven’t done this to some extent.

What I would care about is us getting caught. Absolutely careless if it transpires those Der Spiegel emails ended up showing the PL the trail to follow. Why were they ever sent from club email accounts etc.

If guilty it would never tarnish what we have achieved in my eyes - we’d never have achieved any success if we hadn’t found ways for our owners to invest their money but it would always be used against us and would tarnish the Guardiola City era in the eyes of the wider footballing world when it should be remembered as one of if not the greatest premier league side. Additionally, if guilty and kicked out the league I fear the existing FFP / investment rules would no doubt be amended to prevent us from ever climbing all the way back to the very top and competing for the league / CL.

Fingers crossed our lawyers do their job and we can stick 2 fingers up to the rest of the league who are so fucking desperate for our demise.
Click to expand...
What a great post. Agree 100%.
 
City Mike 1969 said:
Pannick is on £5K an hour, which equates to £400K a week apparently (gutter press figures) - the 'article' these figures are lifted to was banging on about how he earns more than KDB per week.
Click to expand...
I read that in three months, Sept to Nov last year, he earned £500k. on one case alone.
 
kiam06 said:
How do you get fans onside with a European super league....you make them lose faith with the PL.

If City beat the PL's bizarre case there will be a lot of fans from powerful clubs in England upset at the PL and the European Super League is born.

I do think there is more to this than meets the eye, the burden of proof on the PL is huge unless they have an ace up their sleeve such as an insider witness.
Click to expand...

Worked with UEFA, make them press charges under duress whilst you are trying to destroy their competition.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Not quite. He was manager in 2011/12 and the following season, the first two under FFP.

But this isn't about FFP. It's about 'hiding' some of his remuneration using this Al Jazira consultancy contract. I suspect they're saying that we should have paid him that £1.5m through our accounts, so have understated our expenses.

But that amount makes sod all difference. If it had been £10m then that's probably something to worry about but not £1.5m. It's just not material.
Click to expand...

Not sure of all the PL rules for each year PB, but I am sure you are looking into it. 2011/12 was the UEFA FFP, right? Was the PL FFP introduced at the same time? And did they really have a requirement at that time that all a manager's remuneration should be i) included in the accounts, which would seem a strange requirement, or ii) be disclosed?

It seems like something they would have included specifically after they found out about Mancini's other contract .... rather than something they would have thought about at the very beginning?
 
paulchapo said:
I didn't make the bloody thing, typical City fans always ready to criticise, it's short for because I'd guess, try fitting everything onto a banner. Do one your fucking self.
Click to expand...
Its been a stressful week, hasn't it? Everyone on edge. We need a football match to watch, then we can all pull the team and the manager to bits instead of ourselves :)
 
The aim of any sport is you can rise to the top.The red cartel do not want this just imagine what Brian Clough did with Derby and Forest came along today they would be horrified they have managed to stop this.You dont get Burnley for example saying we used to be succsesful we cant have new upstarts coming along.Fuck knows what the cartel will do when if Wednesday,Leeds,Sunderland and West Ham are taken over by the right people.I say bring it on the more clubs that can win believe it or not is good for any sport.The red cartel do not want this they want a closed shop.Im a City fan first and football 2nd but would love a return to the 60s and 70s when more than a couple of teams would be in contention rather than a German,France and Italian league where the same team wins every year.
 
These smells too much like a coup wanting to topple City from it's lofty position. City have been the undisputed top club in England for the past decade and small clubs like Spuds are ganging up with former gang leaders Rags and Dippers to take us down. Whatever happens will eventually have to make a choice whether to stay in the PL sewer or go all in with the European pond scum. I go with the latter.
 
melrose40yarder said:
The aim of any sport is you can rise to the top.The red cartel do not want this just imagine what Brian Clough did with Derby and Forest came along today they would be horrified they have managed to stop this.You dont get Burnley for example saying we used to be succsesful we cant have new upstarts coming along.Fuck knows what the cartel will do when if Wednesday,Leeds,Sunderland and West Ham are taken over by the right people.I say bring it on the more clubs that can win believe it or not is good for any sport.The red cartel do not want this they want a closed shop.Im a City fan first and football 2nd but would love a return to the 60s and 70s when more than a couple of teams would be in contention rather than a German,France and Italian league where the same team wins every year.
Click to expand...
Burnley not a great example, they were one of the hateful nine, inbred cunts
 
Blueboy73 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Although essentially correct even in the civil arena and balance of probabilities there are differing standards. One of which is based upon burden of proof. The burden of proof is entirely on the PL to prove their case. Further because they have alleged dishonesty and essentially fraud, although not beyond a reasonable doubt standard, it is still much more than a simple balance of probabilities.
The best way to illustrate it is percentages. Balance of probabilities is basically whoever proves their case as being 51% most likely wins. Beyond a reasonable doubt is often described as 90-95% depending on who you are talking to. The higher standard expected when alleging fraud or dishonesty in the civil arena is more like 70-30.
These are of course simplistic figures and based on a representation. However I hope they illustrate how difficult the case that the PL has taken on will be for them to prove. If the panel accepts the same weight of witness and fact evidence that was presented to CAS as true then the PL CANNOT win on their main charge.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
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?
Click to expand...
It just feels extremely political to me. The writing appears on the wall for the PL in the light of the likely white paper mandating an independent regulator. Either result in this case massively discredits the PL. If they lose then their entire investigation and use of resources was a colossal waste of time. If they win, they have allowed one of their major contributors to get away with financial dishonesty for a decade to the detriment of the entire faith in the competition. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but if this was all a long game invented by City to put to bed the overhanging allegations from CAS, then it could be exceptionally well played.
One of the things that bugs me the most is the fact that the entirety of the proceedings will be under seal. I just can’t decide who that helps the most.
I am Fairly sure however that the PL can only raise allegations of charges and an independent commission is required to find them as fact. Otherwise the PL is prosecution, Judge and jury which is not something that would ever have been agreed when the competition was formulated.
Just my thoughts in any event.
 
Last edited:
Shads said:
Although essentially correct even in the civil arena and balance of probabilities there are differing standards. One of which is based upon burden of proof. The burden of proof is entirely on the PL to prove their case. Further because they have alleged dishonesty and essentially fraud, although not beyond a reasonable doubt standard, it is still much more than a simple balance of probabilities.
The best way to illustrate it is percentages. Balance of probabilities is basically whoever proves their case as being 51% most likely wins. Beyond a reasonable doubt is often described as 90-95% depending on who you are talking to. The higher standard expected when alleging fraud or dishonesty in the civil arena is more like 70-30.
These are of course simplistic figures and based on a representation. However I hope they illustrate how difficult the case that the PL has taken on will be for them to prove. If the panel accepts the same weight of witness and fact evidence that was presented to CAS as true then the PL CANNOT win on their main charge.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
I know from experience that It's difficult to explain something in simplistic terms when so many cases are so complicated and although you can use past cases as an example, each one has a unique set of circumstances.
My own view is that this is a witch hunt designed to cause as much reputational damage as possible.
They've already succeeded in this regard as we've been hung, drawn and quartered already in the court of public opinion.
I'm with you in regard to them having difficulty proving their allegations but to use another analogy, they've thrown 100 pieces of shit at us in the hope that some of it will stick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez
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