PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

You're assuming that the PL is acting totally rationally though. UEFA's CFCB issued a harsh sanction against us based on a selective handful of emails they drew an (incorrect) inference from. But once an independent body was involved they were not able to present any cogent evidence that their inference was correct. That wasn't a rational approach but presumably their lawyers didn't stand in their way.

From the outcome of the APT case, we know that certain clubs felt we were not being honest about related parties, even though both you and me agree there's no conceivable interpretation of IAS24 where Etihad is a related party. This is why they wanted to bring in the associated party rules, where the PL have carte blanche, rather than having to rely on existing external and accepted standards that they felt we'd ignored.

We also know that the PL will be relying heavily on the rules requiring clubs to "act in utmost good faith", whereas UEFA/CAS were focused on the Etihad & Etisalat sponsorships being disguised equity funding and against their specific rules. The PL's "acting in utmost good faith" target is a much wider and more opaque one than UEFA's.

It's pretty certain that the related party issue will be part of the PL's case, and this was never tested at CAS. There's also the Mancini contract and Fordham, which weren't part of the case brought by UEFA. If the PL feel they've a chance of landing either of those then that's justified their actions.

So the PL's target is a lot bigger than UEFA's in terms of scope and how it will judge the allegations, but it will still be about interpretation. Plus the motivation would appear to be that some clubs were determined to ensure that the PL brings this case, and it wasn't solely the desire of the PL to seek natural justice for egregious rule breaking, which probably also accounted for UEFA's actions.

1. Safer to assume the opponent are not idiots or irrational. It is really very unlikely. At UEFA one of the biggest issues is that City appear not to have fully engaged and therefore UEFA could argue they acted rationally based on what was before them. I don't think it is established that UEFA was irrational - certainly CAS never made such a statement.
2. I don't agree that the PL rely on utmost good faith - the allegations are just very serious.
3. I don't agree the related party issue is part of the PL's case - it is both subjective and time barred in the absence of fraud or concealment. Furthermore they could easily have gone after related party in 2023s accounts if that was the issue.
4. Mancini and Fordham do not justify a case on their own
5. Yes PL's target is much broader but that suggests more, not less rational thinking.

To Leicester...

 

[halfcenturyup]

1. Safer to assume the opponent are not idiots or irrational. It is really very unlikely. At UEFA one of the biggest issues is that City appear not to have fully engaged and therefore UEFA could argue they acted rationally based on what was before them. I don't think it is established that UEFA was irrational - certainly CAS never made such a statement.
2. I don't agree that the PL rely on utmost good faith - the allegations are just very serious.
3. I don't agree the related party issue is part of the PL's case - it is both subjective and time barred in the absence of fraud or concealment. Furthermore they could easily have gone after related party in 2023s accounts if that was the issue.
4. Mancini and Fordham do not justify a case on their own
5. Yes PL's target is much broader but that suggests more, not less rational thinking.

To Leicester...

Half time, so:

On your 1, that is my position on the 115 case. That the PL "acted rationally" / "had no choice" based on what was in front of them (assuming the investigation saw no third party witness statements or accounting evidence that covered all the periods, an assumption on which I realise you disagree with me).

On your 3, there was a whole redacted paragraph in the APT judgment talking about why APTs are an essential part of PSR. I had assumed this was detail to do with the allegations in the 115 case. Do you think differently?

Back to the important stuff.

 

[slbsn]

Half time, so:

On your 1, that is my position on the 115 case. That the PL "acted rationally" / "had no choice" based on what was in front of them (assuming the investigation saw no third party witness statements or accounting evidence that covered all the periods, an assumption on which I realise you disagree with me).

On your 3, there was a whole redacted paragraph in the APT judgment talking about why APTs are an essential part of PSR. I had assumed this was detail to do with the allegations in the 115 case. Do you think differently?

Back to the important stuff.

1. By Feb 2023, City had no choice but to engage extensively for some time before that
3. - which para. I’ll relook

 

[halfcenturyup]

1. By Feb 2023, City had no choice but to engage extensively for some time before that
3. - which para. I’ll relook

See below. But first, a very important legal question. What does the 0 after LEI mean?

1. For the information required by the rules, yes. For information from third parties?

3.

 

[WRicko]

No.

I don't like management consultants :) Second only to lawyers in my hate list .....

I was going to go on a rant but I decided to leave it at that. Let's just say I don't rate him or how he is running the club, he has the easiest CEO job in football and wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Guardiola. All the problems the club is facing and has faced happened under his watch. Ah, I am ranting. Enough.

Which problems the club has faced ? We have been very successful on and off the pitch the pitch stuff is other people’s area and joint decisions. Aside from this case off the pitch has been amazing. This case has been out of his control in some respects and so far he has been winning CAS APT

 

[Damocles]

Possibly. He would still be a cunting management consultant, though.

Btw, I hated the title of his book "The ball doesn't go in by chance". Arrogant bollocks. I am waiting for the sequel " The Spanish airline doesn't go bankrupt by chance".

He is one lucky fucker.

Did you read the book? It was a quote.

And the airline was in massive trouble before he took over it. He actually started to turn it around before a deal with Qatar Airways collapsed and it sunk them

 

[cheekybids]

Possibly. He would still be a cunting management consultant, though.

Btw, I hated the title of his book "The ball doesn't go in by chance". Arrogant bollocks. I am waiting for the sequel " The Spanish airline doesn't go bankrupt by chance".

He is one lucky fucker.

I’m not fond of management consultants neither. The last one I dealt with the biggest fraud id known but not shy with his invoices. Shit strategy & no risk to him.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Did you read the book? It was a quote.

And the airline was in massive trouble before he took over it. He actually started to turn it around before a deal with Qatar Airways collapsed and it sunk them

:) I wasn't being entirely serious, but no I didn't read it. I am sure it was very well-written, though. Consultants are very good at writing the things people want to hear.

And yes I know a little about the airline. Iirc, his conviction and sanctions were reversed on appeal?

 

[cheekybids]

1. Safer to assume the opponent are not idiots or irrational. It is really very unlikely. At UEFA one of the biggest issues is that City appear not to have fully engaged and therefore UEFA could argue they acted rationally based on what was before them. I don't think it is established that UEFA was irrational - certainly CAS never made such a statement.
2. I don't agree that the PL rely on utmost good faith - the allegations are just very serious.
3. I don't agree the related party issue is part of the PL's case - it is both subjective and time barred in the absence of fraud or concealment. Furthermore they could easily have gone after related party in 2023s accounts if that was the issue.
4. Mancini and Fordham do not justify a case on their own
5. Yes PL's target is much broader but that suggests more, not less rational thinking.

To Leicester...

Are you 2 in arbitration here :)

 

[Damocles]

:) I wasn't being entirely serious, but no I didn't read it. I am sure it was very well-written, though. Consultants are very good at writing the things people want to hear.

And yes I know a little about the airline. Iirc, his conviction and sanctions were reversed on appeal?

You should read it, it's very good. He essentially outlines the whole CFG idea in it before that was a thing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Which problems the club has faced ? We have been very successful on and off the pitch the pitch stuff is other people’s area and joint decisions. Aside from this case off the pitch has been amazing. This case has been out of his control in some respects and so far he has been winning CAS APT

Don't really want to derail the thread with Soriano ranting, but if you want to start a new thread, I will give it a good go :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

You should read it, it's very good. He essentially outlines the whole CFG idea in it before that was a thing.

You have almost convinced me to read it. Is it just a description of a football related shared services concept (which would be less interesting for me as I have seen so many of those non-football related in my lifetime), or does it address the development into a broader entertainment group (with things like Sony, for example, or Disney or whoever which would be much more interesting)? Could be worth a read if it's the latter because I reckon that's where the value will be.

What the hell, I'll get the book and read it. Hope it's better than the title :)

 

[KS55]

When we complained about the hacking by Liverpool, they said it was too long ago to bother with, but
@slbsn said:
“The PL had to investigate after CAS because they reacted to complaints from clubs to do so - I am told the PL is duty bound to investigate if parties complain.”

 

[slbsn]

See below. But first, a very important legal question. What does the 0 after LEI mean?

1. For the information required by the rules, yes. For information from third parties?

3. View attachment 141530

Don't know what you are referring to re 0 LEI.

Don't think the 186 is saying the disciplinary is about RPTs - it may be but can't read such a redaction that way. I ask again though why the PL wouldn't have challenged the none RPT status of Etihad in any year since 2009 but make it a point in 2023. And if so, why not add a breach of the true and fair for each season since 2017/18 on this basis.

City would have engaged with whatever was a) required b) they felt served their purposes to convince the PL to cease the investigation. But it would not provide documents that would open up disclosure routes down the line ie it would only disclose documents it was always going to have to disclose if it went further.

 

[slbsn]

Ours auditors, BDO are also the auditors of the Premier League. We also have the same bank as the PL ie Barclays, who are the PL sponsors.

And the ultimate irony is Barclays would probably have gone wallop if it wasn't for the intervention of Sheik Mansour during the global financial crisis of 2008. The type of fact that never gets a mention but makes one's blood boil, just a tad.

Deloitte audit the PL not BDO

 

[KS55]

Thanks. But the Leicester case is not a good example. The lawyer’s advice in that case was that the PL were correct but they lost - the advice was not that they would lose but they carried on regardless. In fact, on Leicester, the PL were amazed they lost given the advice.

Of course, the whole City case could be a huge cock up or a purely vindictive pursuit of a case the PL knew with near certainty they would lose. But, take a step back - that is obviously very unlikely.

It may be unlikely Stefan, but how likely was it that:
—Three candidates for CEO declined, one saying some clubs had too much influence.
— The PL asked two clubs to approve their appointment of the current CEO and allowed them to question him.
— The PL issued a ‘charge sheet’ that misidentified rule numbers.
— The PL icharged only City with breaking UEFA rules, but not others who paid fines to UEFA.
I just think their behaviour is odd and inconsistent.

 

[slbsn]

It may be unlikely Stefan, but how likely was it that:
—Three candidates for CEO declined, one saying some clubs had too much influence.
— The PL asked two clubs to approve their appointment of the current CEO and allowed them to question him.
— The PL issued a ‘charge sheet’ that misidentified rule numbers.
— The PL issued charged only City with breaking UEFA rules, but not others who paid fines to UEFA.
I just think their behaviour is odd and inconsistent.

- irrelevant really
- irrelevant
- sloppy but irrelevant
- I think the allegation is that City concealed matters so should also suffer the consequences of that in all rules if proven

I don't think any of these play to the question of ignoring legal advice on the City charges. But as I said, perhaps I am just naive.

 

[Len Rum]

1. Safer to assume the opponent are not idiots or irrational. It is really very unlikely. At UEFA one of the biggest issues is that City appear not to have fully engaged and therefore UEFA could argue they acted rationally based on what was before them. I don't think it is established that UEFA was irrational - certainly CAS never made such a statement.
2. I don't agree that the PL rely on utmost good faith - the allegations are just very serious.
3. I don't agree the related party issue is part of the PL's case - it is both subjective and time barred in the absence of fraud or concealment. Furthermore they could easily have gone after related party in 2023s accounts if that was the issue.
4. Mancini and Fordham do not justify a case on their own
5. Yes PL's target is much broader but that suggests more, not less rational thinking.

To Leicester...

Why doesn't Fordham justify a case on it's own?

 

[KS55]

- irrelevant really
- irrelevant
- sloppy but irrelevant
- I think the allegation is that City concealed matters so should also suffer the consequences of that in all rules if proven

I don't think any of these play to the question of ignoring legal advice on the City charges. But as I said, perhaps I am just naive.

No, they don’t but they illustrate that the PL does not always follow best practice. I’m not sure they are stupid but they are buffeted by rough seas to which they do not react consistently.
They have effectively accused us of massive fraud, yet offered a settlement. How normal is that? Did they say we had to own up to something that is in the realms of fantasy?

 

[malg]

I've obviously been asleep and not following this thread. When the fuck did it become 130??