Maybe. Wouldn’t surprise me if they have had the green light from the premier league prior to them spending in the summer.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Maybe. Wouldn’t surprise me if they have had the green light from the premier league prior to them spending in the summer.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Just passing on what a mate of mine has said. He has a line of communication into the club and it's been reiterated recently that City are super confident of the outcome. Worth remembering that nobody can be 100% sure that we'll win of course even if we have a very strong case, and that's something Stefan has often pointed out.
Also, he heard that a lot of the charges won't even be discussed/have been dropped/thrown out. That squares with similar to what Tolmie said yonks ago. I for one am not sure on that particular aspect as I'd still expect all the charges to be considered when the panel sits even if the panel thinks some or all of them are not worth the paper they're written on?
For issues to be dropped the PL lawyers would have to be in a place where they “offer no evidence” in relation to said issue.
If this was the case, it’d be dealt with very early on in the hearing and concluded as no evidence offered / no case to answer on that issue.
i think someone on here said yesterday that a large majority of the charges relate to us not filing accounts at the end of each season which is categorically untrue as we wouldnt be able to compete without them being filed so they will automatically be thrown out because their is nothing in the rules about the accounts being accurate.For issues to be dropped the PL lawyers would have to be in a place where they “offer no evidence” in relation to said issue.
If this was the case, it’d be dealt with very early on in the hearing and concluded as no evidence offered / no case to answer on that issue.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Time barring isn't in the PL rules, however as they are governed by Uk law that over rights it, unless they prove fraud beyond doubt which is highly unlikely
Which is what I said. He’s making it up.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
Just passing on what a mate of mine has said. He has a line of communication into the club and it's been reiterated recently that City are super confident of the outcome. Worth remembering that nobody can be 100% sure that we'll win of course even if we have a very strong case, and that's something Stefan has often pointed out.
Also, he heard that a lot of the charges won't even be discussed/have been dropped/thrown out. That squares with similar to what Tolmie said yonks ago. I for one am not sure on that particular aspect as I'd still expect all the charges to be considered when the panel sits even if the panel thinks some or all of them are not worth the paper they're written on?
Is it possible he's just read stuff online or would his source he aware of things?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
i think someone on here said yesterday that a large majority of the charges relate to us not filing accounts at the end of each season which is categorically untrue as we wouldnt be able to compete without them being filed so they will automatically be thrown out because their is nothing in the rules about the accounts being accurate.
Seems highly bizarre that they charged us with something they categorically know we haven’t done?
Would their lawyers put their name to that, mate?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Just passing on what a mate of mine has said. He has a line of communication into the club and it's been reiterated recently that City are super confident of the outcome. Worth remembering that nobody can be 100% sure that we'll win of course even if we have a very strong case, and that's something Stefan has often pointed out.
Also, he heard that a lot of the charges won't even be discussed/have been dropped/thrown out. That squares with similar to what Tolmie said yonks ago. I for one am not sure on that particular aspect as I'd still expect all the charges to be considered when the panel sits even if the panel thinks some or all of them are not worth the paper they're written on?
Do we know he isn’t just repeating a Tolmie tweet, mate?
I think it was prestwich blue ill try and find the post two minutesSeems highly bizarre that they charged us with something they categorically know we haven’t done?
Would their lawyers put their name to that, mate?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
His source is someone who works at the club and the source has stated that it's come from the hierarchy. I guess we'll see in due courseIs it possible he's just read stuff online or would his source he aware of things?
Let's just remind ourselves of one of the key charges, which (to pick one year, 2012/13) involves Rule E3. This rule says:Seems highly bizarre that they charged us with something they categorically know we haven’t done?
Would their lawyers put their name to that, mate?
"Each club shall by 1st March in each season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts.......(such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal & regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the Directors' Report for that year and a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts."
I've missed a bit in the middle out but that's the rule - to submit audited accounts for the prior year by March 1st of the following year. So unless we didn't do that (which is highly, highly unlikely) then the IC simply can't find us to have breached that rule. There's nothing in E3 about accuracy, or anything else, and as we saw from the Leicester appeal, the PL can't rely on a defence of "Well what we really meant was...."
If we submitted properly prepared accounts, then we aren't in breach of Rule E3.
There's also the rule about acting in utmost good faith. If we took good legal and financial advice to ensure we acted properly, then how could we not have acted in utmost good faith? I reckon at least half the charges will have gone out of the window by the end of the month.
There you go mate
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
His source is someone who works at the club and the source has stated that it's come from the hierarchy. I guess we'll see in due course
Lovely :)
thismeansfour
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2024
- Messages
- 525
- Team supported
- City
They did give the possible outcomes with the first being us found not guilty.Are sky media going to mention this every day by saying "this is day 2 of the 115" then go through the severe punishment we will get and never mention what will happen if we are cleared!
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
He's not. He got the info off someone at the club.Do we know he isn’t just repeating a Tolmie tweet, mate?
Edit: Just saw your response above!
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I believe the Pearce email, as I said a few days ago, is a complete red-herring. The question is whether Etihad sponsorship is disguised equity investment.For me 80-90% of the substance of this whole fiasco is the integrity of the Etihad Airways sponsorship. When the PL fail to illegitimise it, the level of possible sanctions is far less. Assuming their paid hacks have been breifed througout by the PL, to maintain the constant MSM hate campaign, my personal predictions are as follows.
The one "chink in the amor" re Ethihad is "Pearcegate". The Twat-Harris and Panja etc have repeatedly accused him of perjury at CAS in relation to the question "Did you ever arrange payments on behalf HHSM to disgusie equity funding as sponsorship by Etihad Airways". We were told in CAS2020 that Simon Pearce answered "Categorically Not", and that was the end of it.
Since CAS2020 the Twat et al have relied on a gross misrepresentation of an email where Pearce is arranging payments but NOT from HHSM. I look forward to this issue being resolved 100% by the IC. I anticipate it will take more than "Categorically Not" to do so. Once this accusation has been resolved for ever the likes of Twat-Harris and Panja will have to spend a few more years of their lives scrutinising legacy emails in desperation.
As per CAS, we know it isn't and that email doesn't alter that. It was just mischief making and misdirection.
heslops barnet
Well-Known Member
They need to find us guilty of something if just to satisfy the red shirts
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,908
Can we at least agree now that the appeals process is:
Disciplinary panel > Appeals board > Arbitration tribunal > Courts.
At each stage the grounds to appeal to the next step are reduced:
Appeals boards have to be set up whatever the appeal, but difficult (not impossible) to overturn a finding of fact. City likely to appeal against any sanction if one is imposed, I would imagine. Why not? Will be interesting to see if the PL appeals if City are successful and in what areas.
Arbitration tribunal has limited jurisdictional grounds so may refuse a tribunal hearing, but I am sure expensive lawyers can work something out.
A high court appeal has very limited grounds under English law and the PL rules, which makes it virtually (but not completely) impossible.
And, as we all know, there is no possibility of an appeal to CAS in the PL rules.
I think that is it. More or less.
** Waits to be blasted **
You’re wasted on accounts ;)
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Although I trust the person who told me implicitly, I'm still nervous though. Just like I was in the run-up to CAS even when I heard the night before the announcement that we'd won!Lovely :)
dont confuse what they want to happen with what will happen, the red shirts dont run the country as much as people think they doThey need to find us guilty of something if just to satisfy the red shirts
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Let's just remind ourselves of one of the key charges, which (to pick one year, 2012/13) involves Rule E3. This rule says:
"Each club shall by 1st March in each season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts.......(such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal & regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the Directors' Report for that year and a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts."
I've missed a bit in the middle out but that's the rule - to submit audited accounts for the prior year by March 1st of the following year. So unless we didn't do that (which is highly, highly unlikely) then the IC simply can't find us to have breached that rule. There's nothing in E3 about accuracy, or anything else, and as we saw from the Leicester appeal, the PL can't rely on a defence of "Well what we really meant was...."
If we submitted properly prepared accounts, then we aren't in breach of Rule E3.
There's also the rule about acting in utmost good faith. If we took good legal and financial advice to ensure we acted properly, then how could we not have acted in utmost good faith? I reckon at least half the charges will have gone out of the window by the end of the month.
There you go mate
I’d read that, think it was yesterday mate.
Looks pretty straightforward to bat away but I still can’t get my head round them charging us with something we can very easily squash.
Them - you didn’t file the accounts on time / properly.
Us - yes we did. Here they are. Here are the communications between us where we sent them to you. Here are the communications from you saying thanks everything sweet.
Seems a fucking bizarre thing for them to do!