PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Centurions said:
If they prove that our accounts aren't accurate then those charges would actually be correct. Also we're only accused from 2009 to 2018 for the first 4 groups, the 5th one for non-cooperation are from 2018 to the present. Which raises the spectre that if they prove any of the first 4 then they may investigate or charge us from 2018 to the present for at least 1, 3 & 4 (?).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that works tbh. There was no legal reason (as far as I know) why the investigation couldn't have continued up to 2023 if they found wrongdoing. In fact, you could argue they should have done.

Unless the investigation was limited to only the issues in the emails for the years referred to in the emails, which would be remarkably odd, and wouldn't take four years in my book.

Just another mystery we won't have an answer to until all this is over, I guess.
 
Centurions said:
I had to go back to refresh my memory on what we're alleged to have done.

Details of the Premier League Rules that the Club is alleged to have breached are as follows:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);
(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;
(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;
(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules B.15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;
(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;
(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and
(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:
(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and
(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:
(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;
(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;
(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and
(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:
(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and
(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:
(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;
(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13; and
(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

So, if I've got this right:-

1. Cooked the books in regards to sponsorship and perhaps Fordham?
2. Mancini
3. Failing UEFA FFP? Obviously(?) can't be right?
4. Failing P&S
5. Failure to cooperate

Am I well wide of the mark on any of that?
Click to expand...
Great post, am i right in thinking that in section 1 Fair and accurate does not appear within those dates, and City have pointed this out?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I'm not sure how that works tbh. There was no legal reason (as far as I know) why the investigation couldn't have continued up to 2023 if they found wrongdoing. In fact, you could argue they should have done.

Unless the investigation was limited to only the issues in the emails for the years referred to in the emails, which would be remarkably odd, and wouldn't take four years in my book.

Just another mystery we won't have an answer to until all this is over, I guess.
Click to expand...
2018 was when the investigation started, they can't be investigating each season after that and adding them on as we'd never get a resolution. That's why we need a total clearance of all charges (barring perhaps the non-coop one) as 2019 on will be obviously clear of any wrong doing.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
Great post, am i right in thinking that in section 1 Fair and accurate does not appear within those dates, and City have pointed this out?
Click to expand...
That I don't know bud, I'm aware they've changed the rules and the wording around everything which seems to give them carte blanche to ask for anything & everything and expect the clubs to hand over stuff that hasn't been asked for even. Who needs a kangaroo court when the rules state that you have to convict yourself?
 
salfordbluetrue said:
Great post, am i right in thinking that in section 1 Fair and accurate does not appear within those dates, and City have pointed this out?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.

The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.

IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).

So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).

So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.

And I think the PL knows this too.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.

The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.

IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).

So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).

So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.

And I think the PL knows this too.
Click to expand...
Knew someone had posted this, just thought me marbles had gone. but it does put more significance to the CAS ruling, including the non compliance.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.

The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.

IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).

So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).

So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.

And I think the PL knows this too.
Click to expand...
The problem is that if there is the slightest hint that anything at all was not disclosed by the club, then the insinuations will start and before long it becomes ‘what have they got to hide‘? and no amount of explaining how irrelevant those non-disclosures were will make a difference.
It will be the last remaining stick of assumed guilt they will use, and they will use it.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
The problem is that if there is the slightest hint that anything at all was not disclosed by the club, then the insinuations will start and before long it becomes ‘what have they got to hide‘? and no amount of explaining how irrelevant those non-disclosures were will make a difference.
It will be the last remaining stick of assumed guilt they will use, and they will use it.
Click to expand...
they can but realistically the question could be asked why would we make commercially sensitive information available to a body that has proven to be untrustworthy and has no legal right to request it, it would be similar to us handing over contract and sponsorship deals to the red tops to get their approval and that is commercial suicide, they know that and so do we, its tantamount to charging someone for perjury for each time they went no comment in an interview.
 
Centurions said:
2018 was when the investigation started, they can't be investigating each season after that and adding them on as we'd never get a resolution. That's why we need a total clearance of all charges (barring perhaps the non-coop one) as 2019 on will be obviously clear of any wrong doing.
Click to expand...
On that basis, if we were to be found guilty of some charges, they could then open a new investigation covering 2018-2024
 
halfcenturyup said:
I have a problem with that whole section, tbh. There is no requirement at all in the PL rules to provide accurate information that gives a true and fair view of anything.

The statement of directors' responsibility in the accounts summarises it better: "responsibility for providing information accurate enough to produce accounts that give a true and fair view". To summarise, the accounts don't have to be accurate, only accurate enough.

IIrc, the only financial information required by the rules the club is alleged to have broken in section 1 are annual accounts (which don't have to be accurate), forecasts and interim numbers (which only have to be prepared in the same manner as the annual accounts) and additional disclosures (which aren't required in the annual accounts anyway).

So to my point, the only issue that would lead to a problem under section 1 is something so large that it affects the true and fair view given by the accounts or leads to an FFP breach (only the Etihad allegation can do that imho, and good luck with that).

So honestly, I don't see anything coming out of any of this, other than, at worst, a couple of wrist slaps for not disclosing to the PL some things they think the club should have disclosed.

And I think the PL knows this too.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile the media continue:
 
Last edited:
mancboy said:
they can but realistically the question could be asked why would we make commercially sensitive information available to a body that has proven to be untrustworthy and has no legal right to request it, it would be similar to us handing over contract and sponsorship deals to the red tops to get their approval and that is commercial suicide, they know that and so do we, its tantamount to charging someone for perjury for each time they went no comment in an interview.
Click to expand...
True but we are approaching this using rationality, logic, and common sense.
Any failure to cooperate or withhold documents or information by the club will simply be seen as obfuscation and hiding guilt, no matter how much contrary evidence is put before them
I fear this is something we’re going to have to live with long term.
 
Bodicoteblue said:
True but we are approaching this using rationality, logic, and common sense.
Any failure to cooperate or withhold documents or information by the club will simply be seen as obfuscation and hiding guilt, no matter how much contrary evidence is put before them
I fear this is something we’re going to have to live with long term.
Click to expand...
do not concern yourself with opinions as thats all they are, the problem with opinions is that idiots are allowed to have them.
 
manimanc said:
"..the PL are just making it up as they go along.."

Nailed it in one sentence.

Can you imagine the Premier League in court, some overweight prick in a cheap suit representing them, just pointing over to our representatives shouting they're guilty, it's them, they've fiddled books, they've ran out of chips, their grass is too long, arrest them arrest them.

The Premier League, as I've said before, have got absolutely nothing on us, not one iota of evidence. And like I've said a million times, I'll hold my hands up and say yeah it's a fair cop when I turn my TV on and see HMRC and the fraud squad leaving our premises with files, hard drives, pc's, paperwork and anything else that shows us committing fraud, until then I shall sit back, relax and continue to be entertained by rival fans suddenly turning into lawyers and sports finance analysts.

Crack on.
Click to expand...
The PL’s lawyer is THE leading sports KC. He doesnt wear cheap suits.
 
manimanc said:
I thought the bus was found in the North Pole and a WW2 Bomber found on the moon?
Click to expand...
I remember my sister telling me about the killer bees that had been developed by the Nazi's and which had hatched and were heading for the UK
 
Centurions said:
That I don't know bud, I'm aware they've changed the rules and the wording around everything which seems to give them carte blanche to ask for anything & everything and expect the clubs to hand over stuff that hasn't been asked for even. Who needs a kangaroo court when the rules state that you have to convict yourself?
Click to expand...
With this in mind, it's interesting to note that with reference to Everton's latest case the IC rejected the PL's accusation that Everton hadn't co-operated. The impression I get with our case is that City have co-operated a lot more than we did with UEFA. For a start, we would've surely handed over all our evidence that served us so well at CAS plus, and granted I'm guessing here, plenty of stuff to do with the other charges.

The PL clearly took the piss throwing that non co-operation charge at Everton for the IC to reject it quite emphatically so it wouldn't surprise me if they've done the same with us.
 
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