PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

blue ranger said:
No way we will come out of this unscathed. The PL will need to save face. If we aren’t found guilty of the bigger charges we will be found guilty of something so that the stains on our character stay forever. Forget smoking guns and all that shite. Anyone who believes otherwise is deluded.
Click to expand...
We have so much more to lose than they have to gain. Fuck their saving face. I don't think it's at all delusional to think City will fight with every ounce of their being to come out unscathed as far as any damaging sanctions. I expect City to shove these charges up the PL's ass and I'm not a bit delusional about anything.
 
petrusha said:
I don't claim to speak for the others, but from my point of view the temptation to try to dampen expectations is always strong. Most people on here understand that, in a football match, the objectively stronger of the two teams sometimes doesn't win and the better of the teams in any given match can also lose. But they expect law to be an exact science when it also isn't and can often go either way (albeit for different reasons).

Issues that look black and white to a layman can often be very much subject to wildly differing interpretations when outstanding legal minds get to grips with them, and this is what I try to convey. I remember Stefan posting on here before the CAS proceedings that, in any litigation, there's a risk of 30% that you'll lose even if you think your case is iron-clad.

Now, when I was a UK government lawyer back in the day, we had a case that we considered pretty much a cert and our QC (as his title then was) put our chances at 80%. That still meant we were a 1-in-5 shot to lose even when we thought we had a slam-dunk. (We did win in the end, by the way.) But the percentages are immaterial. The key point is that, even where your case seems really strong, you never know for sure how it'll go.

I was asked yesterday what would happen where, in effect, the evidence were exactly the same as before the CAS on the substantive point considered in the latter forum and we appealed an adverse decision of the PL panel on the ground that it was so perverse that it must demonstrate a failure of the panel to act in accordance with its statutory duty. My view is that such an argument would be have significant merit.

Unfortunately I can't even begin to try and guarantee that the High Court would agree. That's the difficulty in posting on legal issues here when there's an understandable desire from other posters for certainty that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
A big thanks to you for your posts. You put a lot of effort into your postings helping us more mentally challenged people to understand what’s going on in this case. A big thanks from me.
 
petrusha said:
I don't claim to speak for the others, but from my point of view the temptation to try to dampen expectations is always strong. Most people on here understand that, in a football match, the objectively stronger of the two teams sometimes doesn't win and the better of the teams in any given match can also lose. But they expect law to be an exact science when it also isn't and can often go either way (albeit for different reasons).

Issues that look black and white to a layman can often be very much subject to wildly differing interpretations when outstanding legal minds get to grips with them, and this is what I try to convey. I remember Stefan posting on here before the CAS proceedings that, in any litigation, there's a risk of 30% that you'll lose even if you think your case is iron-clad.

Now, when I was a UK government lawyer back in the day, we had a case that we considered pretty much a cert and our QC (as his title then was) put our chances at 80%. That still meant we were a 1-in-5 shot to lose even when we thought we had a slam-dunk. (We did win in the end, by the way.) But the percentages are immaterial. The key point is that, even where your case seems really strong, you never know for sure how it'll go.

I was asked yesterday what would happen where, in effect, the evidence were exactly the same as before the CAS on the substantive point considered in the latter forum and we appealed an adverse decision of the PL panel on the ground that it was so perverse that it must demonstrate a failure of the panel to act in accordance with its statutory duty. My view is that such an argument would be have significant merit.

Unfortunately I can't even begin to try and guarantee that the High Court would agree. That's the difficulty in posting on legal issues here when there's an understandable desire from other posters for certainty that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
I hear you mate, even in my limited experience I’ve seen cases go to judicial review (I read them out of necessity, and about 10 times before I take them in lol, because they affect me rather any interest btw) where the original verdict etc seems absolutely correct and logical and yet, at the judicial review, things have been highlighted by a peer where they believe the original judge erred on their interpretation on certain points and overturned, so although the finer points are most definitely lost on me, interpretation, even by people of equal standing, can often be very different, and as your posts always pint out/intimate (quite rightly) , it’s something we as fans need to be aware of and bear in mind.
 
If city are being retrospectively charged for not complying to the present PL rules - for 2009 to 2018 then surely none of the other 19 teams in the league will have complied with regulations not in place at the time? Will being singled out form a part of our present objections I wonder?
 
BlueBlood84 said:
What agitates me is the feigned shock and disgust at 'extra payments to Mancini'

I mean who gives a fuck, why is that so horrific in a league which has teams that have paid ridiculous compensation to sack managers who have failed to reach their targets. The whole thing is rotten.
Click to expand...

Those payments were for a job he he had finished before becoming our manager
 
BlueBlood84 said:
What agitates me is the feigned shock and disgust at 'extra payments to Mancini'

I mean who gives a fuck, why is that so horrific in a league which has teams that have paid ridiculous compensation to sack managers who have failed to reach their targets. The whole thing is rotten.
Click to expand...
Yeah but that couple of extra million to Mancini is obviously the one and only reason we have won any trophies.

I’d even go as far as to say it’s the only reason we’ve ever won a game.
 
Centurions said:
TBH I'd never considered when exactly he was employed by the AD club, perhaps the PL want the full details of his contract there and want us to procure them? It would explain the stalemate.
Click to expand...

But if it’s not a PL club is it in their jurisdiction?
 
100% the premier league will have to make at least one charge stick , they would look fools otherwise , the non-co-operation is the favourite which is all the media and the feral hate filled plastic fans around the world need.
We will be branded cheats , but the haters will be disappointed ,non-co-operation at the very worst is a delaying tactic , so no titles will be removed ,no relegation ,no points deduction , no transfer embargo , no ground closure , no asterisk in the record books ,and a fine that will be paid with the change found down the back of Sheik Mansour's sofa.
Our owners getting a slap on the wrist will not affect our club commercially , sponsors will still want to be associated with the best run club in europe ,and investors will still find us an attractive option.
The Premier league and Masters can then dance to the Rags & Dippers next tune , the Barcodes will be in their sites now they have taken the Dippers Champs league place , that is nailed on.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
100% the premier league will have to make at least one charge stick , they would look fools otherwise , the non-co-operation is the favourite which is all the media and the feral hate filled plastic fans around the world need.
We will be branded cheats , but the haters will be disappointed ,non-co-operation at the very worst is a delaying tactic , so no titles will be removed ,no relegation ,no points deduction , no transfer embargo , no ground closure , no asterisk in the record books ,and a fine that will be paid with the change found down the back of Sheik Mansour's sofa.
Our owners getting a slap on the wrist will not affect our club commercially , sponsors will still want to be associated with the best run club in europe ,and investors will still find us an attractive option.
The Premier league and Masters can then dance to the Rags & Dippers next tune , the Barcodes will be in their sites now they have taken the Dippers Champs league place , that is nailed on.
Click to expand...
Yep,the premier league kangaroo court will find us guilty of something,that’s a certainty. Why City fans would care I’ll never know.
 
dubblue said:
Yep,the premier league kangaroo court will find us guilty of something,that’s a certainty. Why City fans would care I’ll never know.
Click to expand...
Will still be wearing my shirt with pride with the gold premier league badges on the sleeves and hopefully our new club badge with one Champions league star above , and just to complete the wind up for our haters a big £ sign on the back of the shirt :)
 
BlueBlood84 said:
What agitates me is the feigned shock and disgust at 'extra payments to Mancini'

I mean who gives a fuck, why is that so horrific in a league which has teams that have paid ridiculous compensation to sack managers who have failed to reach their targets. The whole thing is rotten.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s rotten but it’s ok,as we are now the scapegoat and the go to team when it comes to blaming,while a blind eye is turned at all others,there is teams WHO have committed offence’s regarding the premier league rules but we are being used/abused to deflect from them ..
 
petrusha said:
I don't claim to speak for the others, but from my point of view the temptation to try to dampen expectations is always strong. Most people on here understand that, in a football match, the objectively stronger of the two teams sometimes doesn't win and the better of the teams in any given match can also lose. But they expect law to be an exact science when it also isn't and can often go either way (albeit for different reasons).

Issues that look black and white to a layman can often be very much subject to wildly differing interpretations when outstanding legal minds get to grips with them, and this is what I try to convey. I remember Stefan posting on here before the CAS proceedings that, in any litigation, there's a risk of 30% that you'll lose even if you think your case is iron-clad.

Now, when I was a UK government lawyer back in the day, we had a case that we considered pretty much a cert and our QC (as his title then was) put our chances at 80%. That still meant we were a 1-in-5 shot to lose even when we thought we had a slam-dunk. (We did win in the end, by the way.) But the percentages are immaterial. The key point is that, even where your case seems really strong, you never know for sure how it'll go.

I was asked yesterday what would happen where, in effect, the evidence were exactly the same as before the CAS on the substantive point considered in the latter forum and we appealed an adverse decision of the PL panel on the ground that it was so perverse that it must demonstrate a failure of the panel to act in accordance with its statutory duty. My view is that such an argument would be have significant merit.

Unfortunately I can't even begin to try and guarantee that the High Court would agree. That's the difficulty in posting on legal issues here when there's an understandable desire from other posters for certainty that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
Very interesting post. I have a number of questions but two in particular I've wondered about and you are more qualified to answer. When Platini introduced ffp he announced they were fully compliant with European law, did this mean EU law and if so could teams playing in European countries not members of the EU in theory have challenged in their own courts the legalities of this? Also if this is the case after Brexit is there any recourse to challenge against say freedom of free trade as an example.
 
Came across this online from a legal source under his conclusions:

It is evident that FFP rules work for big and small clubs in different ways. In the case of wealthy clubs, in theory at least, it promotes competition by ensuring that teams don't acquire players at any price(rags & chavs), in order to achieve short term success on the pitch. For smaller clubs, it allows them to protect themselves financially, so that there are no more instances of teams such as Leeds United and Burton Albion, falling into administration. Everton/wolves might not agree!
 
ETIHAD SPONSORSHIP

Another trope in the MSM is the PL are charging us with 'inflated sponsorship deals ie that are above market values"

When I first looked at these values below I felt slightly uneasy ....

1685225758794.png
But on reflection, Etihad don't just sponsor our kit they have the naming rights on the stadium, the academy, in fact the whole campus. They also have aircraft painted in MCFC livery.

The AFC shirt and stadium are sponsored by the other UAE flag carrier Emirates. So why do Ethihad pay £27.5 million more than Emirates?. Is this because City are always in the Champions League and serial PL winners.
However this could this be where the judicial panel get all "interpretive" and say they agree with the PL, ie despite all the clubs justifications we, the panel, also consider the value inflated because blah blah blah....
This is my concern, if the panel agree its judged to be eg £10M per year over market value, how do we counter argue that interpretation. Don't remember market values in the CAS ruling, that just dismissed the ridiculous accusations re the transactions...
 
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