PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[HelloCity]

There's a lot of "if" in the above.

I don’t think there is. Let’s face it, it’s highly likely the rivals clubs would have been in the ears of the PL. The impacts of the charges, if this drags on, will will likely happen too for the most part. The PR bit is already going on. There’s also a huge chance some players will be put off joining us and if that happens they may join rival clubs. Potentially Bellingham could be the first of those but hopefully not. This all comes to our detriment and to the benefit of the others objectives without us having to be found guilty.

 

[domalino]

Next, you've seen the number of charges and the range of issues they cover. Each and every one of those will have to be looked at carefully in order to determine whether the club is guilty of the breaches of PL rules alleged. That will take a significant amount of time.

Just to work the maths through, imagine it took in 'court' half a day to debate each charge. That's over fifty days, so over ten weeks of 'court' time. Just juggling the diaries so that our team, the PL team and the panel are all available over the same ten week period will take some doing, and in practical terms that means it won't happen soon. I should stress that half a day on each count is, in my view, a massive understatement, I just use that figure to illustrate the problem.

This is completely flawed because the statement bolded is not true.

The charges all overlap over multiple years so 1 potential controversy - ie Mancini's Al Jazira contract - would constitute about 30 charges.

They might spend a few days arguing the ins and outs of that issue, and then when a conclusion is reached the decision will mean City are guilty/not guilty of all 30 charges.

Similarly there's 30 charges for non-cooperation which cover 5 years. That will be decided for/against City all at once.

 

[Chris in London]

This is completely flawed because the statement bolded is not true.

The charges all overlap over multiple years so 1 potential controversy - ie Mancini's Al Jazira contract - would constitute about 30 charges.

They might spend a few days arguing the ins and outs of that issue, and then when a conclusion is reached the decision will mean City are guilty/not guilty of all 30 charges.

Similarly there's 30 charges for non-cooperation which cover 5 years. That will be decided for/against City all at once.

holy fuck

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I don’t think there is. Let’s face it, it’s highly likely the rivals clubs would have been in the ears of the PL. The impacts of the charges, if this drags on, will will likely happen too for the most part. The PR bit is already going on. There’s also a huge chance some players will be put off joining us and if that happens they may join rival clubs. Potentially Bellingham could be the first of those but hopefully not. This all comes to our detriment and to the benefit of the others objectives without us having to be found guilty.

When we win the case, which I'm sure we will, the club really need to put this to bed. If that means a press conference explaining exactly what has been going on behind the scenes, with the Pl and the red shirt clubs, and their pet poodle spurs, then it needs doing. Time for them to feel a little hot around the collar for a change.

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

This is completely flawed because the statement bolded is not true.

The charges all overlap over multiple years so 1 potential controversy - ie Mancini's Al Jazira contract - would constitute about 30 charges.

They might spend a few days arguing the ins and outs of that issue, and then when a conclusion is reached the decision will mean City are guilty/not guilty of all 30 charges.

Similarly there's 30 charges for non-cooperation which cover 5 years. That will be decided for/against City all at once.

I read something similar. The article was basically saying the same 10 offences committed over 10 years =100. That's a bit simplistic I know but that was the gist of the argument. I can't recall who wrote that article or whether the author had any real insight into the affair.

 

[domalino]

I read something similar. The article was basically saying the same 10 offences committed over 10 years =100. That's a bit simplistic I know but that was the gist of the argument. I can't recall who wrote that article or whether the author had any real insight into the affair.

It's even more overlappy than that. A lot of the rules you break 1 by breaking another. So if the PL called for someone at City to come in and assist them with their inquiry into and they didn't, it would break W.1, W.2, W.16 and B.18 simultaneously.

Rule B.18 is essentially "follow rule W1 promptly".

And if the PL decided that was an attempt to block or circumvent their investigation then it would break B.15 too.

So that's 1 action - rejecting a request for a specific person to come in and speak to the PL investigators - that generates 5 charges per season they're investigating (which is 5) so 25 of the 115.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe, you never what's going on in someone else's mind, but I don't see it like that.

The one area where we are bang to rights, I think, is on the non-co-operation. My guess is that we took a strategic decision, on advice, not to co-operate until made to and to take the pinch on the inevitable charge of non-co-operation. They make their point about non-co-operation - which in fairness is a valid one - by hitting us (or asking the independent panel to hit us) with a massive fine. CAS said the fine in similar circumstances should be €10m when about 20 grand seems to be the going rate for blatant racism or smashing up your opponent's team bus. So 10m was a whopper.

I think if it came out that we have been charged with 5 legitimate counts of non cooperation and over 100 counts that the FA knew were going to fail, that I think brings their whole organisation into disrepute.

And for anyone thinking 'yeah but it will never come out,' I think that's what Matt Hancock said.

The breaches for refusing to co-operate are for the period from 2018 onwards. Is that right?

So I suppose that means the club hasn't, in the view of the PL, provided all the documents necessary to eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing on certain issues since the investigation began.

In that case, and assuming we haven't co-operated with the issues listed in the "charges", presumably the only evidence they have is the discussions in the DS emails.

So then, my question. If the only evidence they have is the DS emails, which iirc only relates to one particular year in each case, surely Ric is right that the PL have included all the other years in the list of breaches purely because we haven't provided them with the information to show that the alleged malfeasance didn't happen in the first place, and didn't recur in any other years. Or put it another way, they only have "evidence" of a breach for each issue for a single year, the breaches for other years are merely imputed from our reluctance to co-operate. Isn't that incredibly weak from the PL?

 

[cheekybids]

I read something similar. The article was basically saying the same 10 offences committed over 10 years =100. That's a bit simplistic I know but that was the gist of the argument. I can't recall who wrote that article or whether the author had any real insight into the affair.

Fucking hell, did we leave the grass too long every season ;)

 

[oakiecokie]

holy fuck

He knows about as much as fuck also. ;)

 

[MrsBanks]

As an avid reader of the last 1765 pages, I often imagine the PL lawyers following the thread with similar diligence. Sometimes making notes and sometimes laughing hysterically.

 

[oakiecokie]

As an avid reader of the last 1765 pages, I often imagine the PL lawyers following the thread with similar diligence. Sometimes making notes and sometimes laughing hysterically.

Difference being that the PL Lawyers are laughing all right ... all the way to the bank.

 

[Chris in London]

The breaches for refusing to co-operate are for the period from 2018 onwards. Is that right?

YES

So I suppose that means the club hasn't, in the view of the PL, provided all the documents necessary to eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing on certain issues since the investigation began.


NO. THE NON COOPERATION CHARGES WILL IMHO RELATE TO OUR INITIAL REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY THE PL. THERE WAS THEN A SERIES OF COMPLSINTS/ARBITRATIONS/COURT CASES THAT RESULTED IN THE FINAL DECISION THAT WE HAD TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT. SO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE DID.

In that case, and assuming we haven't co-operated with the issues listed in the "charges", presumably the only evidence they have is the discussions in the DS emails.

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”

So then, my question. If the only evidence they have is the DS emails, which iirc only relates to one particular year in each case, surely Ric is right that the PL have included all the other years in the list of breaches purely because we haven't provided them with the information to show that the alleged malfeasance didn't happen in the first place, and didn't recur in any other years.

NO. SEE ABOVE.

Or put it another way, they only have "evidence" of a breach for each issue for a single year, the breaches for other years are merely imputed from our reluctance to co-operate. Isn't that incredibly weak from the PL?

I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”


NO. SEE ABOVE.


I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

:) I wouldn't blame you.

Honestly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”


NO. SEE ABOVE.


I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

A quick follow-up then I will shut up about this as well. Honestly.

Just providing the information requested doesn't mean we have been co-operating in good faith, does it? If the club has been withholding evidence from the investigation that would exonerate the club from wrong-doing, but didn't provide it because the PL didn't request it, or don't have the authority to request it, wouldn't that be classified as non-compliance "in good faith"?

Thinking about accounting analysis from Etihad and ADUG that the PL knows we have because it was presented at CAS, for example.

 

[cheekybids]

A quick follow-up then I will shut up about this as well. Honestly.

Just providing the information requested doesn't mean we have been co-operating in good faith, does it? If the club has been withholding evidence from the investigation that would exonerate the club from wrong-doing, but didn't provide it because the PL didn't request it, or don't have the authority to request it, wouldn't that be classified as non-compliance "in good faith"?

Thinking about accounting analysis from Etihad and ADUG that the PL knows we have because it was presented at CAS, for example.

I like you keep thinking is there any way the non cooperation can be defended?

I know we don’t know what or how they asked for evidence & we don’t know City’s response was.

I felt we had legitimate concerns with UEFA & evidence supported the concerns. Obviously not in eyes of the panel.

 

[wolviedinho]

It seems to be accepted that one potential reason for these charges is because of pressure from certain clubs being placed on the PL. It has also been said that the PL would not have listed all these charges flippantly (if that’s the right term to use here).

However, let’s just say that the first sentence is true and that there isn’t substantial evidence to secure a verdict of the most serious charges and that instead these charges are simply to set a nouse around the clubs neck for several years.

With that in mind these are the potential impacts that these charges may be designed to bring:

- It means that people doubt our success as being real. Bad PR etc.
- It could put potential transfer targets off from joining the club.
- It could put potential sponsors off from partnering with the club.
- It may even put some fans off from supporting the club.

These points all benefit our rivals in some degree or form.

If I’m the PL and an organisation which has openly said it doesn’t want one club dominating, that Utd being unsuccessful is bad for the division and that a new name should be on the trophy every few years then the desired impact of these charges could be as follows:

- The manager responsible for City’s dominance chooses to walk away fed up of the constant stories and fights (he won’t though).
- With some top players not joining due to the charges we don’t reach our true potential and become less dominant.
- Our opposition grows in stature and becomes more successful due to them being able to sign players we could not.

From what I can see, there are major benefits to having these charges around City’s neck for both our rivals & the PL regardless of whether they have enough evidence or not.

So basically the premier league’s case is a red herring and doomed to fail but also succeed by allowing our rivals to catchup thus slowing down our dominance ?

I have read a lot of theories as to why the premier have acted so aggressively towards city and I think you maybe onto something here. It’s an absurd notion but is it beyond the realms of possibilities?

The seriousness and the enormity of the charges laid at city leave you too think they either have us by the balls or they actual have little or no proof apart from hacked emails and non compliance. Can’t charge us but can damage the brand and slow down our growth. Free hit essentially. Uefa did it so why can’t the league?

It’s all a con.

 

[PhillyBasedBlue]

Many thanks for the info. It's been mentioned, before the independent panel of just three people have a really onerous responsibility when they rule on these charges. How the panel do this could also be significant, eg look at a similar charge for all relevant years or just cover all separate charges chronologically. The documentation of the hearing/ruling could run to 1000s of pages. The total legal bill will be huge, I'd reckon around 10million, truly insane amount, approx 10% of a Grealish.

Or 16.6 Haalands.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I like you keep thinking is there any way the non cooperation can be defended?

I know we don’t know what or how they asked for evidence & we don’t know City’s response was.

I felt we had legitimate concerns with UEFA & evidence supported the concerns. Obviously not in eyes of the panel.

Oh, I don't think we can defend it. I think we are fucked on non-cooperation. I am just trying to get my head around what this list of breaches actually means.

And, as you can probably tell, I still don't see things the way others do.

I am very probably wrong but I owe it to myself to try to get it straight in my own mind.

 

[HelloCity]

So basically the premier league’s case is a red herring and doomed to fail but also succeed by allowing our rivals to catchup thus slowing down our dominance ?

I have read a lot of theories as to why the premier have acted so aggressively towards city and I think you maybe onto something here. It’s an absurd notion but is it beyond the realms of possibilities?

The seriousness and the enormity of the charges laid at city leave you too think they either have us by the balls or they actual have little or no proof apart from hacked emails and non compliance. Can’t charge us but can damage the brand and slow down our growth. Free hit essentially. Uefa did it so why can’t the league?

It’s all a con.

I don’t think it’s necessary doomed to fail. I’m just saying that regardless of the outcome there are a lot of potential positives for our rival clubs and the PL while this nouse is round our necks.

If it turns out the PL don’t have clear & obvious evidence and we get found not guilty of the serious charges, after feeling a huge sense of relief, then I’ll be slightly disturbed and think the nouse was the motive all along.

 

[cheekybids]

Oh, I don't think we can defend it. I think we are fucked on non-cooperation. I am just trying to get my head around what this list of breaches actually means.

And, as you can probably tell, I still don't see things the way others do.

I am very probably wrong but I owe it to myself to try to get it straight in my own mind.

The problem with many of us that aren’t lawyers is we use things like rights & wrongs based on our values & not the law.

Still think I’m right though ;)