PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
The ‘Arsenal Fan’ line is simply an attempt to rubbish a series of challenges we’ve put to this case.

Rosen is actually a member at Arsenal, which is a little more than just being an average fan - and we’re questioning his impartiality as an active member of an organisation we know has historically played a central role in trying to get us removed from the League.

But this is just a small part of the picture, intended to demonstrate the entire case is a poorly constructed, unprofessional shambles.

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand.

But despite the implied pettiness from the MSN around our defence resting on the fact we’re not happy Rosen is an Arsenal fan, this is standard legal practice - to undermine the rigour and impartiality of a case (and those behind it), thereby supporting any subsequent arguments we make on the actual substance - whilst seeding the idea that the opposite side can’t be trusted.
Click to expand...
That makes alot more sense now cheers for clearing it up.
 
chaddblue said:
I'm sure I read that the Arsenal barrister has an existing role within the PL organization, which is the reason we're objecting to his appointment, not because he's an Arsenal fan
Click to expand...
Much more likely. Possible he was even involved in the initial investigation?
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand...
Click to expand...
If we're being charged based on rules that didn't exist at the time of the alleged offence, that's nothing less than astonishing. Can you point me in the direction of any further information on this please?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's not "115 charges" though. It's basically 5, but which cover a number of related rules over multiple years.

Charge 1 is about failure to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the club's financial position relating to revenue and operating costs. This covers 50 combinations of rules/years.

Charge 2 covers failing to disclose player and manager remuneration. This covers 24 combinations of rules/years, 6 for manager remuneration and 18 for player remuneration.

Charge 3 covers failure to comply with UEFA's FFP. This covers 5 combinations of rules/years.

Charge 4 covers failure to comply with the PL's own Profit & Sustainability rules. This covers 6 combinations of rule/years.

Charge 5 covers non-cooperation. This covers 30 combinations of rules/years.

I guess it's possible that we could be found to have broken some rules under heading 1 in some years and not to have broken other rules in other years. But I doubt it. It's possible we could be found guilty of breaching the rules on player remuneration but not manager remuneration. But I very much doubt that we'll be found guilty of breaching some of the player remuneration in one or more years but not guilty in others.

Charge 1 looks very much like Charge 2 plus sponsorship agreements. I've said before that the PL will, in my view, struggle to land the sponsorship stuff, as did UEFA. Therefore in relation to financial offences it's mostly down to charge 2, I reckon.

If we're found not to have breached any of the rules in headings 1 or 2 in any of the years, then I'm 99% certain both 3 and 4 are both irrelevant, and the charges will fail by default.

The non-cooperation charges are probably the ones most likely to succeed, if any do. That doesn't mean I think they are likely to succeed but, like at CAS, are probably where we're in a comparatively weak position (although I think the issue of cooperation went to court, after which I assume we complied with any ruling).

While it's difficult to be confident without knowing the substance of the charges, I'd say it's unlikely we'll be found guilty of, say, 60 but not the other 55.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify the last para, are you saying:
confident on about 55 and "unlikely guilty" on 60?

I appreciate this is a very rough estimate.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
The ‘Arsenal Fan’ line is simply an attempt to rubbish a series of challenges we’ve put to this case.

Rosen is actually a member at Arsenal, which is a little more than just being an average fan - and we’re questioning his impartiality as an active member of an organisation we know has historically played a central role in trying to get us removed from the League.

But this is just a small part of the picture, intended to demonstrate the entire case is a poorly constructed, unprofessional shambles.

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand.

But despite the implied pettiness from the MSN around our defence resting on the fact we’re not happy Rosen is an Arsenal fan, this is standard legal practice - to undermine the rigour and impartiality of a case (and those behind it), thereby supporting any subsequent arguments we make on the actual substance - whilst seeding the idea that the opposite side can’t be trusted.
Click to expand...

1. The dropped line in the Times article that we are appealing because Rosen is an Arsenal fan will be bollocks. It is a deliberate clickbait ruse. Last time round the the court kicked-out in no uncertain times our questioning of potential bias.

2. The rule change is to do with disclosure ie the PL have introdcued wider rules about what we are supposed to disclose in response to their requests. City, rightly, say it should be on the original rules.

All IMO.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Just to clarify the last para, are you saying:
confident on about 55 and "unlikely guilty" on 60?

I appreciate this is a very rough estimate.
Click to expand...
I used those figures as examples to say I don't think it will be that sort of split. In terms of the first 4 charges, I think it'll be all or nothing, guilty of 85 or zero.

I was making the point that I don't think we'll be found guilty of breaching Rule E13 in one year, and not in the next, or guilty of breaching Rule E13 in one or more years but not Rule E14.
 
coolcity said:
If we're being charged based on rules that didn't exist at the time of the alleged offence, that's nothing less than astonishing. Can you point me in the direction of any further information on this please?
Click to expand...

There’s very little detail on the specific substance of this in any of the reports out there, but it is clearly referenced in most of the articles on our objection to Rosen.

It’s not that the rules didn’t exist. Apparently the PL recently changed some of their rules, and it seems they’ve relied on the new interpretations in relation to the charges against City, when clearly the apparent infringements all occurred before 2018 - and before the rules changed.

Without any of the detail, it’s difficult to make a call on the strength of this argument - and the extent to which these rule changes alter the case against is. But if it’s as clear cut as we appear to be claiming, then clearly this is a complete mess - and yet another damaging error on the part of the PL, which further undermines the strength of their case against us.
 
I go along with the idea that if the FA needed to change the rules to win the case against us! They can't have been too confident in the strength of their case based on the original rules.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
1. The dropped line in the Times article that we are appealing because Rosen is an Arsenal fan will be bollocks. It is a deliberate clickbait ruse. Last time round the the court kicked-out in no uncertain times our questioning of potential bias.

2. The rule change is to do with disclosure ie the PL have introdcued wider rules about what we are supposed to disclose in response to their requests. City, rightly, say it should be on the original rules.

All IMO.
Click to expand...

Point 2 is interesting - thanks for clarifying.

So it seems what we’re suggesting is this is essentially an elaborate fishing expedition, where the PL are expecting us to hand over a level of financial detail from which they hope to be able to conclusively prove the charges.

And we’re saying no, based on the level of disclosure required at the time of the alleged infringements?

If so, this is probably part of our defence on the non-cooperation charges (which I think account for about 30 of the total) - which is good to hear, as this is the one I originally thought we’d be bang to rights on!
 
bluemoon32 said:
That's it, do i think we are completely innocent, no i don't but i'd wager many other clubs have been up to the same shenanigans but just won't be investigated.
Click to expand...
With Trafford united having their accounts in the Cayman Islands - I wonder how many demands for access to detail of their accounts have been made / responded to?
 
Vic said:
What exactly is this "legal challenge" and what's prompted it now? It was known in February that Rosen was an Arsenal fan but has he said something recently to indicate his partiality? But a "legal challenge" implies Court action but there's no indication of any submission to any court.
Click to expand...

Rosen is just a footnote in all the charges our counsel have been able to since pour through and pick holes in.
 
LEVY OUT, LEVY OUT, LEVY OUT

Just seen Spuds fans with flags wanting rid of Daniel. I don't know, football fans must be the most ungrateful people imaginable. When you think of all the time, all the money, all the energy Daniel has spent orchestrating a witch hunt against MCFC on behalf of those very fans. And this is how they repay him ! Maybe, if he had spent a tad more time focusing on own his club they would be in a position to compete with the likes of the little old CITEH...
 
Bluemoonadam said:
I'm just stating our lawyer is an arsenal fan nothing stupid about it because its true.
Click to expand...
Except that’s not all you stated. You’re either stupid or looking for an argument.

Here, in words you might understand: One is being paid by us to represent our interests. Hence partial, but not supposed to be partial, so no problem.

The other is supposed to be impartial.
 
Last edited:
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
There’s very little detail on the specific substance of this in any of the reports out there, but it is clearly referenced in most of the articles on our objection to Rosen.

It’s not that the rules didn’t exist. Apparently the PL recently changed some of their rules, and it seems they’ve relied on the new interpretations in relation to the charges against City, when clearly the apparent infringements all occurred before 2018 - and before the rules changed.

Without any of the detail, it’s difficult to make a call on the strength of this argument - and the extent to which these rule changes alter the case against is. But if it’s as clear cut as we appear to be claiming, then clearly this is a complete mess - and yet another damaging error on the part of the PL, which further undermines the strength of their case against us.
Click to expand...
Many thanks, that's very helpful. I'm following it as best I can with the little spare time I have but I hadn't picked up on that. It's a total mess, on that we can all agree.
 
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