PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

@slbsn

Sorry if you have answered this, do you know why there isn't a massive outrage at Uniteds 270m losses in a 3 year period which eclipses the accepted 105M? Why Talksport aren't dragging you in to cover it and why clubs like Everton aren't demanding answers? I understand they will get allowances (more than others which is another point I don't understand how there is zero media attention to or uproar) I can't see anywhere which confirms the allowances, the amounts and how they have escaped yet again punishment for huge losses. Uefa didn't accept them allowances previously did they, so will they be punishing United again if they don't accept the cowboy losses? Will everyone be offended and call them cheats for being repeat offenders. I just don't see a world where it is brushed under the carpet without explanation. Had City posted 270m worth of losses, we'd sure as hell know about it.

There has been plenty of coverage to be fair and big losses beyond the £105m are normal. On the same basis Chelsea's is much higher. The only relevant question is the position after the allowances. The question is only about what fairly constitutes an allowance.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

You know United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Newcastle etc. fans say exactly the same thing about their club? In fact a lot of them are convinced we are in the pockets of the media.
You can't all be right.

Correct. They’re deluded and wrong.

 

[blueste41]

A fraction of the wages

You need to edit your post then because you said it was unique due to it's length not value.

 

[jaiguruKun]

There has been plenty of coverage to be fair and big losses beyond the £105m are normal. On the same basis Chelsea's is much higher. The only relevant question is the position after the allowances. The question is only about what fairly constitutes an allowance.

I haven't heard or read any serious questioning about how they have escaped PSR charges for the most recent period.
I find it hard to accept all clubs have passed. My feeling is that the PL didn't want to charge Utd and therefore felt their hands were tied regarding all other clubs.
Will we ever find out what allowances were made and what for?

And lo and behold, as they are struggling to comply, we will see a change in the rules which will no doubt allow Scruffy Jim to go on a splurge. It smells pretty bad to me.

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

There has been plenty of coverage to be fair and big losses beyond the £105m are normal. On the same basis Chelsea's is much higher. The only relevant question is the position after the allowances. The question is only about what fairly constitutes an allowance.

Coverage has been very limited, a google search doesn't show this conversation being covered in numbers as it would be for others. Which goes back to my point of what the allowances are, are they made public for transparency or do we have to just nod and agree that the premier league have accepted them and all is fine. Wouldn't a club like Everton demand that information? Chelsea is another good example of how selling a hotel to themselves was labelled as "clever accounting" by none other than your pal Jordan. City doing similar wouldn't have got off as lightly, as we know from the coverage with us.

Back to United though, if Uefa fined them previously as they didn't accept the shoddy allowances, will they fail uefa ffp again?

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Also wasn't Everton docked points for losses of about £16m over the 105? That is a points deduction but a team with losses 165m over is alright? Some allowances that

 

[petrusha]

Is the burden of proof threshold the same as CAS? Balance of probabilities?

The discussion has moved on and this was ignored. However, it's worth coming back to, I think, because there's a error here that's cited regularly and should be corrected.

The standard of proof applicable before the CAS was NOT the balance of probabilities, even though that's commonly asserted on here. As numbered para 200 of the CAS Award on page 56 stated, the Parties agreed "that the standard of proof [was] that of comfortable satisfaction" (my emphasis).

In the current PL proceedings, yes, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities as the PL's own rules make provision for this standard of proof. The proceedings are also subject to English law, meaning that there will be a requirement for evidence to be particularly cogent given the serious nature of the matters the PL has alleged. (A similar requirement for cogency existed before the CAS, too).

Comfortable satisfaction, which is discussed here, is a standard of proof that is tougher than the balance of probabilities but less tough than a formulation such as beyond reasonable doubt. It was originally developed for matters concerning alleged doping penalties, where it was felt that a balance of probabilities standard was unfairly low given the potentially catastrophic effect on an athlete's livelihood of a finding against that person, which would likely entail a lengthy ban.

The practice of the CAS evolved, however, to apply the comfortable satisfaction standard of proof in arbitrations where the parties hadn't themselves agreed to a different standard. It's relevant in our context because it's one of the outright lies or deliberately misleading half-truths propagated by out detractors in the wake of the CAS proceedings to cast a negative light on the result, allowing them to argue that the PL should nonetheless continue to investigate allegations against MCFC despite the UEFA case being resolved.

People may have forgotten about it now. However, the elevated standard of proof at play in CAS proceedings was cited by many of those hostile to us at the time as an important factor in regarding the CAS award as flawed - notwithstanding that the CAS found "no evidence" of guilt on the charges it examined, meaning UEFA wouldn't even have met a theoretical comically low standard of proof such as guilty on a vague notional possibility.

Many of us will no doubt remember some of the other arguments along similar lines. I mean stuff such as City having selected two of the arbitrators, UEFA's statute of limitations being applicable when there'd be no limitation issues for the PL (despite restrictions in the Limitation Act covering PL proceedings), and UEFA failing to appeal to the Swiss Court after the CAS issued its award (though the Swiss legal system would likely have laughed any such appeal out of court).

 

[mancboy]

will someone please let me know when the grown ups have finished debating and we can go back to calling harris/magic twat a **** please, thats far more my level of discourse

 

[DiscoSteve]

!? bow to your greater knowledge ... I haven't a f**king clue!

 

[hammocity]

Pics?

Far left with the grey shirt and his left hand in the air.

 

[Stoned Rose]

The discussion has moved on and this was ignored. However, it's worth coming back to, I think, because there's a error here that's cited regularly and should be corrected.

The standard of proof applicable before the CAS was NOT the balance of probabilities, even though that's commonly asserted on here. As numbered para 200 of the CAS Award on page 56 stated, the Parties agreed "that the standard of proof [was] that of comfortable satisfaction" (my emphasis).

In the current PL proceedings, yes, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities as the PL's own rules make provision for this standard of proof. The proceedings are also subject to English law, meaning that there will be a requirement for evidence to be particularly cogent given the serious nature of the matters the PL has alleged. (A similar requirement for cogency existed before the CAS, too).

Comfortable satisfaction, which is discussed here, is a standard of proof that is tougher than the balance of probabilities but less tough than a formulation such as beyond reasonable doubt. It was originally developed for matters concerning alleged doping penalties, where it was felt that a balance of probabilities standard was unfairly low given the potentially catastrophic effect on an athlete's livelihood of a finding against that person, which would likely entail a lengthy ban.

The practice of the CAS evolved, however, to apply the comfortable satisfaction standard of proof in arbitrations where the parties hadn't themselves agreed to a different standard. It's relevant in our context because it's one of the outright lies or deliberately misleading half-truths propagated by out detractors in the wake of the CAS proceedings to cast a negative light on the result, allowing them to argue that the PL should nonetheless continue to investigate allegations against MCFC despite the UEFA case being resolved.

People may have forgotten about it now. However, the elevated standard of proof at play in CAS proceedings was cited by many of those hostile to us at the time as an important factor in regarding the CAS award as flawed - notwithstanding that the CAS found "no evidence" of guilt on the charges it examined, meaning UEFA wouldn't even have met a theoretical comically low standard of proof such as guilty on a vague notional possibility.

Many of us will no doubt remember some of the other arguments along similar lines. I mean stuff such as City having selected two of the arbitrators, UEFA's statute of limitations being applicable when there'd be no limitation issues for the PL (despite restrictions in the Limitation Act covering PL proceedings), and UEFA failing to appeal to the Swiss Court after the CAS issued its award (though the Swiss legal system would likely have laughed any such appeal out of court).

Top post mate.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Far left with the grey shirt and his left hand in the air.

I would. I’d need at least 7 Stella and a couple of spliffs, but I would.

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Sorry for being boring and asking questions that no doubt have been answered.

I get met with the time barred argument when talking about CAS. How many charges were time barred, if any and am I right in saying that City still provided evidence for the items that were time barred?

 

[oldius]

Sorry for being boring and asking questions that no doubt have been answered.

I get met with the time barred argument when talking about CAS. How many charges were time barred, if any and am I right in saying that City still provided evidence for the items that were time barred?

The only fact:


The thing about time-barring is a red-herring.
If an allegation is time-barred, it also means that it cannot be defended. Guilt cannot be assumed.

 

[dadnlad]

@slbsn

Sorry if you have answered this, do you know why there isn't a massive outrage at Uniteds 270m losses in a 3 year period which eclipses the accepted 105M? Why Talksport aren't dragging you in to cover it and why clubs like Everton aren't demanding answers? I understand they will get allowances (more than others which is another point I don't understand how there is zero media attention to or uproar) I can't see anywhere which confirms the allowances, the amounts and how they have escaped yet again punishment for huge losses. Uefa didn't accept them allowances previously did they, so will they be punishing United again if they don't accept the cowboy losses? Will everyone be offended and call them cheats for being repeat offenders. I just don't see a world where it is brushed under the carpet without explanation. Had City posted 270m worth of losses, we'd sure as hell know about it.

I'll answer
They just cleared everyone in latest PSR accounting and lucky for them Everton forest and Leicester didn't get relegated so negating their outrage
Everyone knows their place

 

[slbsn]

You need to edit your post then because you said it was unique due to it's length not value.

View attachment 143792

Strange pedantic point which isn't even what I said. The first sentence is about duration - the second is about it as a whole. The contract duration and incredible wage even at the start of the contract make it unique in England. It is by a mile (on the face of it) the largest ever English football contract.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Firstly guidance is just that. Guidance. It is not a rule or binding.

Rules are construed in line with English law but if something is specifically carved out of the rules the law wouldn't intervene. The ability for the parties to agree to set their own rules in dispute resolution under their contract has been upheld historically. I don't understand why you believe X38 conflicts with W1. The parties are free to agree whatever rules they wish in their commercial arrangement.

My point wasn't that the two rules are in conflict. Just my clumsy question, I guess.

It seems to me both rules limit the rights of the parties under English law: X38 restricts the right to an arbitration appeal on a matter of law, and W1 clearly restricts (imh and simplistic o) the right of investigation to just player, manager and official.

So my question was really, I suppose, why does English law supercede W1 to allow the PL to contact third parties, when it doesn't supercede X38 to allow an appeal on a matter of law?

I am sure there is a reason, I just can't see it.

 

[hammocity]

I would. I’d need at least 7 Stella and a couple of spliffs, but I would.

lol, I'll see him tomorrow and show him this, he'll be over the moon.

 

[halfcenturyup]

There’s nothing stopping the PL from approaching a potential witness but the witness can of course decline to engage.
The PL has now put in a rule requiring sponsors to sign up to an agreement to give the PL relevant data if required.

I wasn't talking about witnesses, I was talking about the investigation phase.

Maybe I am reading W1 wrong. It seems pretty clear to me. But wtf do I know?

 

[JASR]

Sorry for being boring and asking questions that no doubt have been answered.

I get met with the time barred argument when talking about CAS. How many charges were time barred, if any and am I right in saying that City still provided evidence for the items that were time barred?

IIRC for the nth time. A few , emphasis on very few, of the charges were dismissed as time-barred. But, and this is the crucial point, CAS went out of there way to say that even though they were time barred, that they would have been dismissed as ‘no evidence’ anyway.

The ‘time barred’ is the biggest red herring spouted by red know nowts, perpetuated by a media that seized on a few words in a massive document to form a narrative that ‘City got away with it’, whilst ignoring the CAS summary, let alone the umpteen times that CAS stated ‘no evidence’ for a (made up) charge.

The 2nd red herring, is ‘city were fined’. Yes they were, for non cooperation with uefa… a uefa that declared City were guilty before examining any evidence, a UEFA that leaked like a sieve to biased media at all stages. It’s not surprising that City stopped cooperating with a kangaroo court and jury.