PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Hacking is stealing and illegal. There is some debate about if what we are accused of doing is illegal I suspect it would be but the Premier League do not seem to think it is they haven’t said so or referred it to HMRC or the police and they are not investigating. However neither did they seem to investigate Liverpool. However I would say there is debate about what we have allegedly done being illegal I would say there is no debate about what Liverpool have allegedly done being so so in some respect that’s more serous and they are more accepting of fault by paying a fine to us. Admittedly whilst admitting no wrong doing like Prince Andrew etc. However if proved I would say what we did would be worse but there still seems to be a massive lack of fairness in how both are treated
 
Metalartin said:
That's pretty much been what I've said about it too.

Surely the out of court settlement, only stops City being able to seek any further damages. It shouldn't be a free pass for Liverpool.

The FA(and the PL for that matter since it's in their rules also if I'm not mistaken) on the other hand, have a duty on their side of it for such breaches. The journos and pundits have been repeating rhetoric like that ever since the hacked emails surfaced. What example are they setting exactly, by allowing clubs to hack into other clubs with no consequences? Is that acceptable conduct for a club representing the Premier League, or the top level of this sport?

On top of that, weren't there some people claiming they did the same thing to Spurs when they recruited some of their staff?
Click to expand...
What about journalists and pundits
 
laserblue said:
It looks like you got off lightly. Smith was a serial paedophile but, like Savile, his noncing wasn't discovered (disclosed?) until after his death.
Click to expand...

Smith and Seville’s behaviour was known but individuals chose for reasons known to themselves to do nothing… David Steele for example was well aware of Smith‘s crimes….
 
terraloon said:
Sorry but I think part of your thinking is not correct.

1) UEFA may well have accepted the sum paid for image rights but UEFA, as far as I am aware, don’t set the rules on what is or isn’t in players contracts so would not have jurisdiction to rule on the method of payments.
FIFA sets the broad ground rules but each association then in conjunction with the relevant tax authorities will state what is and what isn’t acceptable

2) In relation to the Mancini’s second contract it may well have been minimal in terms of turnover but that isn’t the point .

3) I keep going back to the CAS ruling they didn’t rule on many of the issues some as we know were time barred, others were dismissed “ if that’s the word” because UEFA didn’t cover all the bases.
Click to expand...
You might be right as we're all guessing but I'm happy to explain my thinking.

1) We simply don't know as yet whether or not UEFA does or did have full jurisdiction over contractual payments, such as image rights, to players. But if, as reported, UEFA did tell City that the Fordham arrangement wasn't acceptable in 2015, and we carried it on for a few more years, there's a couple of possibilities. The first is we did it in defiance of UEFA's wishes, as we were advised that they didn't have jurisdiction and image rights payments was nothing to do with them. The other was that we carried on with paying them from Fordham but reported them to UEFA as part of player remuneration.

Given the charges regarding those payments only go up to 2015/16, I'd suggest that whatever happened after that was acceptable. Hence why I believe we reported them as part of our FFP reporting perimeter.

2) With regard to Mancini's contract, you're right but I've never said that the size of it would determine our guilt. My point had been that it wouldn't lead to a harsh punishment if we were found to have breached PL rules.

3) I'm guessing that UEFA thought its strongest case was the sponsorships. Clearly (and as me and others said) it was always a weak case, which CAS agreed with. My guess is that the PL is going after things that UEFA deemed weaker, or that they felt they had little chance of bringing home. That, to me, tells its own story. The time-barred stuff, as I've said before, is a red herring. One way or another, it's all been covered.
 
Cobwebcat said:
The one thing that keeps niggling at me is that we won CAS 2-1 and not 3-0.

It makes me think that there is a chance the PL appeal panel could see it the same way the losing CAS guy did…whatever the hell that was.
Click to expand...
We'll be fine as long as it doesn't go to penalties...
 
Cobwebcat said:
The one thing that keeps niggling at me is that we won CAS 2-1 and not 3-0.

It makes me think that there is a chance the PL appeal panel could see it the same way the losing CAS guy did…whatever the hell that was.
Click to expand...

In the face of the evidence it’s hard to see how any lawyer with any integrity could vote against…. But he / she was nominated by UEFA so probably a paid up member of the brown envelope brigade.
 
Cobwebcat said:
The one thing that keeps niggling at me is that we won CAS 2-1 and not 3-0.

It makes me think that there is a chance the PL appeal panel could see it the same way the losing CAS guy did…whatever the hell that was.
Click to expand...
it was always going to be a 2 1 decsision when uefa and city nominated a panel memeber
 
Manc123 said:
it was always going to be a 2 1 decsision when uefa and city nominated a panel memeber
Click to expand...
As I said earlier I don’t go along with CAS being biased either way.

If we believe CAS are biased we might as well throw in the towel with a PL nominated panel.

If we take the blue specs off one guy thought we had done something wrong. The fact that two didn’t makes me think we have a strong case not a water tight case.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Repeating this post. If you have time watch it. And well done Cheesy Cheeseman for getting this on a podcast.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, interesting.

IRef clearly an attempt to be able to veto spending by individual clubs based on some ‘notion’ of whether that spending destabilises league competitiveness……..sounds like the kind of weasel words that always seem to be specifically aimed at city. Explains what’s happening at Chelsea I suppose…..
 
Cobwebcat said:
As I said earlier I don’t go along with CAS being biased either way.

If we believe CAS are biased we might as well throw in the towel with a PL nominated panel.

If we take the blue specs off one guy thought we had done something wrong. The fact that two didn’t makes me think we have a strong case not a water tight case.
Click to expand...
I think the UEFA nominee was almost obliged to champion their case - given each party could nominate one of the panel members of their choice. I’m fairly sure I’ve read unanimous decisions don’t really happen at CAS. The PL panel is different in that the members are selected by the chairman (Rosen ?) who is an eminent Kings Counsel and will behave with absolute integrity.
 
Centurions said:
They took 3 of our scouting staff and they used the log in details of someone that still worked for us, no "hacking" as such took place. Just unauthorised access (and I'm still not accepting that they're one and the same :) ) over an 8 month period.
Click to expand...
Still nothing to do with those who remain on our payroll

They’re dippers now
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You might be right as we're all guessing but I'm happy to explain my thinking.

1) We simply don't know as yet whether or not UEFA does or did have full jurisdiction over contractual payments, such as image rights, to players. But if, as reported, UEFA did tell City that the Fordham arrangement wasn't acceptable in 2015, and we carried it on for a few more years, there's a couple of possibilities. The first is we did it in defiance of UEFA's wishes, as we were advised that they didn't have jurisdiction and image rights payments was nothing to do with them. The other was that we carried on with paying them from Fordham but reported them to UEFA as part of player remuneration.

Given the charges regarding those payments only go up to 2015/16, I'd suggest that whatever happened after that was acceptable. Hence why I believe we reported them as part of our FFP reporting perimeter.

2) With regard to Mancini's contract, you're right but I've never said that the size of it would determine our guilt. My point had been that it wouldn't lead to a harsh punishment if we were found to have breached PL rules.

3) I'm guessing that UEFA thought its strongest case was the sponsorships. Clearly (and as me and others said) it was always a weak case, which CAS agreed with. My guess is that the PL is going after things that UEFA deemed weaker, or that they felt they had little chance of bringing home. That, to me, tells its own story. The time-barred stuff, as I've said before, is a red herring. One way or another, it's all been covered.
Click to expand...
The image rights for me will be pivotal

Why City , in my opinion, have A problem is quite simply image rights form part of a player’s remuneration package and as such FA and PL rules state clearly that payment of any of a players remuneration can be paid by a third party. If the argument city put forward is that the third party is part of the City group then the FFP issue will kick in.

If and a big if the tribunal do indeed find in the PL favour re image rights the consequences of the Mancini contract issue elevates matters considerably.

As for the sponsorship thing UEFA as witnessed were under prepared and CAS drove a cart and horse through the case put before them.
 
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