PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

I can just imagine all the dodgy gambling companies that sponsor PL clubs will be delighted about opening up their accounts!

And Standard Chartered!

 

[citizen_maine]

Remember the club were reported to have sought confirmation that changes to the rules shouldn't be applied to previous periods? That may be why.

View attachment 121094

It's important, I think, because without that new rule, the club can provide the external counter-evidence it wants, when it wants. With that rule, the PL can ask for what it wants and the club has to present it (when able to do so) or be non-cooperative.

"When able to do so"
"We asked - they said no"

 

[Centurions]

Thank god for that comma - could have been a difficult read, otherwise!

I blame the shortage of punctuation on the war in Ukraine.

 

[JPAMCR]

So it isnt even 10 am and ive had a rag fan tell me that we are laundering heroin money because that is what these asian countries grow, how do you even counteract that level of stupid without resorting to violence, i just said to him way to tell me you're racist without telling me your racist

Tell him we’re selling it to their players, it’s why they finished 8th and 30 points behind us

 

[Centurions]

Tell him we’re selling it to their players, it’s why they finished 8th and 30 points behind us

And then ask him if he knows where Pot Noodles originate from but don't explain why you're asking. That should keep him busy for awhile.

 

[slbsn]

Remember the club were reported to have sought confirmation that changes to the rules shouldn't be applied to previous periods? That may be why.

View attachment 121094

It's important, I think, because without that new rule, the club can provide the external counter-evidence it wants, when it wants. With that rule, the PL can ask for what it wants and the club has to present it (when able to do so) or be non-cooperative.

Guidance is only guidance and new guidance can't possibly be retroactive. In any event, City deny they haven't been forthcoming and the rules are pretty wide in their original form which was part of the reason they lost the High Court stuff.

"Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with."

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is that just now?

If it is, it suggests they've got less than fuck all on us and are punting on getting very very lucky.

It was introduced in the summer of 2022 for the 2022/23 season. Clearly aimed at their investigation into the club, and just six months before they charged us with ...... non-cooperation.

 

[mancboy]

Guidance is only guidance and new guidance can't possibly be retroactive. In any event, City deny they haven't been forthcoming and the rules are pretty wide in their original form which was part of the reason they lost the High Court stuff.

"Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with."

Do you think its madness to even suggest it tho, companies are notoriously guarded about opening up their books even when they have to, to think that an outside entity who they have no ideas with regards to safeguarding of commercially sensitive information should just be given carte blance access to the books is madness from a business perspective especially when it is widely reported that the chief of said organisation is less than partisan in his dealings with certain clubs.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Guidance is only guidance and new guidance can't possibly be retroactive. In any event, City deny they haven't been forthcoming and the rules are pretty wide in their original form which was part of the reason they lost the High Court stuff.

"Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with."

I suppose the question is: can they can ask for external information after the summer of 2022, when the rule was introduced, and expect the club to provide it even if it relates to previous seasons?

And the paragraph about extensive engagement is cleverly written, but it doesn't say the club fully co-operated?

I don't think there is much doubt the PL asked for some information the club thought was outside the rules and told them to fuck off. So they added this guidance to counter that. Too coincidental otherwise?

 

[bakerdave76]

I just asked AI if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person.
Based on the context provided, it is revealed that Nick Harris is the person behind the pseudonym “Magic Hat.” This conclusion is drawn from various pieces of evidence, including shared vocabulary and common use of uncommon words, similar time stamps in their chats, and Harris’s admission that he was at Wembley on the same day as Magic Hat’s alleged presence there. There is no indication that Harris has done anything illegal or unethical under this alias, but rather, he has used it to express criticisms of Manchester City Football Club. The motivation behind using a pseudonym appears to be an attempt to maintain anonymity while voicing strong opinions.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Not sure when. A year ago? The PL purport to bind third parties by saying all sponsorship etc agreements should be expressly subject to PL Rules. I’m not sure this would stand up in court due to Privity of Contract rule. In any case, if a third party refused to offer the requested data, it seems a bit weird for the PL to punish a club for non co-operation.

This has that feeling of ‘if you’re going to apply your own private rules to established lawful principles, at least check or accept that your rules may not take account of, or may in fact, contradict them.’
Look before you leap.

Otherwise you’re creating a whole heap of pain, confusion and turgid, pointless learning exercises for yourselves and everyone else.

Looks like the PL took a gamble and expediently jumped into to the very deep end of the ‘retrospective learning curve’ pool - without checking that it might not be a pool, but an ocean - and that there might be some big and very specialised predators in it.

Hence the continual rewrites and attempted shifting of goalposts.

Calvinball springs to mind…

 

[slbsn]

I suppose the question is: can they can ask for external information after the summer of 2022, when the rule was introduced, and expect the club to provide it even if it relates to previous seasons?

And the paragraph about extensive engagement is cleverly written, but it doesn't say the club fully co-operated?

I don't think there is much doubt the PL asked for some information the club thought was outside the rules and told them to fuck off. So they added this guidance to counter that. Too coincidental otherwise?

Disputes over the extent of disclosure are routine. That said the PL rules gave them very wide powers. The guidance was clearly intended to strengthen the hand of the PL further but it is just guidance. The underlying rule didn't materially change as far as I recall. So I fully expect the PL to say they were not given everything they wanted and City to deny they didn't cooperate. The IC will have to decide that too.

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

I suppose the question is: can they can ask for external information after the summer of 2022, when the rule was introduced, and expect the club to provide it even if it relates to previous seasons?

And the paragraph about extensive engagement is cleverly written, but it doesn't say the club fully co-operated?

I don't think there is much doubt the PL asked for some information the club thought was outside the rules and told them to fuck off. So they added this guidance to counter that. Too coincidental otherwise?

You ask a good question.

Does the UK court ruling mean that the PL are within their rights to ask for external info from the start of the PL, start of the investigation in 2018 or from the point of the ruling (mid 2021). It is not clear to me.

I suppose it depends on if this ruling just confirms the right full stop or from a particular date.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

I just asked AI if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person.
Based on the context provided, it is revealed that Nick Harris is the person behind the pseudonym “Magic Hat.” This conclusion is drawn from various pieces of evidence, including shared vocabulary and common use of uncommon words, similar time stamps in their chats, and Harris’s admission that he was at Wembley on the same day as Magic Hat’s alleged presence there. There is no indication that Harris has done anything illegal or unethical under this alias, but rather, he has used it to express criticisms of Manchester City Football Club. The motivation behind using a pseudonym appears to be an attempt to maintain anonymity while voicing strong opinions.

Which AI bot did you use?
I just asked the same question you did and got this answer :
" if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person"
Yes - and he is **** too!

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

 

[BlueRockape]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

Sick of wading through shit off theas two ( one )
I love the information given by brighter people

 

[Keeper!]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

Whoever this magic top hat is we are feeding him with clicks and attention and in doing so he is benefiting his ego and more importantly his wallet.

Don't feed the troll and don't finance him in anyway.

Just simply ignore.

The only quote worth any note is from our CEO, "irrefutable evidence" so wait and see if that is true.

 

[Son of Merv]

You ask a good question.

Does the UK court ruling mean that the PL are within their rights to ask for external info from the start of the PL, start of the investigation in 2018 or from the point of the ruling (mid 2021). It is not clear to me.

I suppose it depends on if this ruling just confirms the right full stop or from a particular date.

We don't know because "the judgment does not state the nature of the documents and information requested or the significance of those documents and information to the wider investigation".

 

[halfcenturyup]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

I know what you are getting at, but this is a great thread for learning about the human psyche. There could be a thesis in it for a budding psychology graduate.

I enjoy how it twists and turns but I suppose I have too much time to waste. Must be infuriating as hell for anyone trying to catch up every few days :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

I just asked AI if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person.
Based on the context provided, it is revealed that Nick Harris is the person behind the pseudonym “Magic Hat.” This conclusion is drawn from various pieces of evidence, including shared vocabulary and common use of uncommon words, similar time stamps in their chats, and Harris’s admission that he was at Wembley on the same day as Magic Hat’s alleged presence there. There is no indication that Harris has done anything illegal or unethical under this alias, but rather, he has used it to express criticisms of Manchester City Football Club. The motivation behind using a pseudonym appears to be an attempt to maintain anonymity while voicing strong opinions.

Classic sleuthing. Well done.