PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Newman Noggs said:
This "Independent Commission", whose decision Leicester were appealing. Is this the same "independent commission", albeit with different members, we're in front of in September ? If so, that they ignored such an obvious flaw in the PL charges and went along with the PL's "interpretation" of the rules doesn't fill me with optimism, at least for the September hearing.
Click to expand...

Yes. But what should give you confidence is the appeal process which worked in Leicester's favour. Completely unexpectedly. It's a game of 90 minutes don't forget. You get nothing for winning at half-time.

Iirc, the appeals panels are chosen from a different pool of experts, probably more experienced. It's a good thing they know they can reverse the original panel's verdict. I would imagine we are heading that way if we get an unfavourable outcome this time. So it bodes well, I think.
 
cheekybids said:
After we’ve wiped the floor with them there should be a full & open enquiry.

I’d love to see Masters questioned about the motivations he had as the CEO to try & ruin clubs whilst stating he aim was to ensure clubs don’t get ruined.
Click to expand...
This is the key point. Leicester didn’t go bust. They invested money in their business to try and get back to the PL. it was a smart decision.
 
cheekybids said:
After we’ve wiped the floor with them there should be a full & open enquiry.

I’d love to see Masters questioned about the motivations he had as the CEO to try & ruin clubs whilst stating he aim was to ensure clubs don’t get ruined.
Click to expand...
Masters will be long gone, with an NDA in the bag, before there’s any chance for an enquiry. If/when we are cleared his position will be completely untenable.

It’s telling that no-one in the press appears to have raised this turn of event as a possibility, or moreover asked it of him directly.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
This is the key point. Leicester didn’t go bust. They invested money in their business to try and get back to the PL. it was a smart decision.
Click to expand...

Here is an interesting thing. Until last night, the PL is involved in FFP shenanigans with every football club who has won the premier league in the last 30 years with the exception of ... which clubs, do you reckon?

I am sure it's just a coincidence.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Masters will be long gone, with an NDA in the bag, before there’s any chance for an enquiry. If/when we are cleared his position will be completely untenable.

It’s telling that no-one in the press appears to have raised this turn of event as a possibility, or moreover asked it of him directly.
Click to expand...

When can allegations of corruption be taken out of the hands of the premier league.

What I find astonishing is stating they are disappointed.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Masters will be long gone, with an NDA in the bag, before there’s any chance for an enquiry. If/when we are cleared his position will be completely untenable.

It’s telling that no-one in the press appears to have raised this turn of event as a possibility, or moreover asked it of him directly.
Click to expand...

Does an NDA work if he is in front of a public enquiry?
 
Another question for our legal people.

If the APT rules are found to be illegal and have to be changed, but 7 clubs vote against changing them (as they chose to do when the PL tried to close Chelsea's hotel loophole). What happens then? I am thinking this "it's the clubs that vote for the rules" is just convenient nonsense to allow the powerful clubs to get what they want to the detriment of the league.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Does an NDA work if he is in front of a public enquiry?
Click to expand...
Actually yes if it’s a public inquiry. The chair can apply to the High Court for a summons to compel someone to attend via section 36 of the Inquiries Act 2005, but tbf I didn’t read what @cheekybids said as meaning a public enquiry in the sense it had statutory powers, but looking back at his post that’s probably what he meant!
 
cheekybids said:
How about…

Our role is to ensure rules & regulations are upheld to ensure a fair & equal competition. Our opinion was that Leicester City had breached PSR but respect the decision of the panel.
Click to expand...
Yes, far better! As I said earlier, the cunts don’t know what they’re doing.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Another question for our legal people.

If the APT rules are found to be illegal and have to be changed, but 7 clubs vote against changing them (as they chose to do when the PL tried to close Chelsea's hotel loophole). What happens then? I am thinking this "it's the clubs that vote for the rules" is just convenient nonsense to allow the powerful clubs to get what they want to the detriment of the league.
Click to expand...

Surely the role of the CEO & board is there to ensure the legality of the rules & those illegal rules cannot be adopted no matter how many want them. ( oops it was aimed at legal peeps )
 
cheekybids said:
Surely the role of the CEO & board is there to ensure the legality of the rules & those illegal rules cannot be adopted no matter how many want them. ( oops it was aimed at legal peeps )
Click to expand...

But they have been adopted. So they would have to be changed. This happens by a vote in general meeting. What happens if the PL doesn't get enough votes from the clubs to change?

Just a theoretical question out of interest. To see if seven clubs could cause a lot of nuisance if they aren't listened to .....
 
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