PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kazzydeyna said:
I can’t believe we have City fans in this thread now, arguing furiously with other City fans, that our club is, actually, guilty of some sort of transgression, to the point of basically wishing it so.

I prefer to trust the words of our executive team, that they have irrefutable evidence of our innocence, and are looking forward to the opportunity to prove it “once and for all”.
And I’ll keep that trust until such time as evidence is presented that renders it invalid. Or, in other words, until hell freezes over.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that a minority of posters maybe pissed off, If/When we get totally exonerated of all charges.
 
Shads said:
Entirely accepted that the power is broad. However as a lawyer who is regularly able to help clients avoid providing documentation under discovery and to defend Motions to Compel that Discovery. It is a reasonable defense to state that the documents requested do not exist or that the request was not specific enough for us to identify those records. These are clearly arguments that Lord Pannick can and will I am No doubt sure make. There is also an argument that documents have to be relevant to the charge. The PL cannot say you are charged with eg failing to pay a player properly so please provide all documents that deal with CFG’s purchase of NYCFC. They are different topics and the documents would not be relevant. The powers are broad but not indefensible.
Click to expand...
I think that this is why the club have provided nothing post-2018. We should be able to successfully argue that the grounds for investigation (i.e. the hack and Der Spiegel) deals only with retrospective matters, so to ask for things that occur after opening an investigation go beyond what is reasonable and proportionate.
 
NPBlue said:
There is nothing untoward regarding the size of the payments City were, or are, making to the players for image rights. The contracts between the players and the club are open to negotiation regarding the remuneration they will receive, and the two parties can agree whatever sum they deem suitable.

It doesn't matter what the figure is when the contract is signed. There are no rules in place regulating image rights, and is an expense for the club.

Related party regulations concern income from sponsorship deals and have nothing to do with how a club spends its money.
Click to expand...
First off I don’t think there is a set rule for image rights but there is actually an accepted principle that a player cannot receive more than a certain % of their income from image rights. HMRC would come after the player if he got all his pay via image rights it’s a way of dodging NI. But that was not what I was saying I was meaning in regard to the sale of the image rights not the payment of them to the players
 
waspish said:
What if city say we don’t have that info this company has it, are they able to ask for it from that other company?
Click to expand...
In criminal cases the government has the power to subpoena records from non parties. In a case like this it is highly unlikely that they can force eg Etihad to supply records. However if they are helpful to City it is more than likely that those records will be supplied. It is however for the PL to make and prove the case not for City to put themselves in harms way.
 
Shads said:
The same assumption being made time and time again. PL members do not have to hand over every scrap of paper in the building. Only relevant financial documentation.
I assure you if there was a requirement to send everything then the club would deposit 250,000+ pages of information including coach doodles during matches, the cleaning schedule for the CFA and the listed contents of the broom cupboard for every day in the last decade. It would cost the PL lawyers the leagues entire annual budget to review it all.
Apart from the fact that none of the PL members would ever sign up to an agreement that required them to give all of their documentary secrets…
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t suggest that City would have to send every document held but they will have had little choice and I would say playing with fire if they failed to supply everything the PL requested and the arbitration panel ruled on


The text is a bit long winded but it is pretty clear when it comes to PL rules on such matters and how they are subscribed to by the clubs
 
Blue_Lightsaber said:
And although we may get a kangaroo court.. it speaks to reason that if the panel wants a result that's upheld and not appealed, it will not go into stuff over 6 years unless it really has to.

6 years time bars anything from before 2017.
Click to expand...
The charges aren’t time barred .
 
John Wayne said:
I think that this is why the club have provided nothing post-2018. We should be able to successfully argue that the grounds for investigation (i.e. the hack and Der Spiegel) deals only with retrospective matters, so to ask for things that occur after opening an investigation go beyond what is reasonable and proportionate.
Click to expand...
There are myriad arguments and Pannick will submit them all…
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I think, without referring to the CAS documentation, that they could go back to 2013/14 onwards. So I doubt it was time-barred.

It seems they talked to us about it, presumably didn't like it but I'd guess it wasn't necessarily against any FFP rules. So what could they charge us with?
Click to expand...
I agree but surprised they didn’t claim the sale as inflated not say it was but just seems like the sort of thing they would do unless we showed them some very strong evidence but I thought we were not cooperating
 
Shads said:
I am not sure but feel that there may be an element of double jeopardy to this. I do not think the PL can add any punishment to something we have already been punished for by CAS for failing to cooperate. I am Certain that Lord Pannick will run that argument. We did not cooperate, we admitted it and we received a €10m fine for it.
Although the PL will be able to show we did not cooperate with UEFA I am not Sure they can add any further punishment.
Click to expand...
My post was ever so slightly, tongue in cheek bud.
 
terraloon said:
I wouldn’t suggest that City would have to send every document held but they will have had little choice and I would say playing with fire if they failed to supply everything the PL requested and the arbitration panel ruled on


The text is a bit long winded but it is pretty clear when it comes to PL rules on such matters and how they are subscribed to by the clubs
Click to expand...
Correct. However it is as I described in a different post not indefensible. You cannot be forced to provide documents that do not exist, are not properly identified or totally irrelevant.
 
Shads said:
It’s normal on these types of proceedings to deal with such discreet points of law first. If the issue is time barred then as per CAS there is little point in spending the time on the substantive part of the issue. There will likely be a preliminary part to the hearing on those issues.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. Just trying to work out, if we could show good reason why the emails don't show dishonest concealment (for example: out of context, no evidence provided of follow-through act, witness statements) the allegation could be time-barred and we wouldn't have to show all the transactional details.......
 
halfcenturyup said:
OK thanks. Didn't follow all that in all honesty. I didn't think the PL would charge us all over again for the stuff that was cleared at CAS. More fool me :)
Click to expand...
SilverFox2 said:
My limited experience of the tax authorities is some 30 years out of date but particularly with Holding Companies they put their people on site checking Inter company transactions. A bit like the football authorities did with City.
Perhaps no manpower for that now.
Click to expand...
The whole thurst in the old Inland Revenue days used to be that accounts etc would be sent in and examined nowadays in HMRC days it’s all about file accounts etc in good faith and they may be challenged but the onus very much is on the entity to be responsible and only if the accounts etc get challenged down the line will discrepancies etc be investigated
 
BerkshireBlue said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Man City 'launched secret project to shift player image rights cash'

Manchester City are alleged to have launched a secret project to shift the cost of player image rights to a third-party in a bid to escape Financial Fair Play penalties.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

of course it was here's an article asking UEFA to investigate it way before we were charged by them. It was covered and deemed nothing
Click to expand...
One thing that stood out from that Daily Fail article:

"There is no indication that 'Project Longbow' is illegal."
 
halfcenturyup said:
Makes sense to me. Just trying to work out, if we could show good reason why the emails don't show dishonest concealment (for example: out of context, no evidence provided of follow-through act, witness statements) the allegation could be time-barred and we wouldn't have to show all the transactional details.......
Click to expand...
The parties will in conjunction with the panel likely agree a timetable and order of what is dealt with and the order in which it will be dealt with.
 
Shads said:
Correct. However it is as I described in a different post not indefensible. You cannot be forced to provide documents that do not exist, are not properly identified or totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It goes back to which documents were in effect ruled on.I would the whole set of emails un redacted would be a given
My point was and still is if the PL had a whole list of documents they wanted and the process via arbitration rubber stamped that request then if they exist city would be play with fire if they don’t offer them up even if they don’t think they are relevant
 
What are the chances of some of the non cooperation charges being: "Bring us Etihad's accounts and any sponsor's accounts which neither your club or the PL have any legal right to ask for... Outside of our own rulebook, which we wrote ourselves"
...
"No? Failure to cooperate!"

Why don't they just have done with it and make the rule they really want: "If your club name is Manchester City FC, you have no legal rights at all. Any charges we bring forward are fact. You are guilty until proven innocent. Because this rule, right here, says so."
 
Last edited:
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