Following on from the post from
@acton28.blog detailing the charges, I've tried to summarise them below.
Some of these charges are quite ridiculous, and their inclusion can only be for the effect of making City look bad. They are deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive. Let’s have a look at them in more detail.
9 charges (2009/10 to 2017/18) that “In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.” I can’t think of anything specific we might have done relating to this, so the PL must be saying that by breaking the other rules, we have not acted in good faith to them or other clubs.
Funny that they didn’t charge Liverpool under this rule, when they found out they had hacked in to our scouting databases in 2013. The PL said in response to their decision not to take action against Liverpool, “This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.” So, the age of the alleged concerns applies in one case but not the other?
Also, nine Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs and Wolves) wrote to CAS asking them not to lift Manchester City's European ban. This seems to me very much like acting in bad faith towards another PL club, and a breach of the same rule. But none of them were charged.
40 charges under different rules in each season from 2009/10 to 2017/18, but essentially are:
- Company accounts to be registered with Companies House and the PL by 1 March.
- Submission of interim accounts to the League, if annual accounts end before 30 November in current season.
- UEFA applicant clubs to provide to Premier League upon request, future financial information including P&L and cash flow.
- Requirement to notify PL of changes in circumstances that might affect finances.
1 charge in 2009/10 relating to ticket sales to visiting clubs. Quite what they suspect us of doing, and why it has taken so long to come to light, and why it doesn’t fall within the Liverpool “age of the alleged concerns” precedent, I can only speculate on. My guess is it’s a witch hunt. I wonder how many other clubs have been investigated for ticketing irregularities back in 2009.
8 charges between 2009/10 and 2012/13 relating to manager remuneration - the Mancini contract allegations?
12 charges between 2010/11 and 2015/16 relating to player remuneration. Could this be the image rights issue?
5 charges of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, in the years from 2013/14 to 2017/18. In failing UEFA FFP, United broke this same rule recently, but they haven’t been charged by the PL yet.
25 cases of failing Profitability and Sustainability rules, from 2015/16 to 2017/18. I would say from a layman’s POV, this is really one rule, split out into nine separate clauses (eight in two of the years). But rather than saying we have allegedly broken Profitability and Sustainability rules in three seasons, it looks better for them to count it as 25. (Acting in good faith towards a member club?)
30 accusations amounting to failure to cooperate in respect of seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23, citing six rules in each season.
I’ve checked my figures over a few times using
https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970 as a reference. It looks a lot like 130 charges to me, so I suppose the PL have generously rounded it down, or they can’t count.
