PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
Thanks PB.

I use the word “rumour” about the Ceferin offer largely because it has never been confirmed either by the club or UEFA that the offer was made. I hadn’t actually heard the story that the PL offered us a deal but wouldn’t at all be surprised if they had.

I don’t think BTW there’s anything in a deal being offered that is in any way underhand or undermining of the tribunal’s independence. The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. The allegation we have breached the rules is therefore an allegation we have breached the contract. If the two parties to a contract agree (a) on the fact of a breach and (b) what the consequences should be, the tribunal’s work is done before it even starts.

As I say, I find it interesting that despite there being a number of good reasons for both parties to do a deal if City were in serious jeopardy, it simply hasn’t happened.

Why?

Maybe we will find out tomorrow!
Click to expand...
Tomorrow...!!??

What have I missed...?
 
Jesus H Gabz said:
As I said in the atmosphere thread, that PL jingle pre game was blasted out (from where I was in the NS) to the point were people were looking at one another, biggest clutch of straws ever but I reckon there’s something in it
Click to expand...
Yeh I noticed that. It was very strange. Why do that?
 
The real story here should be how the rags can get away with that amount of debt and the scouse circumvent the rules by pretending to build a stadium and we get dragged through the mud.

It's all vindictive surely and the smoking gun held by the red club cartel?
 
Chris in London said:
Thanks PB.

I use the word “rumour” about the Ceferin offer largely because it has never been confirmed either by the club or UEFA that the offer was made. I hadn’t actually heard the story that the PL offered us a deal but wouldn’t at all be surprised if they had.

I don’t think BTW there’s anything in a deal being offered that is in any way underhand or undermining of the tribunal’s independence. The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. The allegation we have breached the rules is therefore an allegation we have breached the contract. If the two parties to a contract agree (a) on the fact of a breach and (b) what the consequences should be, the tribunal’s work is done before it even starts.

As I say, I find it interesting that despite there being a number of good reasons for both parties to do a deal if City were in serious jeopardy, it simply hasn’t happened.

Why?

Maybe we will find out tomorrow!
Click to expand...
The real window for a PL settlement was before the charge - once charged, the situation became much more challenging and, in many ways, the PL boxed themselves in when they went big on the 115 headline.

The PL appears to have learnt this lesson with the Chelsea off book case (apparently looking to settle that for a financial only penalty despite the seriousness and admissions).

Either way, I agree there is nothing untoward or contradictory about a complainant and the complainee settling a matter even with an IC in place save for the fact that the IC clearly now would have to sign off any settlement/sanction agreement. Masters can be correct that the matter is in the hands of an IC but still seek to settle the matter as the complainant. The point he was making was that the PL is not the IC which is correct.

Post hearing settlement in this case is far more unlikely than in a commercial environment where the judgment effectively gets ripped up and is never thought about again. Here, the PL rules demand the IC approve the severity/leniency of the agreement and that the Sanction Agreement is published with the relevant factual matrix. I can't see how this is possible unless the PL had dropped all its substantive (ex cooperation) charges which is unlikely.
 
mexico1970 said:
The real story here should be how the rags can get away with that amount of debt and the scouse circumvent the rules by pretending to build a stadium and we get dragged through the mud.

It's all vindictive surely and the smoking gun held by the red club cartel?
Click to expand...
It's laughable that it stares everyone in the face except the media, the Premier League and the red cartel clubs.
 
DJBusinesscake said:
Imminent means nothing lol. Could be an hour or a couple of weeks still.
Click to expand...
Or the speculation that it will be in the international break has gone round the houses and the idle speculation has morphed into rumours with no basis.

I hope that’s not the case though and we get a verdict this week.
 
mexico1970 said:
The real story here should be how the rags can get away with that amount of debt and the scouse circumvent the rules by pretending to build a stadium and we get dragged through the mud.

It's all vindictive surely and the smoking gun held by the red club cartel?
Click to expand...
The reason is that neither of those are included in ffp, but similar to share holder loans it's obvious why they aren't.

Surely the debt equates to the rags having a sporting advantage & yo have to wonder why Everton didn't go after this
 
slbsn said:
The PL rules demand the IC approve the severity/leniency of the agreement and that the Sanction Agreement is published with the relevant factual matrix.
Click to expand...

Do they? I hadn't found any specific requirement within the rules to the effect that once the jurisdiction of the independent tribunal has been invoked, the parties can't, so to speak, un-invoke it in the event of a settlement, though TBH I haven't looked that hard. If it's there, it's there, but it's perhaps odd that the rules would deliberately draw a distinction between disciplinary hearings and say rule X arbitrations where a consensual resolution of the issue would be as contractually binding as the original agreement to submit to arbitration.

My overriding feeling when Masters was saying 'it's in the IC's hands now' was that he was largely saying 'get off my case' to the redshirts (and Tottenham). That said, that's in no way evidence based, it's just what I thought at the time. It is however interesting (if this is indeed the case) that the PL didn't discuss a plea-bargain with City before charges were brought, especially if following the bringing of charges they lose the ability to control that process (though the IC would of course have been overwhelmingly likely to ratify any compromise that wasn't too one-sided.)

My recollection is that there was almost universal agreement amongst the media at the time the charges were brought that the real motivation for any charges to be brought at all was pressure on Masters from the usual suspects. The fact that they were so sensationalist about the bringing of the charges - charges going back to Mancini's time, the number of charges, the leaking to the media before the decision was made public etc - always seemed distasteful and did nothing to dispel the theory that this was aimed primarily at placating the redshirts (and Tottenham).

When you stand that alongside issues such as the undisclosed access that Liverpool and United were given to the applicants for the position now occupied by Masters (who actually arranged that, given that Masters was the acting CEO at the time?) the PL's opposition to the Newcastle takeover (which Newcastle themselves believed was coming from the same quarter) the swiftness with which the PL moved after that takeover to introduce APT1 and the decision to charge City in relation to eg matters such as an alleged breach of UEFA's FFP rules when CAS had acquitted City of that, and it raises serious and profound questions about the independence of the PL.

Not that you will find (m)any journalists writing about any of that.

At the end of all this, there's one hell of a book to be written about it all...
 
slbsn said:
The real window for a PL settlement was before the charge - once charged, the situation became much more challenging and, in many ways, the PL boxed themselves in when they went big on the 115 headline.

The PL appears to have learnt this lesson with the Chelsea off book case (apparently looking to settle that for a financial only penalty despite the seriousness and admissions).

Either way, I agree there is nothing untoward or contradictory about a complainant and the complainee settling a matter even with an IC in place save for the fact that the IC clearly now would have to sign off any settlement/sanction agreement. Masters can be correct that the matter is in the hands of an IC but still seek to settle the matter as the complainant. The point he was making was that the PL is not the IC which is correct.

Post hearing settlement in this case is far more unlikely than in a commercial environment where the judgment effectively gets ripped up and is never thought about again. Here, the PL rules demand the IC approve the severity/leniency of the agreement and that the Sanction Agreement is published with the relevant factual matrix. I can't see how this is possible unless the PL had dropped all its substantive (ex cooperation) charges which is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Does your point about Chelsea maybe raise the prospect of City (if found guilty of any charges) needing to be dealt with by way of a financial penalty - given the PL statement re Chelsea ? A severe points deduction or other sporting sanction would that not give City immediate grounds for appeal on the basis that the PL are then interpreting and applying their own rules differently depending upon who they are dealing with? Particularly since they have signalled their intentions to Chelsea ahead of any hearing.
 
nmc said:
Does your point about Chelsea maybe raise the prospect of City (if found guilty of any charges) needing to be dealt with by way of a financial penalty - given the PL statement re Chelsea ? A severe points deduction or other sporting sanction would that not give City immediate grounds for appeal on the basis that the PL are then interpreting and applying their own rules differently depending upon who they are dealing with? Particularly since they have signalled their intentions to Chelsea ahead of any hearing.
Click to expand...
just checking owners nationality
 
Strange how the speculation re the timing of an announcement has intensified over the last few days. I know that this spring has been flagged up as a possible D-Day from a long time back. But why this particular week. Surely, it can't be simply because of the international break? Have any of our clued up posters been given the heads up re the timing?
 
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