PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

domalino said:
No, you’ve fallen into the trap of thinking “financial controls” means the current system. There’s a million ways you could use them like every other sport - to increase parity.
Click to expand...

Your fallen into the trap that clubs can build a team and get Parity without clubs coming knocking for there best players before they reach the top! This happens they'll find it hard to increase there revenue through sponsors.

Look at Villa and Newcastles turnover they need to double it at least to compete, will they get the chance to compete?
 
Dribble said:
It's like discussing the decor of the main ballroom on the Titanic, instead of bailing into the lifeboats.

I knew bits about FFP, but there seemed no coherent explanation about our specific situation until @Prestwich_Blue took part in a discussion on YouTube.

Using his take on matters, I did my own detailed research & tried to simplify it for the FFP lay-members amongst our fans.

Essentially, UEFA & the PL are accusing us of fraud, but daren't use the word for fear of the legal can of worms it would open.

When we as fans get entangled with all the innuendo, nods & winks from the governing bodies which are designed to damage our reputation & public image, & ultimately stunt our challenge to their cherished cartel clubs, we lose sight of what all these alleged breaches are really about & designed to do.

They've failed to stop us on the field, so now they're trying to stop us from the boardroom. That's the tall & short of it.

Cutting to the chase, I repeat they're essentially accusing City of fraud. If this is the case, it's long past the time that the PL & UEFA should come out & say so, or shut the fuck up.

Personally, I'm done playing their idiotic games. The more we try to unpick their 115 breach bollocks, the more we add fuel to the fire they started.

This is why when faced with vitriolic opposition fans, I keep it simple & basic. "If you're calling City cheats, this implies fraud. So where's your proof?". This for me is the beginning & end of the matter.

CAS have already ruled UEFA had no evidence, so why the fuck are the PL picking up their baton & coming at us using the same charges which have already failed?

It's all bollocks mate. They need to call our alleged breaches what they keep hinting at, & suffer the consequences. The thing I keep highlighting to all is why aren't/don't they?

Outside of this, I'm not getting dragged any deeper into their bullshit rabbit hole about processes, rules or whatever, which are plainly the only mechanisms they have left to stop Manchester City Football Club.
Click to expand...
You ask the question of why the Premier League are picking up CAR baton and coming at us .The answer is the timing of the charges, two days before the Governments announcement of the proposed football regulator. They stick out their chest and proclaimed the Premier League did not need a regulator because it would clean up the PL it's self and where better to start than at the top.But instead of solving the problem it seems that daily more problems are surfacing.The law of unintended consequences springs to mind, i.e.outcomes of a purposeful action that are not intended or foreseen
 
domalino said:
I think you have to start from the destination.

What do we want football to be?

I could write about ways to make it be competitive and have 3/4/5 way title, European and relegation battles, regularly rotating which teams are at the top and winning beyond “the top 4” but I feel like I’d get 20 comments from people who don’t want that and the whole thing would get derailed like the first post.

If you do want that then you have to narrow the gap between richest and poorest somehow, which means changing the revenue distribution, I’d definitely bring back ticket rev sharing because it would get rid of the arms race to exploit fans (5% ticket increase is less attractive when half is going to the other teams). Then you have to address the CL money problem, you’re always going to get a top 4 when 4th gets £60m extra a year to defend that position against 5th.

The ideas are easy, the difficulty is that you’re trying to bring in a system that benefits the poorer smaller players in the sport and hurts the big players by taking away their advantages.
Click to expand...
But this is all ideological and the ticket revenue sharing point, whilst well thought out, won't make a material difference.

This brings us to the crux of the matter: it is almost impossible to design financial controls that aren't ultimately damaging to the vast majority of clubs, and very easy to implement measures that are!
 
KS55 said:
A small point. The retain and transfer system meant that a player contract was FOR LIFE and gave the power to grant a transfer or not to the club. The Preston side you mentioned contained Tom Finney who was offered a fortune by an Italian club, I forget which. The Preston chairman said no and that was that. Finney went back to the max wage and his job as a plumber. I do not recall the details of John Charles leaving for Italy, but presumably he was granted release by Leeds.
The system was confirmed as illegal when George Eastham sued Newcastle who would not grant him release. The case resulted in partial freedom of contract.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly - and there's no guarantee of that over the years - but the maximum wage was a kind of FFP in reverse in that it was the "smaller" clubs which wished to maintain it to the letter in the name of competitive balance. The chairman of Preston appears to be one of the hardliners on the other pillar of competitive balance, the retain and transfer system. This took a blow in the courts and the pressure grew from clubs with any chance of competing in the European cup, especially after the "defections". The chairman of Preston "got away with it" in Finney's case but I wonder whether this was as much because Finney was a one club man and of a generation to which loyalty meant a great deal. He very decent man well settled in the town he was born and bred in and where he became a well respected plumbers' merchant. Tom Finney was an all round good egg! But Villa, City, Chelsea et al all needed the eye watering transfer fees the Italians were prepared to pay. A good deal for the club (City paid £53 000 for Law and got nearly £100 000 for him a season later), a great deal for the player but a blow to the English game.
 
Last edited:
Bluewonder said:
But this is all ideological and the ticket revenue sharing point, whilst well thought out, won't make a material difference.

This brings us to the crux of the matter: it is almost impossible to design financial controls that aren't ultimately damaging to the vast majority of clubs, and very easy to implement measures that are!
Click to expand...
The crux of the matter is trying the best to make it level. Nothing works fully but its better than NOT doing anything. Surely?
 
domalino said:
Wrong again, it is true that there’s no time bar in the Premier League rules unlike UEFA’s. Thats a fact, I don’t care if you can’t stomach it.

Both are subject to the law of the land in which they’re enforced, like every single contract ever written which is why no one feels the needs to spell it out in every post.

That is what you’re pointing out, but that is something completely different. The panel won’t be making judgements on the statue of limitations, just as CAS would have allowed the earlier evidence into the case if it was looking at the PL’s rule book and the club would have to go to a high court after a verdict to appeal on the grounds of the statute of limitations.
Click to expand...

You think the panel will be ignoring time limitation in its judgment and imposing penalties on all matters irrespective of the event dates, and then the club will have to appeal to the High Court to have the Limitation Act applied to the judgment?
 
halfcenturyup said:
You think the panel will be ignoring time limitation in its judgment and imposing penalties on all matters irrespective of the event dates, and then the club will have to appeal to the High Court to have the Limitation Act applied to the judgment?
Click to expand...
I had a bit of a dance with someone some months ago on this point.

My point was that if ultimately the IC rules that there was evidence to prove the charges then by definition that will have been because or either. : Fraud , Concealment or a Mistake by virtue of that the charges aren’t time barred.

If the charges aren’t proved then the argument is irrelevant
 
Coatigan said:
But with the overarching implication of breaching FFP/PSR.
Click to expand...

Without sight of the PSR/ FFP submissions there may be an implication but would further charges follow ? I very much doubt it indeed in the Everton judgment the IC for me suggests that matters not on the charge sheet can’t be assessed and focusing on double jeopardy the PL couldn’t and shouldn’t return with further charges
 
terraloon said:
I had a bit of a dance with someone some months ago on this point.

My point was that if ultimately the IC rules that there was evidence to prove the charges then by definition that will have been because or either. : Fraud , Concealment or a Mistake by virtue of that the charges aren’t time barred.

If the charges aren’t proved then the argument is irrelevant
Click to expand...

It depends which allegations you are talking about, imho. And what the allegations actually are. Proving an allegation doesn't automatically mean "knowing concealment" (proving fraud presumably does). And I am not sure a mistake, or a difference in interpretation on an accounting matter, if you will, is either as, if you believed you were in the right, then there could be no "knowing concealment".

Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point is that I have never heard that a tribunal process, as described by @domalino , won't take into account the limitation periods of the Limitation Act in its judgment. I was asking, really, for his clarification on that and his reasoning. He may be right, the law is an ass, after all. But I very much doubt it.
 
terraloon said:
Without sight of the PSR/ FFP submissions there may be an implication but would further charges follow ? I very much doubt it indeed in the Everton judgment the IC for me suggests that matters not on the charge sheet can’t be assessed and focusing on double jeopardy the PL couldn’t and shouldn’t return with further charges
Click to expand...

The allegations already include breaching FFP over a number of assessment periods. My guess is they have adjusted earnings before tax for the effects of each of the alleged breaches and made the allegations on that basis.

Personally, I think the only matter that would push the club into a breach is the alleged disguised equity funding in the Etihad sponsorship, but they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of proving that, imo.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It depends which allegations you are talking about, imho. And what the allegations actually are. Proving an allegation doesn't automatically mean "knowing concealment" (proving fraud presumably does). And I am not sure a mistake, or a difference in interpretation on an accounting matter, if you will, is either as, if you believed you were in the right, then there could be no "knowing concealment".

Anyway, that wasn't my point. My point is that I have never heard that a tribunal process, as described by @domalino , won't take into account the limitation periods of the Limitation Act in its judgment. I was asking, really, for his clarification on that and his reasoning. He may be right, the law is an ass, after all. But I very much doubt it.
Click to expand...
It has no choice but to take into account the limitation act as the tribunal has to operate in accord with English law. My point wasn’t that at all it was what are the exceptions to dealing with time barred
The UEFA rules I believe simply don’t allow them to even be considered wheras the Limitation Act has exceptions
 
domalino said:
Wrong again, it is true that there’s no time bar in the Premier League rules unlike UEFA’s. Thats a fact, I don’t care if you can’t stomach it.

Both are subject to the law of the land in which they’re enforced, like every single contract ever written which is why no one feels the needs to spell it out in every post.

That is what you’re pointing out, but that is something completely different. The panel won’t be making judgements on the statue of limitations, just as CAS would have allowed the earlier evidence into the case if it was looking at the PL’s rule book and the club would have to go to a high court after a verdict to appeal on the grounds of the statute of limitations.
Click to expand...
The written agreement between the clubs and the PL will unquestionably have a boilerplate clause stating that the contract is subject to (and therefore enforceable by) the laws of England and Wales.

The Limitation Act 1980 provides that the limitation period (or statute of limitation, as you called it) for a claim for breach of contract (which is what these charges ultimately are) is six years from the date of the breach, unless it is a fraudulent breach, in which case the limitation period commences on the date of discovery of the (fraudulent) breach (or with reasonable diligence, when it would have been discovered).

That boilerplate clause, and the statutory operation of law within this jurisdiction, mean that the foregoing limitation periods cannot be avoided or opted out of within the PL rules.

The limitation periods are therefore a term of the contract (and thereby the PL rules) as much as any other. In fact, arguably more so - as they supervene all other terms therein, irrespective of any prima facie breach thereof.

So there is a time bar for the enforcement of the PL rules contained within the material contract. If the panel ignores that limitation period, then you are correct that the club would need to remedy that through the High Court, but it would be on the basis that the PL had not applied the contact correctly, as a matter of law, not simply because of some extraneous legal doctrine.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The allegations already include breaching FFP over a number of assessment periods. My guess is they have adjusted earnings before tax for the effects of each of the alleged breaches and made the allegations on that basis.

Personally, I think the only matter that would push the club into a breach is the alleged disguised equity funding in the Etihad sponsorship, but they don't have a snowflake's chance in hell of proving that, imo.
Click to expand...

Based on what was put to UEFA it will be extremely difficult to see how any IC will rule differently and yes we all know how inept the PL are but other than them having more details etc you would imagine on this aspect their won’t be any different outcome
 
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