PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

hgblue said:
I remember arguing this at the time, but apparently we were prepared to accept a slap on the wrist in order not to upset the apple cart. I thought this was a mistake at the time, because FFP should have been a mechanism to prevent clubs going into excessive debt, not to prevent investment and suppress competition. Water under the bridge now I suppose but it appears to have come back to bite us on the arse with the premier league.
Click to expand...

Your picturing the exact same scenario we are in but with no FFP.

The whole scenario could have back fired and no guarantee this ruling means we would have won.

The football/ success is hard to believe could have been beaten. We have been treated in a way very few fans have.

The fact PSG never went after it either (who I would consider have less to lose at the time).

Only time will tell but I would say they have played it perfectly but we do have one big ? that we need to pass.
 
City's failure to test FFP in the courts has nothing at all to do with a wish to be liked or trying to win friends. The club is certainly not "soft". Khaldoon was very clear on the matter in 2014. His instinct had been to use every means available to the club to fight UEFA, but as a businessman he knew that litigation was time consuming and drew attention away from long term objectives. He was certain (and he was right) that City would have no further difficulties in meeting FFP demands in the future. FFP was little more than a minor blip on the road to dominance. No point in a long legal battle just to pull our tongue out at UEFA.

FFP has never been tested in the courts. No sporting exception has been accepted. Quite the reverse since in the Bosman ruling UEFA were told that all future matters arising would be decide on what the law was and not what UEFA saw as its own interests. Most favourable opinion of FFP has come from the European commission which is not a judicial body (which gave its full backing to UEFA in the Bosman case) but even they said UEFA's governance must be consistent with competition law. Attempts to challenge FFP have failed for a variety of procedural reasons but there has not been a frontal assault on the principle of the regulations. To me it seems the attempt to limit owner investment (FFP doesn't actually forbid it) is clearly in violation of EU (and UK) competition law but it is impossible to prove that is the INTENTION of the limit (as has been argued. It can be argued - and I think successfully - that the CONSEQUENCE of the limit is anti-competitive.

Promising grounds for a challenge have become available this week with the ruling that governing bodies must concern themselves solely with sporting matters but must not concern themselves with commercial matters. The offside law is a concern of UEFA's but not how much shareholders should invest in a club or what is market value for a sponsorship deal or even how much debt can be taken on board.

If UEFA has any sense (if!) it will take advice from reputable law practices, listen to that advice and begin to tidy up the mess that it has got itself into over the last 30 years. The PL might profitably do the same.
 
paulchapo said:
They really need to challenge the ffp bollocks in court now, something they should have done years ago. Nobody thought Bosman would win but he did.
Click to expand...
Jean-Marc Bosman ended up a penniless and ruined man, ironically. The case broke him financially and emotionally. It’s a sad reflection on human nature than none of the beneficiaries of that ruling appear to have ever helped him out.
 
FFP was really a problem to City in its early stages where prolonged investment was needed.

Their problem now that we have been self sufficient for several years is that City continue to invest.

Tightening FFPs impact simply makes it more difficult for the other clubs to comply so works in our favour.
 
give it to gordon said:
I'm no expert, if the courts have ruled that UEFA was wrong to stop another competition, than surely it must make ffp wrong for stopping clubs from becoming competitive
Click to expand...

They are the governing body so I think they just have to show that their regulations support the European Sports Model. I think it is fairly clear that some form of financial control is good for the game. Whether this version is it, is a different question, of course.

For the ESL, it is more complicated because UEFA is the governing body and a tournament organiser. I think the general position is that UEFA can't ban other tournaments if their regulations don't set out the conditions on which other tournaments are licensed. That was the case last time. But it isn't the case now, I don't think. I would imagine UEFA's new regulations include strict conditions for new tournaments such as annual invitation based on merit, protection of the domestic leagues, financing the pyramid etc., which can easily be argued to support the ESM and will make an ESL almost impossible, other than as a CL replacement. With the CL moving towards a league anyway and the new CWC, the attraction of an ESL will be considerably lessened, imho.

Could all be bollocks, though. :)
 
Cobwebcat said:
With GB now being outside the EU it gets even more complicated.

Footy determined to destroy itself where so much is decided away from the pitch rather than on it.

Soon the Champions will be the club with the best lawyer with no need for actual games!
Click to expand...
115 in a row
 
waspish said:
Difference is clubs sign up to those rules in premier and champs league
Click to expand...
Is it your position that a governing body can introduce rules without regard for whether those rules conform with the law of the land?
Or is it that we can’t challenge the rules because we signed up to them?
Or is it something else?
Just trying to understand your argument.
 
Having read the posts of those with more expertise I'm more comfortable than I was. I find myself torn between feeling confident we'll be okay and then remembering the huge agenda behind all of this and thinking there's no chance we can win.

However, this is really a duplication of the UEFA charges and has been forced on the PL by the red shirts and the looming threat of the independent regulator. They don't have anything new. It's a regurgitation of what we've already defended at CAS. You'd expect there to be some logic to the PL charges and that they've reviewed the case at CAS and refined their charges, but that's giving them far too much respect. They've just thrown the same charges at us, assumed that because of certain elements being time-barred with UEFA and not with them, that something might stick from that time period. And then thrown a load more random charges our way just to add weight to the argument.
 
hgblue said:
Is it your position that a governing body can introduce rules without regard for whether those rules conform with the law of the land?
Or is it that we can’t challenge the rules because we signed up to them?
Or is it something else?
Just trying to understand your argument.
Click to expand...
The problem is that ffp doesnt strictly follow the laws of the land as in no other business is an outside entity allowed to determine market value, the market sets the value and people will pay what they believe it to be worth, thats basic economics only in football could we have a system as ridiculous as an outside body deciding how much you can make in sponsorship and whether that is fair.
 
supercity88 said:
Having read the posts of those with more expertise I'm more comfortable than I was. I find myself torn between feeling confident we'll be okay and then remembering the huge agenda behind all of this and thinking there's no chance we can win.

However, this is really a duplication of the UEFA charges and has been forced on the PL by the red shirts and the looming threat of the independent regulator. They don't have anything new. It's a regurgitation of what we've already defended at CAS. You'd expect there to be some logic to the PL charges and that they've reviewed the case at CAS and refined their charges, but that's giving them far too much respect. They've just thrown the same charges at us, assumed that because of certain elements being time-barred with UEFA and not with them, that something might stick from that time period. And then thrown a load more random charges our way just to add weight to the argument.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20231222_110359_Chrome.jpg

So here's a strange thing... A UK Lawyer said that the PL state in their memorandums of articles & association that they operate in accordance with UK Law. However, a statute of limitations of 6 months for minor criminal offences, & 6 years for civil, contract & debt cases exists in UK Law.

The only area where there's no statute of limitations, is for serious criminal offences typically tried at the Crown Court.

The Lawyer then said, at best he believes the PL adjudication panel can only go back to offences committed from 2017 onwards. Anything prior to this is time barred in UK Law.

Now this doesn't mean the PL can't go back pre-2017 in their own internal processes, but what it does mean is if City appeal the process in a civil court, the court will only consider evidence post February 2017.

From my understanding, most of what we're charged with is pre-2017, so would be thrown out if we appealed the process used in a UK Court of Law.

I was hearing so many scenarios at first, that I thought the PL had charged us, & were seeking the evidence to support their accusations, but that's definitely not the case.

The PL have charged us, disclosed their evidence to City & given it to the PL Adjudication panel to consider ahead of a hearing.

City have disclosed our evidence, & are now waiting for the hearing date, & that's where things get a bit odd. If the PL have charged us & disclosed their evidence to us & their panel, why all the estimates the whole process could take up to four years?

I get there are thousands of pages of documents & witness testimonies, but surely it can be resolved before then?

There are new claims the case will be heard commencing September 2024, with a verdict being reached by summer 2025, notwithstanding any delays.

City maintain we have irrefutable evidence & are confident of our innocence. As you say, many of the charges have already been heard & dismissed by CAS, so the reason this has all resurfaced is because of the Der Spiegel "evidence" which was gained through hacking.

We were also sanctioned by UEFA in 2014 for the majority of these charges, so it's difficult to see how the PL can charge us again.

We submit our financial reports to the PL, & they submit them to UEFA. The PL are seemingly claiming this constitutes two sets of breaches, because if we've lied to UEFA, we've defacto lied to the PL too. But what about the double jeopardy of being charged twice for the same alleged breaches? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Again, there's the lawful reporting of a crime. If the PL believe we've committed accounting fraud, they're duty bound by law to alert the authorities, whereby it'll become a criminal matter.

None of this has happened, because if they were to make this move, it would drag our auditors, sponsors, the Abu Dhabi Government & the Abu Dhabi Royal Family into the equation, which at the very least would cause a diplomatic incident, whereby the UK would be accusing Abu Dhabi of being fraudsters & crooks.

After rowing back on a 2021 investment commitment to the UK because of the mess caused by Doris & Truss, Sunak was seen as a steadying hand & Grant Schapps got the investment deal back on track, but at a reduced initial £10bn.

The Tories are desperate for this investment, so you can imagine their rage when the PL reared its turkey head with talk of charging us on the instructions of the Hateful Eight.

The Abu Dhabi investment deal was resurrected in January 2023. A month later the government gave the PL notice of an Independent Regulator for Football. The PL obviously panicked, & three days later City were charged.

The UK Government has bigger fish to fry, & too much to lose just to placate the Red Top Mafia & Spuds over trumped up football related charges.

Given the latest date for a General Election is January 28th 2025, the Tories will want Abu Dhabi's investment on their balance sheet, so they can justify tax cut bribes for their mates.

I very much doubt they'll allow FFP to hinder their re-election bid in any way shape or form. To qualify this, the Independent Regulator of Football will be setup in shadow form before 2024, & because it was in the King's Speech, it will be enacted BEFORE the next election.

Government ministers have already said they'll act retrospectively in the interests of the game, so quite how this will effect the PL's frivolous charges against us, remains of great interest.

The Government's wording & comments surrounding this seem to suggest, they're stepping in to take control of English & Welsh football, lock, stock & two smoking barrels.

City seem relaxed & confident about the charges. The PL seem to be shitting themselves & confused as what to do next.

The last time football authorities fucked with City, Platini & Blatter were arrested, charged, found guilty & banned from football.

Then on UEFA's behalf, the PL chose to pick a fight with us, & they've gone on to lose regulatory control of their Premier League cash cow. Coincidence? \0/

By unfairly pursuing City, the PL have inadvertently killed the goose that lays their gold eggs. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Whatever will be will be, but after initially being calm over the situation, then extremely worried, I've taken proper stock & now I'm very relaxed about the whole matter. Our owner & Khaldoon have got this.

Man City and the Premier League agree date for trial https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12809173/Man-City-Premier-League-agree-date-tribunal-financial-rule-break-charges.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton
 
supercity88 said:
Having read the posts of those with more expertise I'm more comfortable than I was. I find myself torn between feeling confident we'll be okay and then remembering the huge agenda behind all of this and thinking there's no chance we can win.

However, this is really a duplication of the UEFA charges and has been forced on the PL by the red shirts and the looming threat of the independent regulator. They don't have anything new. It's a regurgitation of what we've already defended at CAS. You'd expect there to be some logic to the PL charges and that they've reviewed the case at CAS and refined their charges, but that's giving them far too much respect. They've just thrown the same charges at us, assumed that because of certain elements being time-barred with UEFA and not with them, that something might stick from that time period. And then thrown a load more random charges our way just to add weight to the argument.
Click to expand...
You know it's just part 2 of the UEFA charges when fat **** Tebas was shouting from the rooftops that the Premier league was our next battle, and that was well before the charges were announced. He seemed very well informed
 
Dribble said:
View attachment 101994

So here's a strange thing... A UK Lawyer said that the PL state in their memorandums of articles & association that they operate in accordance with UK Law. However, a statute of limitations of 6 months for minor criminal offences, & 6 years for civil, contract & debt cases exists in UK Law.

The only area where there's no statute of limitations, is for serious criminal offences typically tried at the Crown Court.

The Lawyer then said, at best he believes the PL adjudication panel can only go back to offences committed from 2017 onwards. Anything prior to this is time barred in UK Law.

Now this doesn't mean the PL can't go back pre-2017 in their own internal processes, but what it does mean is if City appeal the process in a civil court, the court will only consider evidence post February 2017.

From my understanding, most of what we're charged with is pre-2017, so would be thrown out if we appealed the process used in a UK Court of Law.

I was hearing so many scenarios at first, that I thought the PL had charged us, & were seeking the evidence to support their accusations, but that's definitely not the case.

The PL have charged us, disclosed their evidence to City & given it to the PL Adjudication panel to consider ahead of a hearing.

City have disclosed our evidence, & are now waiting for the hearing date, & that's where things get a bit odd. If the PL have charged us & disclosed their evidence to us & their panel, why all the estimates the whole process could take up to four years?

I get there are thousands of pages of documents & witness testimonies, but surely it can be resolved before then?

There are new claims the case will be heard commencing September 2024, with a verdict being reached by summer 2025, notwithstanding any delays.

City maintain we have irrefutable evidence & are confident of our innocence. As you say, many of the charges have already been heard & dismissed by CAS, so the reason this has all resurfaced is because of the Der Spiegel "evidence" which was gained through hacking.

We were also sanctioned by UEFA in 2014 for the majority of these charges, so it's difficult to see how the PL can charge us again.

We submit our financial reports to the PL, & they submit them to UEFA. The PL are seemingly claiming this constitutes two sets of breaches, because if we've lied to UEFA, we've defacto lied to the PL too. But what about the double jeopardy of being charged twice for the same alleged breaches? ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Again, there's the lawful reporting of a crime. If the PL believe we've committed accounting fraud, they're duty bound by law to alert the authorities, whereby it'll become a criminal matter.

None of this has happened, because if they were to make this move, it would drag our auditors, sponsors, the Abu Dhabi Government & the Abu Dhabi Royal Family into the equation, which at the very least would cause a diplomatic incident, whereby the UK would be accusing Abu Dhabi of being fraudsters & crooks.

After rowing back on a 2021 investment commitment to the UK because of the mess caused by Doris & Truss, Sunak was seen as a steadying hand & Grant Schapps got the investment deal back on track, but at a reduced initial £10bn.

The Tories are desperate for this investment, so you can imagine their rage when the PL reared its turkey head with talk of charging us on the instructions of the Hateful Eight.

The Abu Dhabi investment deal was resurrected in January 2023. A month later the government gave the PL notice of an Independent Regulator for Football. The PL obviously panicked, & three days later City were charged.

The UK Government has bigger fish to fry, & too much to lose just to placate the Red Top Mafia & Spuds over trumped up football related charges.

Given the latest date for a General Election is January 28th 2025, the Tories will want Abu Dhabi's investment on their balance sheet, so they can justify tax cut bribes for their mates.

I very much doubt they'll allow FFP to hinder their re-election bid in any way shape or form. To qualify this, the Independent Regulator of Football will be setup in shadow form before 2024, & because it was in the King's Speech, it will be enacted BEFORE the next election.

Government ministers have already said they'll act retrospectively in the interests of the game, so quite how this will effect the PL's frivolous charges against us, remains of great interest.

The Government's wording & comments surrounding this seem to suggest, they're stepping in to take control of English & Welsh football, lock, stock & two smoking barrels.

City seem relaxed & confident about the charges. The PL seem to be shitting themselves & confused as what to do next.

The last time football authorities fucked with City, Platini & Blatter were arrested, charged, found guilty & banned from football.

Then on UEFA's behalf, the PL chose to pick a fight with us, & they've gone on to lose regulatory control of their Premier League cash cow. Coincidence? \0/

By unfairly pursuing City, the PL have inadvertently killed the goose that lays their gold eggs. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Whatever will be will be, but after initially being calm over the situation, then extremely worried, I've taken proper stock & now I'm very relaxed about the whole matter. Our owner & Khaldoon have got this.

Man City and the Premier League agree date for trial https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12809173/Man-City-Premier-League-agree-date-tribunal-financial-rule-break-charges.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton
Click to expand...
While I don’t necessarily agree with every word, it about sums up my own position on this, which is why I think Khaldoon basically said he’s biting his tongue for now, but will have plenty to say thereafter!

Looking forward to that statement!!
 
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