PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

give it to gordon said:
Surely the pl have are the information they need hence the charges
Click to expand...

Depends on what information they used to issue the charges.

It certainly wasn't any accounting information we submitted as that would have been audited and the charges would have come about a long time ago.

If they've done it from the leaked information then they may well need a lot of information from us and we may not have to provide it.
 
Questioning the KC appointed isn't really the big story here, it just makes for a nice clickbait title. I imagine most KC's specialising in sport are fans of a football team.

The challenging of the application of the rules does seem very important however.
 
MCFC1993 said:



Seems like Stefan is saying the Premier League are trying to use new rules to request information retrospectively. He admits he's just guessing but I can understand why the club is pushing back on that.

Click see more to see his full tweet.


Hoping this pans out as we can't charge City because they aren't obliged to hand over information and we can all move on.
Click to expand...


The real question is who is leaking this information, the club or the PL? I can't imagine it's either, really. Or someone from inside the process, but not the PL directly. Sound familiar?

If it's coming from the PL directly or indirectly, that's another process violation right there. Another rookie mistake when they have been so careful to be so quiet for so long. And a sign of weakness
 
MCFC1993 said:
Depends on what information they used to issue the charges.

It certainly wasn't any accounting information we submitted as that would have been audited and the charges would have come about a long time ago.

If they've done it from the leaked information then they may well need a lot of information from us and we may not have to provide it.
Click to expand...

But to charge someone you must be confident you have enough information. I thought you would be 100% sure you have evidence you need
 
Claytop said:
So read the article and that's what it sounds like, no issue with that challenge really. The one about him being an Arsenal fan seems a bit much, akin to what we've posted on here. You'd hope regardless they would be impartial.
Click to expand...
I'd say he would have been impartial about 6 weeks ago when Arsenal won the league in March.
Now I reckon he'll take the hearing wearing full Arsenal kit plus boots and shinpads and want to fuck us over.
 
give it to gordon said:
But to charge someone you must be confident you have enough information. I thought you would be 100% sure you have evidence you need
Click to expand...

You would like to think so, especially from the Premier League's point of view, but I think the charges are a bit like being arrested. You would like to think that the police making the arrest have all the evidence but not all arrests hold up in front of a jury.
 
AlgarveBlu said:
My memory may be failing me here but I am sure I read on this thread some time ago that the final decision couldn't be appealed to the High Court? Times article concludes it can do and says City are prepared to go to the Supreme court
Click to expand...
Stefan touched on this in the tweet. If you're applying rules retrospectively I think there is a case for the high court to get involved (because it would be an issue with the procedure/process) but the facts/evidence whether or not we broke the rules isn't a job for the high court.
 
Generally rules and laws are not applied retrospectively, for example Building regulations with the exception of rule changes that have clear safety or environmental implications even then there is a normal grace period, it's against natural justice to charge someone for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time, like retrospectively charging people for not wearing seatbelts before the rule came in making them mandatory
 
Ducado said:
Generally rules and laws are not applied retrospectively, for example Building regulations with the exception of rule changes that have clear safety or environmental implications even then there is a normal grace period, it's against natural justice to charge someone for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time, like retrospectively charging people for not wearing seatbelts before the rule came in making them mandatory
Click to expand...

This appears to be a rule brought in to request access to information. Clubs now have to share more information with the Premier League due to this rule.

They're then using to rule to request information prior to the rules inception.

As you mention in your example I think the same should apply here.

The rule should only be valid for information after the rules inception. - I imagine this point is going to be argued by both sides in court.
 
bmfc95 said:
Stefan touched on this in the tweet. If you're applying rules retrospectively I think there is a case for the high court to get involved (because it would be an issue with the procedure/process) but the facts/evidence whether or not we broke the rules isn't a job for the high court.
Click to expand...

Also an explanation why we have not given them access to documents they legally don't need to see.
 
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