PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

manimanc said:
Right.
Let's have it.
Season is done, we got 6 weeks to get this verdict out. We've even gone out early of a competition better than the champions league (according to some cranks on here) so we got no distractions now.

Ready when you are khaldoon.
Click to expand...

Amen brother
 
East Level 2 said:
I don't mind educated guesses, but most of the stuff in the media is uneducated guesses.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear - the media stuff is a combination of briefings and soundings from professionals who often have not spent very long considering the situation. A lot is not just guess, it is actually wrong. For example, there is a Telegraph piece on Villa from this week with this in it. It is then repeated elsewhere. It is absolutely wrong. 1751444615559.png
UEFA 3 year losses are capped at €60m for Villa (one or two teams can get another €30m for "good health"). So the Telegraph are WILDLY wrong.

On top of that the 80% is not about 23/24 season. It is a calendar year test to 31 December 2024 ie half of 23/24, half of 24/25. WRONG WRONG WRONG. And they don't even need to speculate on this - United (and others) explain it in their accounts:
1751445144635.png
 
Last edited:
Citizen of Legoland said:
How do these panel members (or their employer/business) get remunerated for this type of work? Is it a fixed price for the job or an hourly/daily rate. As much as we have to be patient and try to understand it, this is the national game and someone’s taking the piss. At least publish some sort of update to confirm they’ve actually been looking at it and the paperwork hasn’t got lost down the back of the fridge.
Click to expand...
Daily rate.
I wrote a whole piece in Feb 2023 saying fans, employees etc all had the right to a public timetable even if it was subject to change. But I am told even the parties don't know when it is coming.
 
slbsn said:
You sound like the comments on Youtube!! I'm afraid with something like this, you can have a general rule but also be mindful that there may well be good reason for delay eg one member of the panel has been sick or had a big trial/arbitration straight after 115 etc. Who knows. But, as I say, my general feeling is quicker is better.
Click to expand...
But couldn’t “quicker” mean that the guilt is obvious - & slower mean we are innocent & as such, they are being careful about wording their absolute criticism of the PL because of its implications
 
mancboy said:
oh yeah im sorry i forgot its against forum rules to question your analysis isnt it, i do apologise
Click to expand...
Such a shit reply. There was no questioning. It was simply you dismissing everything as ill thought through guessing. Which it isn't. And not just me, others on here also give detailed reasoned thinking using their experience. Don't like, don't read.
 
The longer it has gone on the bigger the mockery around it all. United posting losses hundreds of million outside of what is acceptable. Chelsea spending daft money and sell a hotel and their womens team to comply. Villa buying their womens team. Youth players moving between clubs to make the figures better. Forest spending beyond their means to get into Europe (what a fairytale ey) and you have Everton who barely spent a bean for years getting handed points deductions. The upshot of us is we may or may not have spent more than we should of, like all the other examples given.
 
mancboy said:
oh yeah im sorry i forgot its against forum rules to question your analysis isnt it, i do apologise
Click to expand...
He's the font of all knowledge on this and has the most experience with processes/procedures. We are where we are, waiting in limbo. No need for the sarcasm. We are lucky he shares his insights but at the moment it's quiet and we are all bored of waiting.
 
CC1 said:
But couldn’t “quicker” mean that the guilt is obvious - & slower mean we are innocent & as such, they are being careful about wording their absolute criticism of the PL because of its implications
Click to expand...
Personally I don't see it like that. City's defence was always likely to be detailed, thorough and compelling. It could never be simply dismissed. If it is to be dismissed, it will be done so in a thorough way and probably have to make some damning findings that will cause a major stir going forward.
 
slbsn said:
Personally I don't see it like that. City's defence was always likely to be detailed, thorough and compelling. It could never be simply dismissed. If it is to be dismissed, it will be done so in a thorough way and probably have to make some damning findings that will cause a major stir going forward.
Click to expand...
But could say the same for the PL defence. Indeed, if their defence failed, the panel would not just be bringing down the whole PL organisation but there would be spin off criticisms of the behaviour & intentions of the PL clubs who encouraged the investigation for over 4 years. Not a quick procedure??

Anyway, it’s all opinions & suppositions at moment I guess
 
slbsn said:
Personally I don't see it like that. City's defence was always likely to be detailed, thorough and compelling. It could never be simply dismissed. If it is to be dismissed, it will be done so in a thorough way and probably have to make some damning findings that will cause a major stir going forward.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the current timetable as anything particularly out of the ordinary for a case as potentially far reaching as this one.
Presumably the panel members will have lots of other things going on, as well as this and timetabling is likely to be challenging, to say the least.
Whilst we live this everyday, football isn’t the be all and end all we fans imagine it to be and there will be lots of other work going on.
I am fully aware that you know the following but I thought it was interesting what the chair, Murray Rosen, currently has going on:

Independent arbitrator and mediator

• Deputy High Court Judge, Chancery Division

• Recorder (civil and crime)

• Acting Deemster, Isle of Man

• Bencher, Hon Soc Lincoln’s Inn

• Member Court of Arbitration for Sport, Lausanne (CAS)

Court of Arbitration for Art, The Hague (CAfA)

Judicial Panel, FA Premier League (Chair 2020-2025)

• Chair Independent Oversight Panel, FA Premier League

• PhD candidate, University of Manchester (History of Art)

I note that his chairmanship of the judicial panel is up in 2025 so he’ll presumably want an outcome published before that?
 
CC1 said:
But could say the same for the PL defence. Indeed, if their defence failed, the panel would not just be bringing down the whole PL organisation but there would be spin off criticisms of the behaviour & intentions of the PL clubs who encouraged the investigation for over 4 years. Not a quick procedure??

Anyway, it’s all opinions & suppositions at moment I guess
Click to expand...
PL doesn't have a defence. It has its case/claim/complaint. Unless the complaint is found to be completely without any foundation (I really doubt it), then they will be protected from most criticism although they can expect the bulk of the costs if they fail.
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
The longer it has gone on the bigger the mockery around it all. United posting losses hundreds of million outside of what is acceptable. Chelsea spending daft money and sell a hotel and their womens team to comply. Villa buying their womens team. Youth players moving between clubs to make the figures better. Forest spending beyond their means to get into Europe (what a fairytale ey) and you have Everton who barely spent a bean for years getting handed points deductions. The upshot of us is we may or may not have spent more than we should of, like all the other examples given.
Click to expand...
 
slbsn said:
PL doesn't have a defence. It has its case/claim/complaint. Unless the complaint is found to be completely without any foundation (I really doubt it), then they will be protected from most criticism although they can expect the bulk of the costs if they fail.
Click to expand...

Why do you doubt it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
slbsn said:
Personally I don't see it like that. City's defence was always likely to be detailed, thorough and compelling. It could never be simply dismissed. If it is to be dismissed, it will be done so in a thorough way and probably have to make some damning findings that will cause a major stir going forward.
Click to expand...
That’s scary stuff. If you were saying quick was bad for City everyone would love it of course.
 
slbsn said:
Just to be clear - the media stuff is a combination of briefings and soundings from professionals who often have not spent very long considering the situation. A lot is not just guess, it is actually wrong. For example, there is a Telegraph piece on Villa from this week with this in it. It is then repeated elsewhere. It is absolutely wrong. View attachment 161777
UEFA 3 year losses are capped at €60m for Villa (one or two teams can get another €30m for "good health"). So the Telegraph are WILDLY wrong.

On top of that the 80% is not about 23/24 season. It is a calendar year test to 31 December 2024 ie half of 23/24, half of 24/25. WRONG WRONG WRONG. And they don't even need to speculate on this - United (and others) explain it in their accounts:
View attachment 161780
Click to expand...
I’m glad I don’t know enough to see these mistakes. It must drive you mad.
 
slbsn said:
Probably. In effect, Villa have done this with their "Warehouse". Built a function room on their plot and now will sell it to a related company for £50m (apparently) presumably on a sale and leaseback. Will probably be discussing this on Talksport at 11.15 today including recounting how I led the sale and leaseback of "Reebok City" in 2004 for the club - an early example of such deals!View attachment 161771
Click to expand...
Was this the original City Store? If so, my current employers introduced the buyer and brokered the debt requirement.
 
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