PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bluealf]

Why are somethings investigated like City on stolen emails.
Yet when a retired ref says he was told to say he didnt see something, that is brushed under the carpet ?

City investigated for the owner investing in his business.
Ref saying the pl is bent no investigation.

I am missing something ?

Colour of skin and headwear is all wrong

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Why are somethings investigated like City on stolen emails.
Yet when a retired ref says he was told to say he didnt see something, that is brushed under the carpet ?

City investigated for the owner investing in his business.
Ref saying the pl is bent no investigation.

I am missing something ?

Stolen by a self confessed extortionist and then doctored to then be taken out of context by anyone and his dog

 

[Bez]

With regards to the allegations regarding non cooperation from City is that City probably will say they have co-operated. I have no idea whether we have or not, but I am sure it won't be anything like as bad as the PL are alleging. Additionally, it is my understanding that the PL said in 2019 that City were cooperating with the investigation. So, what happened in the subsequent period to warrant the allegations? Not giving the PL what they wanted does not necessarily become evidence of non cooperation. Ultimately it should come down to what is reasonable to provide under the circumstances. No doubt we will find out later this year.

 

[Erling9]

Bring it on, we all know the real reason they target PSG and City and soon Newcastle as well. It's really going to be a giant headscratcher for them once the rags get bought by a middle eastern consortium. They won't know what to do.

 

[Chris in London]

By "the investigation was into, basically, everything", did you mean everything in the DS emails?

No, I mean whatever the terms of reference were in the investigation, which may or may not have been limited to what was in the DS leaked emails.

Thanks again for posting Chris. A couple of short follow up questions, for a dummy like myself to possibly understand from this.

If, as you say, we're "in trouble" for non co-operation, what are we possibly/realistically looking at in terms of punishment - if we're cleared of the other stuff? And, perhaps more importantly, if we are found guilty of non co-operation does that have consequences in terms of can they then force us to hand over further documents in effect causing this whole thing to drag on even further after the hearing?

IE, we're forced to hand over further documents and from which they obtain further evidence to reopen or begin *another* investigation?

Cheers.

I think the best point of comparison is the CAS fine - 10m euros, was it? They may think its less significant, they may think more, but I think that's the best point of comparison.

I think the investigation has run its course and I don't think further disclosure is necessary (with one caveat). We have - eventually - provided all the disclosure that has been requested of us. The 'non-co-operation' charge will not be that we have not provided the material at all, but that we didn't provide it when requested. The charge relates, if you like, to the fact that we didn't provide our disclosure until we were made to.

The other charges have all been brought, and there will only be further disclosure if when we are defending the charges against us we rely on documents that (for instance) have not been disclosed so far. So if we relied on a document the PL haven't already requested, they would be entitled to say 'hand on, we haven't see this, can we also please see all the emails surrounding it.'

The caveat is that the investigation was opened in 2019 (IIRC) so the only things that are relevant to that are documents that pre-date the inquiry. If they open a fresh investigation relating to the period since, the whole process starts again. I have no reason to think they will, but it's important to be clear that the investigation is limited to the things alleged against us as at the time the investigation began.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Sort of.

The way it works is that the PL opened an investigation based on the leaked emails in Der Spiegel. As part of their investigation they were entitled to ask for, and we were obliged to provide, certain documents. We failed to do so, almost certainly having taken legal advice, and quite possibly (given the arguments we ran in the subsequent court case) on the basis that we were concerned about confidentiality being maintained.

It is true that the only disclosable documents within that investigation are documents that relate to the matters being investigated. However the rules in place at the time said this:

1. 
   
   
   

So there isn’t really an option to ‘take the fifth,’ so to speak. If there’s an allegation that we have cheated, the PL has the power to request documents that are relevant to that allegation.

It seems to me very likely that since Der Spiegel accused us of systematic cheating over many years the PL’s inquiry was wide enough to cover everything they asked for. Certainly that appears to have been the conclusion in the arbitration which was upheld by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. So whilst in theory we could have said ‘we aren’t providing X, it’s not relevant to your investigation’ the likelihood is that the investigation was so wide everything the PL asked for was potentially relevant. The question of what charges should be brought gets answered at the end of the investigation, not its beginning, so the charges we eventually faced were not relevant to what information we provided.

So to take the Al Jazira contract as an example, if that was all that was being investigated, we might well have said ‘we aren’t providing you with documents about image rights, they are irrelevant to your investigation’ But since the investigation was into, basically, everything , the disclosure requests were within the PL’s powers.

Our failure to comply with that is why, IMO, we are in trouble on the non-cooperation charge.

The problem is that the PL have clearly been acting in bad faith under pressure from our commercial rivals. I can't see a single reason why we should co-operate in a politically-driven witchunt against us. That's why we are supporting proposals for an independent regulator.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So to take the Al Jazira contract as an example, if that was all that was being investigated, we might well have said ‘we aren’t providing you with documents about image rights, they are irrelevant to your investigation’ But since the investigation was into, basically, everything , the disclosure requests were within the PL’s powers.

Our failure to comply with that is why, IMO, we are in trouble on the non-cooperation charge.

By "the investigation was into, basically, everything", did you mean everything in the DS emails?

This is the point I was trying to make, but Chris made it so much better.

My understanding is that if the Al Jazira contract was the only thing that had been revealed in the Der Spiegel articles, then the PL (or anyone else) couldn't come in and say "Well we think you've cheated on this so we're going to investigate all your sponsorships as well." And I believe we would be within our rights not to hand over anything that wasn't connected to the Mancini/Al Jazira issue (although that net could be wide). They have to be investigating a specific, formulated allegation, not 'fishing'. I'm keen to understand this specific point.

Hance why I've previously described this investigation as UEFA's sloppy seconds, which was the time-barred sponsorship contracts, the Al Jazira contract and the image rights payments. That last one was the only one that worried me initially but once it was clear that UEFA already knew about this back in 2015, and let us know they weren't happy with it, plus Fordham was hardly a secret as they were referenced in our Companies House entry, I was more confident it was nonsense.

The arrangement was seemingly wound up in 2018 and Fordham is now in liquidation. Martyn Ziegler thought that this was some sort of revelation the other day, proving journalists don't do any original research, and it made me think. If UEFA told us in 2015 that they were't happy about this arrangement, what happened between 2015 and 2018? My guess is that we then included the Fordham payments in our FFP submission, with the payments coming back in-house in 2018/19. No money went into Fordham after an allotment of shares of nearly £60m in May 2016. If it was so egregious, and we'd carried on with it, despite UEFA's concerns, then they'd have charged us back in 2019.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is the point I was trying to make, but Chris made it so much better.

My understanding is that if the Al Jazira contract was the only thing that had been revealed in the Der Spiegel articles, then the PL (or anyone else) couldn't come in and say "Well we think you've cheated on this so we're going to investigate all your sponsorships as well. And I believe we would be within our rights not to hand over anything that wasn't connected to the Mancini/Al Jazira issue (although that net could be wide). They have to be investigating a specific, formulated allegation, not 'fishing'. I'm keen to understand this specific point.

Hance why I've previously described this investigation as UEFA's sloppy seconds, which was the time-barred sponsorship contracts, the Al Jazira contract and the image rights payments. That last one was the only one that worried me initially but once it was clear that UEFA already knew about this back in 2015, and let us know they weren't happy with it, plus Fordham was hardly a secret as they were referenced in our Companies House entry, I was more confident it was nonsense.

The arrangement was seemingly wound up in 2018 and Fordham is now in liquidation. Martyn Ziegler thought that this was some sort of revelation the other day, proving journalists don't do any original research, and it made me think. If UEFA told us in 2015 that they were't happy about this arrangement, what happened between 2015 and 2018? My guess is that we then included the Fordham payments in our FFP submission, with the payments coming back in-house in 2018/19. No money went into Fordham after an allotment of shares of nearly £60m in May 2016. If it was so egregious, and we'd carried on with it, despite UEFA's concerns, then they'd have charged us back in 2019.

Just to be clear, there was nothing wrong with the Fordham transaction from an accounting point of view, presumably, and nothing fraudulent about it. It was just a way of selling an asset for revenue up front, as the club needed it for FFP at that time, as opposed to working the asset over a number of years. Much like Barcelona have done with their broadcast deals. Is that right?

 

[halfcenturyup]

No, I mean whatever the terms of reference were in the investigation, which may or may not have been limited to what was in the DS leaked emails.

Fair enough. No-one knows definitively, of course, but is your feeling that they have other issues than those in the DS emails? The opening of the investigation at more or less the same time as UEFA would suggest that isn't the case?

 

[jrb]

Bring it on, we all know the real reason they target PSG and City and soon Newcastle as well. It's really going to be a giant headscratcher for them once the rags get bought by a middle eastern consortium. They won't know what to do.

It’s already started.

 

[Corky]

It’s already started.

View attachment 71078

3 days ago Amnesty International were putting on the pressure according to these types of papers.

 

[Chris in London]

Fair enough. No-one knows definitively, of course, but is your feeling that they have other issues than those in the DS emails? The opening of the investigation at more or less the same time as UEFA would suggest that isn't the case?

I suspect not, because the investigation was opened in response to the DS publication. However there might have been issues on which they were 50/50 on whether to investigate us, and the DS emails tipped the balance.

The problem is that the PL have clearly been acting in bad faith under pressure from our commercial rivals. I can't see a single reason why we should co-operate in a politically-driven witchunt against us. That's why we are supporting proposals for an independent regulator.

I don't think it's clear that they've been acting in bad faith, at least not in any way we could make use of in the current proceedings. I suspect you are right, because I can't imagine any world in which the PL hasn't been under pressure from the red tops to charge us with something, anything, from day one, and I know TH thinks the PL was under pressure from the red tops.

All that is quite apart from the frenzied rush job of charging us that led them to charge us with having grass that was too long and not playing in the FA cup, because they were under pressure to get the charges out before the announcement of the White Paper.

In principle, a defence that 'this is a witchhunt' doesn't get us off a non-co-operation charge, but it might lead to a significantly reduced fine. Despite our suspicions, however, I think it would be virtually impossible for us to show it more likely than not the PL was acting in bad faith. They had good reason to launch the investigation in the first place (the DS emails) and they were entitled to launch their own investigation independently of UEFA/CAS. For those reasons, we don't in my view, have a defence to the non-co-operation charge.

So we may think it's a witch hunt, and we may be right, but I think that takes us nowhere.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I suspect not, because the investigation was opened in response to the DS publication. However there might have been issues on which they were 50/50 on whether to investigate us, and the DS emails tipped the balance.


I don't think it's clear that they've been acting in bad faith, at least not in any way we could make use of in the current proceedings. I suspect you are right, because I can't imagine any world in which the PL hasn't been under pressure from the red tops to charge us with something, anything, from day one, and I know TH thinks the PL was under pressure from the red tops.

All that is quite apart from the frenzied rush job of charging us that led them to charge us with having grass that was too long and not playing in the FA cup, because they were under pressure to get the charges out before the announcement of the White Paper.

In principle, a defence that 'this is a witchhunt' doesn't get us off a non-co-operation charge, but it might lead to a significantly reduced fine. Despite our suspicions, however, I think it would be virtually impossible for us to show it more likely than not the PL was acting in bad faith. They had good reason to launch the investigation in the first place (the DS emails) and they were entitled to launch their own investigation independently of UEFA/CAS. For those reasons, we don't in my view, have a defence to the non-co-operation charge.

So we may think it's a witch hunt, and we may be right, but I think that takes us nowhere.

Yep. Same as with CAS, they have no option but to penalise non-cooperation or the whole thing falls apart. I doubt the club would contest a fine for that even if they may say they will at the moment.

If that happens, though, I hope DD is right and we have a better PR strategy to get the right message out.

 

[ganganvince]

Just to be clear, there was nothing wrong with the Fordham transaction from an accounting point of view, presumably, and nothing fraudulent about it. It was just a way of selling an asset for revenue up front, as the club needed it for FFP at that time, as opposed to working the asset over a number of years. Much like Barcelona have done with their broadcast deals. Is that right?

And Chelsea deprecating players over 10 years.

 

[Norbiton]

And Chelsea deprecating players over 10 years.

Yeah, they’ve twice concluded Lukaku is rubbish

 

[blueyorkie]

I suspect not, because the investigation was opened in response to the DS publication. However there might have been issues on which they were 50/50 on whether to investigate us, and the DS emails tipped the balance.


I don't think it's clear that they've been acting in bad faith, at least not in any way we could make use of in the current proceedings. I suspect you are right, because I can't imagine any world in which the PL hasn't been under pressure from the red tops to charge us with something, anything, from day one, and I know TH thinks the PL was under pressure from the red tops.

All that is quite apart from the frenzied rush job of charging us that led them to charge us with having grass that was too long and not playing in the FA cup, because they were under pressure to get the charges out before the announcement of the White Paper.

In principle, a defence that 'this is a witchhunt' doesn't get us off a non-co-operation charge, but it might lead to a significantly reduced fine. Despite our suspicions, however, I think it would be virtually impossible for us to show it more likely than not the PL was acting in bad faith. They had good reason to launch the investigation in the first place (the DS emails) and they were entitled to launch their own investigation independently of UEFA/CAS. For those reasons, we don't in my view, have a defence to the non-co-operation charge.

So we may think it's a witch hunt, and we may be right, but I think that takes us nowhere.

City were at pains to point out that they’d cooperated when they released their initial statement! Any thoughts would be appreciate, your input is excellent.

 

[Bluearmy]

Look I used to ref as a 17 year-old. I’m sure many here have. I referred youth games, mostly U-12 to U-16. I recall a couple of instances where coaches (managers) did things that pissed me off. Like one who would switch her kid (who was her team’s star and played striker) into the keeper position any time the opposition had a dangerous free kick, or even corner kick. And one who when winning would encourage his team to time waste by kicking the ball into Richardson Bay when putting it into touch. I can tell you I refereed those teams more harshly because I was irritated at the relative lack of sportsmanship for local youth amateur leagues. But I was a kid doing a service; it was a way to earn a few bucks on the weekend, and none of these kids were going to be pros. Professional referees should be far far above the “emotion” of a match — but sometimes I see them acting viscerally the way I did in those situations. That’s ridiculous. Conspiracy or no, what we do have evidence of is that too large a portion of those in these roles are simply fucking terrible at their jobs. I mean TERRIBLE.

To make it to that level, they probably have to be yes men. Dont rock the boat or you’re out. And at the very top the last thing you want is a yes man Refereeing!! Self fulfilling idiocy, hence why they are terrible!!

 

[Paladin]

Sort of.

The way it works is that the PL opened an investigation based on the leaked emails in Der Spiegel. As part of their investigation they were entitled to ask for, and we were obliged to provide, certain documents. We failed to do so, almost certainly having taken legal advice, and quite possibly (given the arguments we ran in the subsequent court case) on the basis that we were concerned about confidentiality being maintained.

It is true that the only disclosable documents within that investigation are documents that relate to the matters being investigated. However the rules in place at the time said this:

1. 
   
   
   
   

So there isn’t really an option to ‘take the fifth,’ so to speak. If there’s an allegation that we have cheated, the PL has the power to request documents that are relevant to that allegation.

It seems to me very likely that since Der Spiegel accused us of systematic cheating over many years the PL’s inquiry was wide enough to cover everything they asked for. Certainly that appears to have been the conclusion in the arbitration which was upheld by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. So whilst in theory we could have said ‘we aren’t providing X, it’s not relevant to your investigation’ the likelihood is that the investigation was so wide everything the PL asked for was potentially relevant. The question of what charges should be brought gets answered at the end of the investigation, not its beginning, so the charges we eventually faced were not relevant to what information we provided.

So to take the Al Jazira contract as an example, if that was all that was being investigated, we might well have said ‘we aren’t providing you with documents about image rights, they are irrelevant to your investigation’ But since the investigation was into, basically, everything , the disclosure requests were within the PL’s powers.

Our failure to comply with that is why, IMO, we are in trouble on the non-cooperation charge.

Thanks for this clarification.

Who decides what is relevant information to a particular investigation, and who checks if all information has been disclosed?

Take for example the Al Jazeera contact. Would we just give them a copy of the contract and Mancini's calendar for the dates in question, and the financial entries to back them up? Or do we have to give them every email that mentions Al Jazeera too? Or can we go through the papers and be selective in what we give them?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I suspect not, because the investigation was opened in response to the DS publication. However there might have been issues on which they were 50/50 on whether to investigate us, and the DS emails tipped the balance.


I don't think it's clear that they've been acting in bad faith, at least not in any way we could make use of in the current proceedings. I suspect you are right, because I can't imagine any world in which the PL hasn't been under pressure from the red tops to charge us with something, anything, from day one, and I know TH thinks the PL was under pressure from the red tops.

All that is quite apart from the frenzied rush job of charging us that led them to charge us with having grass that was too long and not playing in the FA cup, because they were under pressure to get the charges out before the announcement of the White Paper.

In principle, a defence that 'this is a witchhunt' doesn't get us off a non-co-operation charge, but it might lead to a significantly reduced fine. Despite our suspicions, however, I think it would be virtually impossible for us to show it more likely than not the PL was acting in bad faith. They had good reason to launch the investigation in the first place (the DS emails) and they were entitled to launch their own investigation independently of UEFA/CAS. For those reasons, we don't in my view, have a defence to the non-co-operation charge.

So we may think it's a witch hunt, and we may be right, but I think that takes us nowhere.

I agree. But when Mark Hendrick MP uses a phrase like “City have been targeted by the red-shirt cartel” it makes you think. He is very well connected in football governance circles.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s already started.

View attachment 71078

PIF an instrument of the Saudi state you say? Well, knock me down with a feather. Surprised they didn't spot MBS as chairman at the time.