PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[oldius]

I'd be very surprised if we are guilty on ANY substantive measure because of the actions of the board in the last few months: there is nothing cautious, nor wary, in our activity.

 

[Omar the King]

It has been reported that the hearing was split as to establish any liability City had ie if they had actually breached any rules and then, if and once established, the parties will come back and make their submissions on what appropriate sanctions should be. In other words, as of now, if The Lawyer is correct nobody has even discussed what the appropriate sanction should be because that will come only if City are liable.

If we're found guilty, do you think that will be announced before the second phase starts, or will they wait until they have agreed on a punishment?

 

[Mr Grumpy]

This whole saga has proven what master manipulators the 21st Century media are. This endemic fickleness, which unsurprisingly abounded with the advent of social media, is fuel for their narratives. It's the reason immigrants are the root of all evil and Donald Trump can tell the truth through lies.

It's also the reason City are guilty as sin, in spite of the absence of a verdict.

Can we not pollute every thread with Trump please?

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

It has been reported that the hearing was split as to establish any liability City had ie if they had actually breached any rules and then, if and once established, the parties will come back and make their submissions on what appropriate sanctions should be. In other words, as of now, if The Lawyer is correct nobody has even discussed what the appropriate sanction should be because that will come only if City are liable.

Appreciate your insight as always, Stefan. It’s certainly helped me when you’ve unpacked it along the way!

Do you think you’re likely to get any more soft signals between now and the announcement? Or just a waiting game now at this late stage?

 

[Mr Grumpy]

I'd be very surprised if we are guilty on ANY substantive measure because of the actions of the board in the last few months: there is nothing cautious, nor wary, in our activity.

We'll be guilty of something.
Being uncooperative probably at the least.

Much like the ATP ruling, everyone gets to shout they won, nothing really changes, we move on, lawyers get richer.

 

[CC1]

It has been reported that the hearing was split as to establish any liability City had ie if they had actually breached any rules and then, if and once established, the parties will come back and make their submissions

I’m confused - isn’t that what the PL charged us with in the first place - breaching rules 130 times? Surely this has been thrashed out by now & the only thing left to do is decide the punishment if guilty - or the statement if not guilty (other than a non cooperation charge if applicable- but we should be able to show why we might have been uncooperative)

 

[bluemc]

I'd be very surprised if we are guilty on ANY substantive measure because of the actions of the board in the last few months: there is nothing cautious, nor wary, in our activity.

Didn't you get the Talksport memo? We're stockpiling players now because of the incoming transfer ban.

 

[citizen_maine]

A "dislike" would be entirely appropriate for the fact that it's not pertinent to the thread.

But obviously only a woefully ill-informed person would try and dispute the actual notion that mass immigration has been hugely socio-economically detrimental to the countries impacted by it.

So you recognise it's not appropriate for this thread but thought you'd carry on anyway

 

[Stoned Rose]

It has been reported that the hearing was split as to establish any liability City had ie if they had actually breached any rules and then, if and once established, the parties will come back and make their submissions on what appropriate sanctions should be. In other words, as of now, if The Lawyer is correct nobody has even discussed what the appropriate sanction should be because that will come only if City are liable.

Ta mate

 

[Dribble]

I'd like to think so of course but I don't know. But what I do know is that initially, when the charges were announced just two years ago, I thought that these were very serious issues. After a few days, when I'd thought about them more and gone back through all the source documentation, I was much more relaxed.

In the last 3 months or so, after the APT case and re-reading the CAS verdict, my view is what I expressed and that you responded to. I think that what looked like the most serious potential issue is actually nothing.

As I've said (and Stefan doesn't agree with, which is fine) I reckon the sponsorship stuff mainly boils down to the issue of whether Etihad & Etisalat are related parties that we should have disclosed in the published accounts. That was mentioned in the CAS verdict and appears to have been the driver in the APT rules that we're challenging.

The fact that the Etihad sponsorship was deemed fair value by CAS (and also by UEFA back in 2014) means that this is unlikely to be successfully challenged by the PL, alongside the issue of it being disguised equity investment. I can't see any way those outcomes could be disputed by an independent panel. So if the sponsorship was fair value, and properly accounted for, what's left? Related parties is the answer.

And if it was fair value and properly accounted for, what difference would it make if Etihad & Etisalat were related parties? None, other than we and our auditors would be judged as failing to recognise them as such. That would make zero difference to our ability to spend money and gain sporting advantage, but it would force us to declare the value of the contract, plus we'd be guilty of a technical accounting issue. So there could be no points deduction on that basis, and that's nearly half the charges.

I spent the afternoon with a journalist before the Chelsea game. He writes for the very prestigious New Yorker magazine (NOT the NY Times) and he's an Arsenal season ticket holder. So I went into this a bit nervous, given the mentality of Arsenal fans. But even he said the charges appeared to be theatre, rather than having any substance. David Conn, whose tune changed completely once the CAS verdict came out (probably under editorial orders) dismissed the original UEFA charges as not having any substance. And he was quite right.

Since that initial shock two years ago the scales have dropped from my eyes more and more. These charges are baseless and completely without substance.

Brilliant post. Agreed 100%!

But what I do know is that initially, when the charges were announced just two years ago, I thought that these were very serious issues. After a few days, when I'd thought about them more and gone back through all the source documentation, I was much more relaxed.

Since that initial shock two years ago the scales have dropped from my eyes more and more. These charges are baseless and completely without substance.

This is exactly the journey I took immediately after you simplified our situation during an interview you gave 2 years ago. It was a lightbulb moment which made me step back so I could take a global overview, where previously I couldn’t see the wood for the trees.

Cutting to the chase, an even more simplified explanation is if City had committed fraudulent criminal acts on the level being intimated by the PL's "accusations" NOT "charges", why haven't the police, His Majesty's Revenue & Customs, the Serious Fraud Office or Companies House descended on the Etihad & launched formal investigations?

This alone alludes that these accusations are piles of trumped up bullshit designed for reputational damage. If they were as serious & as damning as the PL & Stefan Borson make out, by law the PL would've been compelled to hand over their evidence to the authorities.

My guess is they've either done this already & the authorities have binned the lot after realising there was nothing to see there & it was just a footballing witch hunt against City, or they've privately reviewed the allegations & come to a long distant conclusion that after forensically inspecting our publicly submitted audited & certified accounts, we've done fuck all wrong in UK Law.

Regardless, I again have to question Stefan's motivation in all this, & the effect his hyperbolic ramblings are having on the mental & emotional state of many City fans.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Sometimes we need to recap, legally this is about two parties, both are Limited Companies, the PL and MCFC. They have mutually entered into commercially binding contracts each year, namely the anually updated PL Handbook. The PL claimed we have been in breach of the terms of contract 130 times over a nine year period. We have formally denied every breach and have appealed every claim via a tribunal. It's a commercial/contractual dispute, so all this "verdict", "sentence", "guilt" etc speak which is criminal law terminology should be ditched. It has nothing to do with this shit show.

 

[cheekybids]

Mass migration is the result of Western Corporatism wanting an increased supply of cheap labour and increased demand for accommodation.

If our Corporate rulers didn't want mass immigration it would never have happened.

Supply & demand works the same with labour.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

No idea why anybody is getting a sweat on over Peps phrasing. He has used ‘sentence’ several times recently - it’s obvious he just means a judgement. He was laughing and joking with reporters yesterday - no chance he is in that kind of mood if he was talking about a sentence due in a few weeks.

 

[M12Blue]

No idea why anybody is getting a sweat on over Peps phrasing. He has used ‘sentence’ several times recently - it’s obvious he just means a judgement. He was laughing and joking with reporters yesterday - no chance he is in that kind of mood if he was talking about a sentence due in a few weeks.

He would of resigned if he knew something was amiss, that’s what he’s suggested.

 

[slbsn]

Appreciate your insight as always, Stefan. It’s certainly helped me when you’ve unpacked it along the way!

Do you think you’re likely to get any more soft signals between now and the announcement? Or just a waiting game now at this late stage?

Cheers. I think the absence of championship season ticket renewal prices could be nice to see. Aside from that wait and see I suppose

 

[halfcenturyup]

That doesn’t sound too good.

It's just procedural. It doesn't mean anything.

They won't be discussing costs until the second hearing either.

 

[Cobwebcat]

We knew the APT case outcome nearly 3 weeks before the public.

Pretty sure there are different rules for CAS/115 vs APT. I’ll ask…

@slbsn Stefan, will City know the 115 result well before it is announced or will It be like a few hours before? There’s speculation City might know the actual 115 result now whereas I don’t think that’s the case.

 

[CC1]

It's just procedural. It doesn't mean anything.

They won't be discussing costs until the second hearing either.

Second hearing??

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Pretty sure there are different rules for CAS/115 vs APT. I’ll ask…

@slbsn Stefan, will City know the 115 result well before it is announced or will It be like a few hours before? There’s speculation City might know the actual 115 result now whereas I don’t think that’s the case.

I don't think they'll know 100% but I think they'll have an idea from the lawyers how it's gone.

 

[SWP's back]

I think we know the result now.

Me too.