PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
Stefan did always insist this, that any 'punishment' would be a separate hearing, only if this panel finds the charges viable. For all the rush to point out when his claims/guesses appear to turn out otherwise, worth acknowledging this.
Click to expand...

True, it was The Lawyer who first mentioned this, I think.

Edit: Sorry, already been cleared up.
 
Last edited:
mike1923 said:
I think I’ve seen on here that the outcome can only be appealed if either side believes the law (or rules, don’t understood it technically enough to know which) have been misinterpreted by the panel

I dont think the PL or City just disagreeing with the outcome is enough grounds for an appeal
Click to expand...

These are the grounds for an appeal:

1000001073.png

So City can appeal the decision. I am struggling to see how the PL could appeal a liability decision, though. The panel hasn't dismissed the complaint, they won't have decided on a sanction and there is no interim applications involved.

Maybe this is an indication no appeals will be allowed until after a sanction hearing, if one is needed? It's hard to imagine an appeal panel being created to reconsider liability, after which this panel is reconstituted to consider sanctions / costs.

Clear as mud as always.
 
moomba said:
Maybe only a co-operation charge. I think anything else would be hard to deal over I agree.
Click to expand...

Unless the club has been up to some minor shenanigans, of course. There are still things we don't know much about in all this.

The serious matters I have always been 100% confident about (inasmuch as anyone can ever be) based on what we think we know, but there are a few minor issues we don't know much about that may be problematic. I am happy to accept Khaldoon's word on them though. He hasn't let us down yet.
 
halfcenturyup said:
These are the grounds for an appeal:

View attachment 148634

So City can appeal the decision. I am struggling to see how the PL could appeal a liability decision, though. The panel hasn't dismissed the complaint, they won't have decided on a sanction and there is no interim applications involved.

Maybe this is an indication no appeals will be allowed until after a sanction hearing, if one is needed? It's hard to imagine an appeal panel being created to reconsider liability, after which this panel is reconstituted to consider sanctions / costs.

Clear as mud as always.
Click to expand...

The PL won’t appeal they’ll just say the panel got it wrong like UEFA.

I think the article in the FT was Masters updating his linked in bio - looking for opportunities.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Unless the club has been up to some minor shenanigans, of course. There are still things we don't know much about in all this.

The serious matters I have always been 100% confident about (inasmuch as anyone can ever be) based on what we think we know, but there are a few minor issues we don't know much about that may be problematic. I am happy to accept Khaldoon's word on them though. He hasn't let us down yet.
Click to expand...

Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship, have the Premier League got anything more to go on rather than hacked emails that don’t evidence anything?

Players image rights - wasn’t time barred for Uefa and they didn’t have an issue with them. United used a similar set up to avoid paying tax.

Mancini’s wages - happened before PSR was brought in and what exactly did the club gain from it when City were making significant losses?

Which leaves us with non co operation, when you read the associated party notes. The Premier League didn’t act in good faith towards City. What evidence is there to suggest they behaved anyway different during this investigation? This whole sham stinks of a political power play being pushed by a club that’s a billion in debt and sinking fast and another one that’s announced losses last week. I wonder why they want City gone?
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship, have the Premier League got anything more to go on rather than hacked emails that don’t evidence anything?

Players image rights - wasn’t time barred for Uefa and they didn’t have an issue with them. United used a similar set up to avoid paying tax.

Mancini’s wages - happened before PSR was brought in and what exactly did the club gain from it when City were making significant losses?

Which leaves us with non co operation, when you read the associated party notes. The Premier League didn’t act in good faith towards City. What evidence is there to suggest they behaved anyway different during this investigation? This whole sham stinks of a political power play being pushed by a club that’s a billion in debt and sinking fast and another one that’s announced losses last week. I wonder why they want City gone?
Click to expand...

:)

Don't disagree with the gist of your post, but I have always said I would like to know about Fordham and Touré before coming to any conclusion.

I often read on here that United used a similar image rights set up, but I am not sure United used a friendly third party to buy image rights, with losses underwritten by the shareholder. I suppose it's possible that their shareholder directly signed contracts with a player's agent, though, although that doesn't help with the club's case.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying these "minor" issues (ie issues that will not lead to any significant sanction) are going to be found in favour of the PL, just that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion myself, unlike the more serious allegations which, imho, the PL definitely won't be able to prove. And those more serious issues are all I care about, really.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:)

Don't disagree with the gist of your post, but I have always said I would like to know about Fordham and Touré before coming to any conclusion.

I often read on here that United used a similar image rights set up, but I am not sure United used a friendly third party to buy image rights, with losses underwritten by the shareholder. I suppose it's possible that their shareholder directly signed contracts with a player's agent, though, although that doesn't help with the club's case.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying these "minor" issues (ie issues that will not lead to any significant sanction) are going to be found in favour of the PL, just that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion myself, unlike the more serious allegations which, imho, the PL definitely won't be able to prove. And those more serious issues are all I care about, really.
Click to expand...

Why didn’t Uefa have a go at it when they had the opportunity? The whole thing stinks of try and throw enough shit at the wall and hope something sticks. Mancini being allegedly paid two wages happened 16 years ago, it’s desperate, desperate stuff from the PL.
 
Unless the PL have access to new damning evidence, we will be cleared of the main charges. If there was something damning against us I would have thought it'd have come out when the breaches were announced in 2023. That has not happened. If the panel decide that City have done nothing wrong, but the PL feel they have grounds to appeal, do the PL really want this to go to an appeal with the prosoect of yet another costly defeat? They have currently burnt a lot of their members cash on legal fights. Surely the members will say enough is enough and Masters will be given his P45. In Khaldoon we trust!
 
Bez said:
Unless the PL have access to new damning evidence, we will be cleared of the main charges. If there was something damning against us I would have thought it'd have come out when the breaches were announced in 2023. That has not happened. If the panel decide that City have done nothing wrong, but the PL feel they have grounds to appeal, do the PL really want this to go to an appeal with the prosoect of yet another costly defeat? They have currently burnt a lot of their members cash on legal fights. Surely the members will say enough is enough and Masters will be given his P45. In Khaldoon we trust!
Click to expand...
Well if the PL have access to damning new evidence, that means we're bang to rights. I don't think many of us are giving that scenario much credence, although the twitchometer briefly flickered on here again last night for some unknown reason. I just keep going back to the club statement for reassurance.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:)

Don't disagree with the gist of your post, but I have always said I would like to know about Fordham and Touré before coming to any conclusion.

I often read on here that United used a similar image rights set up, but I am not sure United used a friendly third party to buy image rights, with losses underwritten by the shareholder. I suppose it's possible that their shareholder directly signed contracts with a player's agent, though, although that doesn't help with the club's case.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying these "minor" issues (ie issues that will not lead to any significant sanction) are going to be found in favour of the PL, just that I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion myself, unlike the more serious allegations which, imho, the PL definitely won't be able to prove. And those more serious issues are all I care about, really.
Click to expand...
Fordham was designed to get revenue in, not hide expenses. Also UEFA were aware of it and discussed it with us in 2015, with no charges following. That was well before the Der Spiegel articles and not long after our FFP settlement agreement.

I've always thought that the key issue with it was whether we declared the image rights payments in our FFP submission but even if we didn't the amounts aren't likely to be material, probably around the £12-13m mark per annum.
 
Unless they get rid of corrupt officials like Masters nothings going to change, the Royalty even realizes this and that's why they plan to introduce a complete independent arbitrary panel with no ties to anyone, whether it's for the better or worse I don't know. However it cannot continue with the current setup. They totally messed up with all.these ridiculous rules.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Why didn’t Uefa have a go at it when they had the opportunity? The whole thing stinks of try and throw enough shit at the wall and hope something sticks. Mancini being allegedly paid two wages happened 16 years ago, it’s desperate, desperate stuff from the PL.
Click to expand...

The Touré contract wasn't leaked by der Spiegel until 2020, iirc.

My guess is Fordham was probably settled with UEFA in 2014 so they didn't want to re-open it.

I never mentioned Mancini. That will be time limited, imho.

Again yes, I agree with the gist of your post. I am happy to take Khaldoon at his word but I am not as confident on these minor matters purely because I don't have the information on which to come to a conclusion. Nor does anyone else yet.

That said, I don't care as long as the club is cleared on the serious issues, so I am not losing any sleep over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top