PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Not sure I follow the logic, to be honest. Should City take comfort from the appeal board getting it right, or panic from the original panel getting it so wrong.

That said I expect our panel to be much better quality, more akin to the appeal board and our legals are more than capable of keeping the panel on the straight and narrow. Also, I am pretty sure the Leicester fiasco was embarrassing for Rosen, as well as the PL, and he will absolutely be making sure the best qualified people are on it and that they come to the right decision. The last thing he, or they, want(s) is another balls up in a higher (the PL have made it the highest) profile case.
Click to expand...
Both, if they couldn't draft their most recent rules since PSR became such a huge part of the leagues governance, under the microscope 24/7, how can they expect not to have a train driven through their FFP rules from 10-15 years ago when they were making it up as they went along?

Especially when their task is to prove a massive fraud conspiracy against some of the biggest companies in the world, as well as leading members of the Abu Dhabi/UAE monarchy, who have invested billions in to the UK economy in said time frame.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
They haven't admitted the offshore payments that is a separate matter. They've admitted another accounting error but what that is no-one knows.
Click to expand...
I recall reading a while ago that Stefan seemed to think that whatever they’ve admitted to is similar to some of the things that we’re alleged to have done so they could be in deep shit even before the offshore payments are considered.
 
This is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.
Click to expand...
Except that is simply untrue. Not how limitation works at all.
 
norman said:
This is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.
Click to expand...
It is a nonsense quote
 
There's always been an issue with the framing of the PL rules, particularly the finance ones. One example is the requirement to submit "accurate accounts". There is no such concept in accounting though. There is the 'true and fair' requirement but nothing specifying accuracy. Of course, you can equate the two concepts but if you take the issue of Etihad sponsorship, if we receive £60m from Etihad, and record £60m revenue then you could argue that's 'accurate', regardless of the source of the money.

However if we receive £60m and we know £50m of that came from Sheikh Mansour, yet record it as all coming from Etihad as sponsorship, then that could potentially infringe the concept of 'true and fair'.

It's like the offside and handball laws; the more they tweak and piss about with them, the further they get away from their key objectives and the more the potential for interpretation or misinterpretation.
 
M18CTID said:
I recall reading a while ago that Stefan seemed to think that whatever they’ve admitted to is similar to some of the things that we’re alleged to have done so they could be in deep shit even before the offshore payments are considered.
Click to expand...
Yeah similar but different
 
slbsn said:
Also not correct.
Click to expand...
I'm not being funny but you have no idea what they've admitted, I have no idea what they've admitted. Some journalist has uncovered some paperwork that they suggest shows offshore payments. There's no way you can say that these two things are one and the same. So a one sentence answer dismissing my post without giving any proof or logical reason doesn't wash I'm afraid
 
Last edited:
norman said:
This is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.
Click to expand...

It suggests to me that Ziegler has no idea what he is talking about. Again.
 
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