PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least

I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?

It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t

(Don’t know about any other owners)

So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules

Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair

So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?

Or do I need more/less meds?

Let's not forget that the PL had legal advice that shareholder soft loans should be included within its Associated Party Transaction rules. Yet it chose to ignore that advice at the behest of the chairman of one of its members.

I don't think it's inconceivable therefore that some of their members played a crucial part in their decision to pursue this action against us. Legal opinion should have played a part of course but as I said earlier, the concept of utmost good faith is a very elastic and subjective one. Lawyers have been known to bring or support some very weird cases at times.

 

[mike1923]

Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least

I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?

It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t

(Don’t know about any other owners)

So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules

Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair

So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?

Or do I need more/less meds?

They could I suppose, if they were happy knowing they’re picking up 1/20th of the tab for a doomed lot of legal costs

 

[slbsn]

Not sure I would characterise that as a small mistake. I’d be mortified to be associated with it, and I’d be surprised if you weren’t too.

I would but being embarrassed by it but it having any tangible impact or indication of their team as a whole? Nah.

 

[slbsn]

Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least

I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?

It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t

(Don’t know about any other owners)

So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules

Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair

So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?

Or do I need more/less meds?

You can separate the PL from those clubs. The PL is under pressure but I still trust it not to have been totally idiotic and folded only to certain club pressures - perhaps in commencing the investigation but surely not in deciding to charge and doing so against legal advice. That is really very unlikely.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

Fair enough. My hypothesis rests on the assumption that City didn't share any witness statements or third party accounting evidence with the investigation, including those given to CAS.

I am not sure the CAS information would be accepted by the PL as countering the allegations anyway, would it? Because there are different time periods involved and many more allegations. Nor, imh and probably wrong o, would it be wise from the club's point of view because, for example, the third party accounting evidence provided at CAS was criticised by UEFA's expert and the last thing the club would need is more disclosure requests from the PL on third party accounting information or witness statements having opened the third party door. Much wiser, imho, to keep the club's powder dry until the disciplinary stage, especially as the club wasn't required by the rules to provide it. Anyway, I am perfectly happy to be proven wrong. No biggie.

Just a few other things quickly to answer the other points you raised. Ignore them if you don't have the time or the inclination:

I didn't say the PL charged blindly into the disciplinary process. I said they wouldn't have had much choice.

It's also very likely that the PL's lawyers feel the allegations are strong in some areas and less strong in others. The discussion of related parties and fair values for example, on Touré, or on non-cooperation. It wouldn't have to be a yes or no from the lawyers. That is a business decision at the end of the day.

I thought it was previously discussed that once the disciplinary process was started it would be very unusual to suddenly withdraw the allegations or settle?

The PL may well be duty bound to investigate issues brought before them, but there are Investigations (for City) and investigations (for United, Liverpool and Arsenal), of course.

About the club not wanting a long-drawn out case, I maybe naively took Khaldoon at face value that he would rather spend 30 million on legal fees and tie every one up for ten years. He didn't make that up, it's not his money. Imho, that comes from Mansour. Reputation is very important in the Middle East as you know and I can fully believe Mansour would do anything in any way he can to maintain his reputation and that of Abu Dhabi.

And lastly, on Soriano you can probably tell I don't rate him much. Possibly unfairly but, nevertheless, he may well be the CEO but I doubt he is anything other than the junior partner when it comes to strategy on this case.

Just wanted to answer your other points, no need to discuss them if you have better things to do

Let's not forget that the PL had legal advice that shareholder soft loans should be included within its Associated Party Transaction rules. Yet it chose to ignore that advice at the behest of the chairman of one of its members.

I don't think it's inconceivable therefore that some of their members played a crucial part in their decision to pursue this action against us. Legal opinion should have played a part of course but as I said earlier, the concept of utmost good faith is a very elastic and subjective one. Lawyers have been known to bring or support some very weird cases at times.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Where the fuck has moon beam gone?

 

[Bluewonder]

I see the narrative on this thread has shifted to the PL behaving competent and rationally.

That might be the case, but I'd say it's a lot less likely than City undertaking wholesale accounting fraud for a decade, ffs.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Can we please spell naïve correctly please? Thank you.

Is this the correct spelling? Only enquiring just ln case I need to spell it in English

Googled it and came up with this.
As a French adjective, it is spelled naïve, for feminine nouns. It is sometimes spelled "naïve" with a diaeresis, but as an unitalicized English word, "naive" is now the more usual spelling.

a load of balderdash, methinks.

 

[slbsn]

Let's not forget that the PL had legal advice that shareholder soft loans should be included within its Associated Party Transaction rules. Yet it chose to ignore that advice at the behest of the chairman of one of its members.

I don't think it's inconceivable therefore that some of their members played a crucial part in their decision to pursue this action against us. Legal opinion should have played a part of course but as I said earlier, the concept of utmost good faith is a very elastic and subjective one. Lawyers have been known to bring or support some very weird cases at times.

None of the clubs wanted shareholder loans in the APT rules. City pursued it in the case because it suited them. It just isn't the same. The case is not about good faith in isolation - the PL are trying to prove substantive matters which, as a consequence would mean City have breached the duty of good faith. The PLs case is that, if their case is proved, utmost good faith will not need to be elastic or subjective - it will be obviously breached. And I agree if they prove their case on the important stuff (not cooperation - that is separate), City will clearly have also breached the duty of good faith.

 

[slbsn]

Do you think City will be relegated ? @slbsn

Surely we can get 9 points from the last 19 games

 

[Mid Wales blue]

Best way to do it if you can pull it off!

No, he didn’t pull him off, just chastised him orally!

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

You can separate the PL from those clubs. The PL is under pressure but I still trust it not to have been totally idiotic and folded only to certain club pressures - perhaps in commencing the investigation but surely not in deciding to charge and doing so against legal advice. That is really very unlikely.

I know we reference "the PL" without a second thought but sometimes we should just reflect; we are talking about an executive of five people, one of whom is an absolute lickspittle who got the job of CEO because he promised to be a lackey, a doormat and complete corporate muppett. Just five people,

Alison Brittain (Manu ST holder)
Richard Masters (Villa fan)
Mai Fyfield (Sky TV 20+ years)
Dharmash Mistry (Arsenal ST holder)
Matthew Ryder KC (a "passionate football fan" from North London and former Deputy Mayor of London, probably Arsenal)

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I do hope that there’s more evidence than the leaked e-mails that UEFA used.

Trying to force us to change our audited accounts was a joke.

‘Irrefutable’.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I see the narrative on this thread has shifted to the PL behaving competent and rationally.

That might be the case, but I'd say it's a lot less likely than City undertaking wholesale accounting fraud for a decade, ffs.

The written Judges’ statement from the APT case shows significant incompetence and bad faith from the PL. They deliberately obstructed City’s bids to attract sponsors. I think the people leading the PL have shown themselves to be stupid on many occasions. Some of the leaks were stupid and have undermined the PL’s own case. Perhaps Masters is just really stupid and easily influenced.

 

[Gesario]

Is this the correct spelling? Only enquiring just ln case I need to spell it in English

Googled it and came up with this.
As a French adjective, it is spelled naïve, for feminine nouns. It is sometimes spelled "naïve" with a diaeresis, but as an unitalicized English word, "naive" is now the more usual spelling.

a load of balderdash, methinks.

Say that again

 

[Marvin.]

You can separate the PL from those clubs. The PL is under pressure but I still trust it not to have been totally idiotic and folded only to certain club pressures - perhaps in commencing the investigation but surely not in deciding to charge and doing so against legal advice. That is really very unlikely.

The Premier League is owned by the clubs. Its executive will do as they are told. The truth should become evident in a hearing but I can imagine that at the end of the investigation the PL would have leapt at any opportunity to charge City.

 

[BungleBear]

I know we reference "the PL" without a second thought but sometimes we should just reflect; we are talking about an executive of five people, one of whom is an absolute lickspittle who got the job of CEO because he promised to be a lackey, a doormat and complete corporate muppett. Just five people,

Alison Brittain (Manu ST holder)
Richard Masters (Villa fan)
Mai Fyfield (Sky TV 20+ years)
Dharmash Mistry (Arsenal ST holder)
Matthew Ryder KC (a "passionate football fan" from North London and former Deputy Mayor of London, probably Arsenal)

Or the 20 shareholders who make the decisions.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Yes, sorry, it was a joke: LEI 0 MCI 2. It's been a while since we have seen that. Lawyers: no sense of humour .....

Third paragraph first. Yes, that is exactly my point. The club wasn't required to present third party counter-evidence and they chose not to because they didn't want to open the third party disclosure door for obvious reasons. The PL couldn't strike off any allegations without such counter-evidence (which they knew existed and would be presented to the panel because it was presented for a more limited period at CAS). I completely agree with you that the PL will have acted rationally by charging the club in 2023 based on the information that was in front of it (I used the expression "didn't have any choice"). The only professional choice was to refer any significant uncountered findings from the investigation.

The second paragraph: I would suggest they included the RPT issue in 2023 because there are numerous documents in the leaked (and presumably other) internal documents that describe the Etihad sponsorship, and other AD sponsorships, as owner investment. A spectacular own goal that must have been immediately jumped on by rival clubs. Add to that the fact that, for their case on the Etihad funding to work, there must have been some relationship between ADUG and Etihad (no two unrelated parties would enter into such a transaction), then it all adds weight to the idea that City, ADUG and Mansour are, in substance not unrelated to the AD state, Etihad and the other AD sponsors, no matter what the legal form. It certainly, imho, provides at least a case for the referral of an allegation. Let's not forget the PL statement announcing the allegations refers explicitly to related party transactions. What else could that be?

Edit: I had always wondered if the change in ownership from ADUG to Newton (different legal forms) in the middle of the investigation wasn't something to do with making it easier to prove ownership was independent of the AD state, or harder to prove it wasn't. Coincidental timing, anyway.

Anyway, all this must be driving you crazy, so I will shut up about it now. I just don't think we are too far apart in what we are each saying.

The only area where we really disagree, I think, is my suggestion that the club was happy to deliberately manipulate the PL into the situation that it had to refer the allegations to the disciplinary panel. Just my feeling, happy to say it may be complete bollocks.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I see the narrative on this thread has shifted to the PL behaving competent and rationally.

That might be the case, but I'd say it's a lot less likely than City undertaking wholesale accounting fraud for a decade, ffs.

I am of the opinion that the PL acted competently (except for the list of allegations which was just a press release) and rationally and that the club didn't commit serious fraud for a decade (or, at least, that the PL won't be able to prove it to the required standard). Both can be true.

Nothing to be concerned about.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know we reference "the PL" without a second thought but sometimes we should just reflect; we are talking about an executive of five people, one of whom is an absolute lickspittle who got the job of CEO because he promised to be a lackey, a doormat and complete corporate muppett. Just five people,

Alison Brittain (Manu ST holder)
Richard Masters (Villa fan)
Mai Fyfield (Sky TV 20+ years)
Dharmash Mistry (Arsenal ST holder)
Matthew Ryder KC (a "passionate football fan" from North London and former Deputy Mayor of London, probably Arsenal)

You have listed the directors have you not? Most of which are non-executive.

Don't forget there will be an organisation below Masters with department heads that make up the executive management team. The latest accounts for the PL show an average of 260 employees. There are plenty of people in the PL to operate it properly.