PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't think it's pedantic, you talked about length making it unique with no mention of value so I pointed out a similarly lengthy contract. You then attempt to make me look like an uneducated cock that can't understand plain English by pretending you said something you didn't. How is anyone supposed to know your broader point was about value when you didn't mention it originally?
Anyway, whatever.

It was be who @slbsn was talking to and I understodd his point clearly. It is a unique contract.

 

[NoFullNameThisTime.]

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).

Thanks for the detailed reply. Didn't one of the panel find in favour of uefa though?.

So that person must've found there was enough evidence even with the tougher standards of proof needed.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I don't think it's pedantic, you talked about length making it unique with no mention of value so I pointed out a similarly lengthy contract. You then attempt to make me look like an uneducated cock that can't understand plain English by pretending you said something you didn't. How is anyone supposed to know your broader point was about value when you didn't mention it originally?
Anyway, whatever.

But the reasoning for those contract lengths are likely very different, following the October ECJ judgement which MIGHT signal the end of transfer fees, as currently known.
Chelsea were doing it in an attempt to amortise player value over a longer period whereas City might well be doing it for a couple of reasons, one of which could well be how ‘compensation’ for a player moving from one club to another and that will likely be related to the value left on that players contract.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

They can't. But as with APTs (unless overturned by the further determination), they can give the clubs obligations to deliver certain items - eg in the APTs

"the declaration of a director (or equivalent) of the relevant Associated Party by way of confirmation that they consider the Associated Party Transaction to be at Fair Market Value (pursuant to Rule E.56); and

iv. a summary and documentary evidence of the counterparty’s rationale
for entering into the Transaction, including its key marketing objectives, its key target markets, and its key customer target, to the extent the Club has access to such information and having taken reasonable stepsto procure that such evidence is submitted to the League;"

So obligation is the Clubs not the third parties to comply. If the Clubs can't deliver the third party piece they won't get it approved.

Not the same in disciplinary rules though

Be interesting to see what would happen if a club delivered certain terms as a precursor to the sponsorship being approved then, mid-contract, the sponsor refused to provide the requested data.

However I've used the example before of Aguero's transfer in 2012, where Atletico Madrid factored the future instalments in favour of an upfront discounted payment.

That payment came from an opaque offshore trust and they wouldn't register the transfer unless they knew the beneficial owner of that trust. Eventually, after some legal to-and-fro they were given enough information to satisfy them and register the transfer. That's more to do with Anti-Money Laundering regulations, so they had a mandatory requirement to make those enquiries.

It would be interesting to see the PL's requirement for clubs to do what you've said tested in court or by an independent panel.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Didn't one of the panel find in favour of uefa though?.

So that person must've found there was enough evidence even with the tougher standards of proof needed.

Funnily enough, he was the UEFA pick for the panel…..

 

[slbsn]

Be interesting to see what would happen if a club delivered certain terms as a precursor to the sponsorship being approved then, mid-contract, the sponsor refused to provide the requested data.

However I've used the example before of Aguero's transfer in 2012, where Atletico Madrid factored the future instalments in favour of an upfront discounted payment.

That payment came from an opaque offshore trust and they wouldn't register the transfer unless they knew the beneficial owner of that trust. Eventually, after some legal to-and-fro they were given enough information to satisfy them and register the transfer. That's more to do with Anti-Money Laundering regulations, so they had a mandatory requirement to make those enquiries.

It would be interesting to see the PL's requirement for clubs to do what you've said tested in court or by an independent panel.

Those clauses could well have formed part of the additional questions put to the panel on APT. I suspect they will end up staying but lets see.

 

[Stoned Rose]

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

He can have my number if he asks nicely.

 

[cheekybids]

They can't. But as with APTs (unless overturned by the further determination), they can give the clubs obligations to deliver certain items - eg in the APTs

"the declaration of a director (or equivalent) of the relevant Associated Party by way of confirmation that they consider the Associated Party Transaction to be at Fair Market Value (pursuant to Rule E.56); and

iv. a summary and documentary evidence of the counterparty’s rationale
for entering into the Transaction, including its key marketing objectives, its key target markets, and its key customer target, to the extent the Club has access to such information and having taken reasonable stepsto procure that such evidence is submitted to the League;"

So obligation is the Clubs not the third parties to comply. If the Clubs can't deliver the third party piece they won't get it approved.

Not the same in disciplinary rules though

Worth remembering this is apparently to ensure clubs are sustainable…

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

If City are cleared of the major charges made by the PL, I would hope that there will be a freedom of information request made to expose the amount of money spent by the PL in prosecuting a frivolous and vindictive case ?

We already know that City will have had to commit £millions to defending themselves .

The other PL club members, the cabal members can go fuck themselves, should surely be demanding to know why such a case was brought following the outcome of CAS ?

Or will the US owned shithouses be happy to pay for a fucked up exercise ?

 

[half & half derby scarf]

If City are cleared of the major charges made by the PL, I would hope that there be a freedom of information request made to expose the amount of money spent by the PL in prosecuting a frivolous case ?

We already know that City will have had to commit £millions to defending themselves .

The other PL club members, and the cabal members can go fuck themselves, should surely be demanding to know why such a case was brought following the outcome of CAS ?

Or will the US owned shithouses be happy to pay for a fucked up exercise ?

They are happy to pay. It was a last throw of the dice to try and remove us from the equation.

 

[ganganvince]

If City are cleared of the major charges made by the PL, I would hope that there will be a freedom of information request made to expose the amount of money spent by the PL in prosecuting a frivolous and vindictive case ?

We already know that City will have had to commit £millions to defending themselves .

The other PL club members, and the cabal members can go fuck themselves, should surely be demanding to know why such a case was brought following the outcome of CAS ?

Or will the US owned shithouses be happy to pay for a fucked up exercise ?

Freedom of Information requests can only be made to public bodies.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

They are happy to pay. It was a last throw of the dice to try and remove us from the equation.

That may be true, but the full extent of their costs needs to be revealed, to demonstrate the pressure behind the PL and the problems created by being compliant to the cabal.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The problem in Leicester is that the drafting, Leicester said, was unambiguous and clear. The appeal board agreed. But likewise, here there is no argument the PL can’t try and get information from outside those in W.1. Unambiguous

Appreciate your answers as always.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Freedom of Information requests can only be made to public bodies.

Thanks, which is a shame because it would be good to see the figures the PL have spent prosecuting this witchunt .

I would like to see Martin Samuel perhaps, use that information / amount involved to demonstrate the depth of cabal influence - even though the terminally hard of understanding would no doubt ignore it.

And later today we will witness yet another example of US influence at it's very best :)

 

[NoFullNameThisTime.]

Funnily enough, he was the UEFA pick for the panel…..

I figured that is probably the case but surely even if he's chosen by UEFA he has to act with some kind of professional integrity.

I'm a natural pessimist just preparing myself for the worst lol.

 

[slbsn]

Thanks, which is a shame because it would be good to see the figures the PL have spent prosecuting this witchunt .

I would like to see Martin Samuel perhaps, use that information / amount involved to demonstrate the depth of cabal influence - even though the terminally hard of understanding would no doubt ignore it.

We will get a feel for costs in the accounts and it is possible that costs will need to be dealt with in a hearing (I doubt it will get to that but possible). We had this in the Everton case.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I figured that is probably the case but surely even if he's chosen by UEFA he has to act with some kind of professional integrity.

Clearly not .

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

We will get a feel for costs in the accounts and it is possible that costs will need to be dealt with in a hearing (I doubt it will get to that but possible). We had this in the Everton case.

Thank you.

Wishful thinking on my part as I am bitterly entrenched against the PL and cabal, as you will no doubt have observed.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

They can't. But as with APTs (unless overturned by the further determination), they can give the clubs obligations to deliver certain items - eg in the APTs

"the declaration of a director (or equivalent) of the relevant Associated Party by way of confirmation that they consider the Associated Party Transaction to be at Fair Market Value (pursuant to Rule E.56); and

iv. a summary and documentary evidence of the counterparty’s rationale
for entering into the Transaction, including its key marketing objectives, its key target markets, and its key customer target, to the extent the Club has access to such information and having taken reasonable stepsto procure that such evidence is submitted to the League;"

So obligation is the Clubs not the third parties to comply. If the Clubs can't deliver the third party piece they won't get it approved.

Not the same in disciplinary rules though

It would be fascinating to read Standard Chartered's responses to those questions when renewing their dipper sponsorship deal. But I assume it will be kept confidential, because it's them, not us.

 

[Gazza]

If/when the PL lose, will their costs be spread across the 20 PL teams, including us?