PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LeonardoDaVnci said:
re UEFA Panel member (Ulrich Haas) who voted against City at CAS.

If anyone can be arsed, the reason he voted against City is explained in the conclusion below. It was published on behalf of Haas by his assistant.

Although we were done at CAS for 'minor' non-cooperation (£10m fine) Hass wanted us banned from Europe due to what he considered to be 'major'/egregious non-cooperation, that was in his opinion. So imho, in Haas's desperation at losing the material arguments about Sponsorships and FFP etc he resorted to gross exaggeration of our lack of co-operation with UEFA. His conclusion also contains an absolutely false statement ie:-

"The withholding of important information and its failure to cooperate remained unpunished"

Conclusion
In the author’s opinion the MCFC decision is undoubtedly one of the most important cases decided in recent years. It is all the more regrettable that the findings of the CAS panel are flawed and contradictory on points of procedure, which arguably puts UEFA`s pursuit of a financial level playing field in UEFA club competitions in jeopardy. Irrespective of the violation of break-even obligations under the FFP, the majority of the panel incorrectly assumed that the procedural request for document production and the duty to cooperate are to be qualified as one continuous procedure. In disregard of the distinction of procedural and substantive duties of clubs subject to the FFP, the CAS panel did not consider the failure to produce one of the most important documents due to UEFA’s alleged lack of interest in such information. This finding cannot be correct as sports governing bodies do not regularly have to insist on the provision of already requested information. This decision can have serious consequences for intelligence-based sports investigations and the effort of sports organisations to establish the truth in order to protect the integrity of sport. MCFC escaped harsher punishment because the CAS panel was of the view that pertinent information concerning transactions in 2012 and 2013 were time-barred, even though they were submitted within the period of limitation. This decision is unfortunate as it punishes the compliant clubs that submit requested information at first request according to the rules and regulations of UEFA. MCFC, in turn, did not comply with their basic duties as a member of UEFA, i.e. to comply with its rules and regulations. To the very end, MCFC did not provide all information requested by UEFA pursuant to Article 56 of the FFP, which, in the author’s opinion, should have resulted in a ban from UEFA’s club competitions. The withholding of important information and its failure to cooperate remained unpunished. Thus, the CAS award makes MCFC the winner of this year’s European football season, even before the 2019‑20 UEFA Champions League champions are crowned.
Click to expand...
The Peter principle springs to mind!
 
citizen_maine said:
I doubt it. If I'm understanding this correctly, none of that was in the official CAS judgement - this is just an article written by one of Haas's people
Click to expand...
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough, I meant if the PL appointed commission applied the same logic as Haas would we then mount a legal challenge against the PL commission’s decision?
 
when we can expect next round of PSR charges? last season we heard clubs agreed to fast track these, and these take 3 seasons into account which accounts will be coming out this autumn or some bit later. in average most account are published by end of calendar year for previous financial period.
PL might be getting numbers much earlier.

so when can we find out any charges for season 21-22,22-23, 23-24 with max loss of 105m?
would be surprised if no clubs broke this period. of course the Chelsea hotel sale will be crucial, is this all above the board and accepted by PL as valid revenue? as this will surely help them not to fail.

edit:
also that strange move around of players end of June between Forest, Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle, wonder if thtat gets some special checks of some overpriced no name players moved around for PSR profit:)
 
C
Damanino said:
when we can expect next round of PSR charges? last season we heard clubs agreed to fast track these, and these take 3 seasons into account which accounts will be coming out this autumn or some bit later. in average most account are published by end of calendar year for previous financial period.
PL might be getting numbers much earlier.

so when can we find out any charges for season 21-22,22-23, 23-24 with max loss of 105m?
would be surprised if no clubs broke this period. of course the Chelsea hotel sale will be crucial, is this all above the board and accepted by PL as valid revenue? as this will surely help them not to fail.

edit:
also that strange move around of players end of June between Forest, Villa, Chelsea, Newcastle, wonder if thtat gets some special checks of some overpriced no name players moved around for PSR profit:)
Click to expand...

Those covid allowances will be interesting!
 
nmc said:
C


Those covid allowances will be interesting!
Click to expand...
Any charges for the 3 years ending 23/24 have to lodged in January I believe.

I really don’t want to defend Utd but the £40 million isn’t the sum that Utd will have been claiming indeed from what I have read the fact that they are a listed company in the US requires them to disclose their estimated COVID costs and that cost isn’t quantifiable based on their books but they will have taken a subjective view of things such as brand depreciation as a consequence of COVID.
 
Non-coperation issues are entirely lawyer generated money spinning rackets imho.

Whenever the 'PL" sent a request/demand to City for info it was authorised by Masters but almost certainly 100% authored by the PL lawyers. City's responses although signed off by Sorano almost certainly were 100% authored by MCFC lawyers.

Now we all have to wait for a few months and wonder how will the IC lawyers judge if our lawyers did or did not "cooperate" with the PL lawyers. Of course "cooperation" in this sense is defined by the PL rules authored by some other PL lawyers.

The outcome could be very very consequential for us. And in the meantime the legal bills will be in tens of millions of pounds. Some people estimate well north of £50m.

And all of it for what ? to answer two questions, did HHSM pay sponsorship fees or did Etihad Airways/Etisalat.
 
remember arthur mann said:
With all the shenanigans at the bridge and swamp, they might as well pull the plug on all the charges against City.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to hope we win 5 in a row, get found guilty, go down to div 2 and win that and the CL in the same season. It'd be a right laugh and the most city thing ever.
 
terraloon said:
Any charges for the 3 years ending 23/24 have to lodged in January I believe.

I really don’t want to defend Utd but the £40 million isn’t the sum that Utd will have been claiming indeed from what I have read the fact that they are a listed company in the US requires them to disclose their estimated COVID costs and that cost isn’t quantifiable based on their books but they will have taken a subjective view of things such as brand depreciation as a consequence of COVID.
Click to expand...
I thought they had already been allowed those big Covid losses are you saying they might not get them
 
remember arthur mann said:
With all the shenanigans at the bridge and swamp, they might as well pull the plug on all the charges against City.
Click to expand...
I read that Uefa, the jocks and just about everybody else have closed the loophole where you can buy and sell from a related parry. The only footballing body that hasn't is the Premier League. It does make you wonder if that is deliberate, to help the new yank owners. I'm sure City's lawyers will be looking at it and maybe even mentioning it.
 
terraloon said:
Any charges for the 3 years ending 23/24 have to lodged in January I believe.

I really don’t want to defend Utd but the £40 million isn’t the sum that Utd will have been claiming indeed from what I have read the fact that they are a listed company in the US requires them to disclose their estimated COVID costs and that cost isn’t quantifiable based on their books but they will have taken a subjective view of things such as brand depreciation as a consequence of COVID.
Click to expand...

UEFA knocked them back.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Non-coperation issues are entirely lawyer generated money spinning rackets imho.

Whenever the 'PL" sent a request/demand to City for info it was authorised by Masters but almost certainly 100% authored by the PL lawyers. City's responses although signed off by Sorano almost certainly were 100% authored by MCFC lawyers.

Now we all have to wait for a few months and wonder how will the IC lawyers judge if our lawyers did or did not "cooperate" with the PL lawyers. Of course "cooperation" in this sense is defined by the PL rules authored by some other PL lawyers.

The outcome could be very very consequential for us. And in the meantime the legal bills will be in tens of millions of pounds. Some people estimate well north of £50m.

And all of it for what ? to answer two questions, did HHSM pay sponsorship fees or did Etihad Airways/Etisalat.
Click to expand...
All about Masters fulfilling his promise to the redshirts made in his job confirmation hearing, the contents of which have never been disclosed.
 
Blue Mist said:
I read that Uefa, the jocks and just about everybody else have closed the loophole where you can buy and sell from a related parry. The only footballing body that hasn't is the Premier League. It does make you wonder if that is deliberate, to help the new yank owners. I'm sure City's lawyers will be looking at it and maybe even mentioning it.
Click to expand...
I thought someone posted on here about related transactions between clubs
 
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