City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

[Kippax77]

I've held back from saying this on more than one occasion but I'm going to say it now.

Despite, or maybe because of, your important and substantial contributions to this thread, you really can be quite patronising at times. I'm also really tired of you twisting the narrative on pretty well everything I say that doesn't agree with your view, a view which often confuses fact and opinion. I am fed up of you trying to make me look like some part of uneducated simpleton and looking down your nose at me. Rant over.

Let me put it as simply as I can. The APT1 verdict clearly showed that the reason for the introduction of those rules was that certain clubs felt we had played fast and loose with our Abu Dhabi sponsorships and IAS 24. It actually says that quite explicitly.

CAS also mentioned the issue of potential misreporting of related party transactions. In my opinion this indicates that this is a clear angle of attack. I agree that if that was the only issue then that wouldn't have taken as long as it has, and it's highly unlikely any charges would have been bought on the first place. But we do know the charges cover the Fordham payments and Mancini's side contract and maybe other things in the first group of charges that we're not aware of.

BUT IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS RELATED PARTIES IN THOSE CHARGES. So there's a good chance that this is a significant part of the charges. Not the only one, but definitely a key part. You clearly either fail to understand this or are just being contrary for the sake of it. That latter possibility was why I made my jibe about you spending too much time on Talksport, because that's their modus operandus.

I've kept my thoughts on this thread close to the heart after reading the the tooing and throwing of posts.
But like you I'm nearing a rant

 

[MCFC84000]

I've kept my thoughts on this thread close to the heart after reading the the tooing and throwing of posts.
But like you I'm nearing a rant

Uff, bad enough Mam and Dad having a row. I am going to bed.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Most of the time people go into hearings thinking they have the better of the arguments but one side loses.

Whilst I’d say this statement is not strictly incorrect, plenty of legal representatives go into hearings thinking they are unlikely to win, or even that they are fucked. Sometimes that’s down to the prospects in the case, or the psychological makeup of the individual in the box seat - or a combination of both.

I’d say the vast majority of cases where both parties have a roughly equal chance of success tend to settle before a contested hearing unless there are wider strategic issues at play, as imo is unquestionably the case with City and the PL btw.

Often when a case doesn’t settle it’s because there is a huge disparity of prospects between each party, but the weaker party cannot recognise this (despite advice) or are defending a claim and have little choice but to resist and no worthwhile offer to settle is forthcoming from the other side. In those circumstances (and others I could identify) the legal representatives, especially the advocates (assuming they are competent) will be under no illusions about the prospects of success in the hearing.

So I broadly agree with that extract from your post, but that scenario does not apply to a significant minority of contested hearings. Plenty of people walk into hearings thinking they really need the rub of the green, or sometimes even a miracle to prevail.

 

[Lord Blue]

feels like sometime soon, some poor unsuspecting fool is going to walk into this room and everyone will stop arguing, turn and look at them and, in perfect unison, tell them to fuck off

 

[pudge]

We’re closer than we were yesterday.

Fuck off

 

[foggy1974]

We’re closer than we were yesterday.

More today than yesterday
we are close
Less today
Less than we will tomorrow

 

[Nephin Man]

Absolutely, the rags used to boast about doing world record sponsorship deals and there wasn't a peep. It didn't seem that unfair either tbh because at the time they were the most successful club in the league and up there with the best in Europe. As soon as it's someone else other than the old 'sky 4' then suddenly fmv is a concern. I don't need to repeat what city have achieved on the field in the last few years, but it would suggest that fmv is at least a fuck load more than any club that hasn't matched our success gets.
Apologies if I'm mixing fmv and apt.

Yep, when the self-appointed aristocracy received massive injections of money, it was never questioned. On the contrary, it was hailed as 'groundbreaking', and to this day has been the imposed de facto benchmark, of which the peasants are forbidden from even breathing the same air, let alone surpassing it. I'm not a fan of Kaveh Solhekol. but kudos to him for highlighting this point, which the media have deliberately kept under wraps. He needs to watch out or he'll be getting a rap across the knuckles!

More needs to be made of this point. Football is saying, fair market value is measured by whatever transactions the aristocracy have made historically, and that going forward their finances will be measured by that primacy, regardless of contemporaneous performance on the pitch, while the peasants will forever be prisoner to history, forever shackled by a peasant tax, even if they're the greatest team that ever existed. It's 2-tier policing, and thus discriminatory.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

So are we winning or fucked

That's what we all want to know and put in those terms which is why I think some posters are getting their knickers in a twist about @slbsn
Unfortunately it seems the process is unlikely to deliver such a clear cut judgement like a vote on strictly or an American court room drama. We'll probably end up with a few thousand pages of legal jargon we can barely understand, finds points in favour of both sides, and allows the 'result' to be spun either way.

 

[Chris in London]

As I've said before, the legal fraternity on here have become seemingly fixated on the idea that the PL allegations imply there's been significant financial fraud. I can understand why you take that view but I don't agree with it.

My view is that the theme running from the 2014 settlement, where there was a dispute about related parties, through to the CAS hearing, where the panel didn't test that question but did put in their report that we may be guilty of misreporting if the Abu Dhabi-based sponsorships were related parties.

This carried on, with the issue of supposed misreporting of alleged related parties being behind the introduction of the APT, so contracts like Etihad and FAB could be examined.

So I'm convinced that the first group of the PL charges which total over 50 of the 130, is less about financial misfeasance but much more about the related party issue. If that succeeds then I doubt it would have no real impact on our finances and is unlikely to subject us to sporting penalties such as points deductions but:

• The "cheats" label will stick.
• We'll be forced to publish the value of the contracts.

I think our adversaries will be pleased enough with that outcome.

Fraud involves acts of deception with a deliberate intention to mislead.

That is precisely what the club has been accused of.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Fraud involves acts of deception with a deliberate intention to mislead.

That is precisely what the club has been accused of.

I agree, but if that is the case then is there not a point at which the PL would/should have ceased the investigation and handed any evidence over to the police/HMRC etc?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I agree, but if that is the case then is there not a point at which the PL would/should have ceased the investigation and handed any evidence over to the police/HMRC etc?

Why should they?

Edit: There seems to be an idea that the PL has some obligation to inform the authorities if they consider there has been some activity that represents fraudulent activity. Unless I am very wrong, there is no such obligation. Football isn't a regulated industry (yet) and just ask yourself what would be the outcome if they did report it? There would be a multi-year criminal investigation eventually leading, in the worst case, to a multi-year court case in an environment where the standard of proof is so much higher than a civil case and therefore the likelihood of conviction so much lower. And then, when the criminal case is eventually thrown out for lack of evidence, which it would most likely be, the PL would just resume its breach of contract case in the civil environment anyway.

Exactly why, when the PL presumably wants a quick resolution, would it put itself through all that? The time for the PL to involve the authorities, if at all, would be after a favourable (to the PL) civil judgment. And I doubt there is any likelihood of that happening. I have used the words snowflake and hell before to describe that possibility.

The idea that there not being a criminal investigation is some sort of proof that the allegations aren't serious is a nonsense and it does my head in that it is raised every couple of months. It may be useful in calming badly-informed City fans down, or in shutting even more badly-informed rival fans up, but it has no use at all, in my view, in a sensible, grown up debate around the nature of the allegations.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Why should they?

If it's serious fraud on a vast scale involving a global conspiracy between leading accountancy firms and city (as the 115 suggests) then It's a matter for the actual justice system rather than one made up by the PL. Appreciate I'm derailing the apt thread sorry.

 

[remember arthur mann]

That's what we all want to know and put in those terms which is why I think some posters are getting their knickers in a twist about @slbsn
Unfortunately it seems the process is unlikely to deliver such a clear cut judgement like a vote on strictly or an American court room drama. We'll probably end up with a few thousand pages of legal jargon we can barely understand, finds points in favour of both sides, and allows the 'result' to be spun either way.

I think that sums up what Stefan has been saying.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If it's serious fraud on a vast scale involving a global conspiracy between leading accountancy firms and city (as the 125 suggests) then It's a matter for the actual justice system rather than one made up by the PL. Appreciate I'm derailing the apt thread sorry.

I expanded my original reply ever so slightly if you have the strength to read it. Don't forget there is such a thing as fraud in a civil context as well as criminal. And also that the procedure made up by the PL is part of the "justice system" in the civil environment in respect of its rules. Imho, of course.

 

[cheekybids]

The squad controls & anchoring have been held off for the time being with the argument that it needs more time for consultation. Is it any coincidence that the Rags were against this and its stopped. If it was just City & Villa then it would be full steam ahead.

I wonder if City will paint the picture that it’s more than coincidental that every strategy to manage football finance is considered different if it affects certain clubs.

I’m basically trying to say the club knows what’s going on & although some success I believe we’ve wanted to prove it’s anti competitive & thus far failed. The premier league will keep altering but not on the most sustainable path but least damaging to Rags & Dippers.

 

[Chris in London]

@slbsn

I just saw your last interview and agreed with most of what you said except when the guy next to you who is I think Newcastle supporter asked why there should be a rule ! why can't Newcastle owners spend whatever they want ( something like that )


Any busniess owner in the universe can invest on his business by any of the following:

1- Spend whatever he earned to make his business bigger
2- Take a loan and invest
3- Take from his own pocket and invest, thats not a crime and never was until the Cartel decided to prevent us from growing rapidly


For Example, if you read the history of of AC Milan and how they become a global club after Silvio Berlusconi became the owner in 1986. The club was in debt, yet he broke every transfer record and no one could compete with him in the transfer market, and thats how he built an empire in Italy.

Even Real Madrid, if you want to go 80 or 20 years back when they purchased the best players and no one could compete with them, it wasn't financed by their revenue. They always had abnormal power ( financial or political ) that put them million miles ahead of the rest.


Why is it ok for the world that Getafe can't compete with Madrid or Milan for a player

Why everyone feel sorry if Newcastle or City came and blow them out of the water by buying the best available players ?

As long as the owners are not taking loans that will put the club at risk, then they should be free to spend whatever they want on their business.

In Summer 2008 or 2009, Spain was almost bankrupt, yet Perez managed to get loans from the bank to build new galactico.


That whole Financial fair play rule, is unfair.

I think this is a interesting question, and the answer to that Geordie tosser’s question is “there is no reason at all in principle but this is what the majority of the league’s clubs decided should be the rule.” And the APT tribunal agreed that it was a legitimate position for the PL. to take.

But make no mistake, after 30 years of not having a rule that preclude dealings between associated parties, the majority of the PL decided that they should have such a rule within days of the Newcastle takeover being announced.

Go figure.

In the same way, after years of not having those sorts of regulations, UEFA decided it was necessary to introduce FFP at precisely the time City were looking to sign Kaka. Again, go figure.

There is undoubtedly an argument to be made that football should not be a complete free-for-all. There is equally an argument to be made that it should be.

It seems to me we have ended with the worst of both worlds, where regulations have been imposed which do not provide a level playing field, are of questionable legality, appear to be applied inconsistently from one club to the next, and where disciplinary charges appear to be motivated by personal animosity on the part of the PL chief executive.

 

[Dubai Blue]

The thing that gets me about Stefan is that he never posts on Bluemoon unless there's some legal news. And then he somehow manages to make the entire discussion about him and his views.

In fairness to Stefan, I don't think it's him that makes the entire discussion about him and his views, it's everyone else. If people are constantly replying to his posts, he has every right to respond in turn.

 

[Tevez City]

I think this is a interesting question, and the answer to that Geordie tosser’s question is “there is no reason at all in principle but this is what the majority of the league’s clubs decided should be the rule.” And the APT tribunal agreed that it was a legitimate position for the PL. to take.

But make no mistake, after 30 years of not having a rule that preclude dealings between associated parties, the majority of the PL decided that they should have such a rule within days of the Newcastle takeover being announced.

Go figure.

In the same way, after years of not having those sorts of regulations, UEFA decided it was necessary to introduce FFP at precisely the time City were looking to sign Kaka. Again, go figure.

There is undoubtedly an argument to be made that football should not be a complete free-for-all. There is equally an argument to be made that it should be.

It seems to me we have ended with the worst of both worlds, where regulations have been imposed which do not provide a level playing field, are of questionable legality, appear to be applied inconsistently from one club to the next, and where disciplinary charges appear to be motivated by personal animosity on the part of the PL chief executive.

If the cartel wants fairness then they should follow nba model and implent the draft.

By that Model Wigan will have Mbappe instead of Madrid

 

[halfcenturyup]

No.

They do have to enter a new contract.

But when you amend a contract that’s what you are doing anyway (unless the contract says otherwise). Let me try to explain.

You and I agree a contract on 1/2/25 and the effective terms are A, B and C.

On 1/3/25 you amend the contract so that C is replaced by D.

In law, from 1/3 onwards you have a fresh contract containing terms A, B and D.

But lo! I’ve sued you because I said that C was an unlawful term, and the court agrees. On 1/4/25 I get a declaration that because C can’t be blue-pencilled, the whole contract was void. Fortunately for you, when we agreed terms A, B and D that’s not unlawful. So from 1/3 onwards the contract was entirely lawful.

Can I just clarify one thing on this excellent explanation?

(I am giving @slbsn a break because the poor bastard has put up with a lot these last few days, not the least of which has been my stupid questioning ....)

Is there any argument in the above example for saying the contract signed on 1/3 as a lawful contract can be applied also to the period 1/2 to 1/3?

 

[BlueNomad]

In fairness to Stefan, I don't think it's him that makes the entire discussion about him and his views, it's everyone else. If people are constantly replying to his posts, he has every right to respond in turn.

Saying you don’t agree with every opinion shouldn’t elicit the response “But then I’ve read the details” type response. It’s a bit pissy.

We are all shooting on the dark and entitled to an opinion…or at least 2150 pages of opinions seem to suggest we are!

Nothing more to say on the matter.