PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

SWP's back said:
Haha no matey. Sim Racing. I tried it out a few years ago and randomly was quite good at it so started a YouTube channel and weirdly get about 100,000 views a month and it’s been growing about 10% month on month for the two years it’s been going.
Click to expand...
What’s the YT channel called mate? Apologies, you’ve probably been asked this about 100 times already. I’d like to check it out though!
 
jimharri said:
It was before easter; it was Paddy's day weekend (March 17th).I remember it very well, as I thought, "that's handy, I'll be off on a bank holiday when the shit hits the fan"
Click to expand...

If you were getting into the spirit of Paddy’s day you wouldn’t remember a thing ;)
 
deano ou812 said:
It’ll probably drop now on the opening weekend of the new season or maybe the week before community shield game ..
Click to expand...
Next 2 weeks has got to be optimal time. Whatever the outcome, its going to overshadow the start of the new season. If there's an announcement in the next 2 weeks, it'll allow some time for the initial hysteria to drop off
 
Norbert D said:
Out of interest do you think Chelsea have been treated differently to City with regards to FFP and PSR? Putting to one side the fines from UEFA for the dealings since Todd Boehley took over, there was the small matter of illegal payments during the Abrahmovich era (see link below) that appear on paper at least, much more serious than anything City have been accused of. Do you think both clubs have been treated consistently?

www.thesun.co.uk

Chelsea to escape points deduction over secret payments made under Abramovich

CHELSEA are close to escaping a points deduction for the secret payments during the ownership of Roman Abramovich. The Stamford Bridge club paid an £8.6m fine to Uefa in 2023 when they confessed to…
www.thesun.co.uk www.thesun.co.uk
Click to expand...
The 2023 agreements reached with UEFA on the face of it lenient but most of the issues identified were ruled by UEFA to be time barred .

Here’s a little snippet from the settlement agreement

“Following the completion of the purchase of Chelsea Football Club Limited (the “Club”),
the Club’s new owners proactively notified the UEFA Administration that certain historic
transactions had been identified in the due diligence process initiated before the Club’s
takeover in May 2022 that, although not necessarily connected to the Club according to
the latter, may give rise to football regulatory issues.
These transactions mainly concerned payments in relation to player transfers made by
legal entities outside of the Club’s legal group structure and reporting perimeter,
assumably on behalf of the club.”

Knowing the way UEFa work I can’t believe that if that were sure as opposed to assuming matters they wouldn’t have hesitated to pass the matter up the disciplinary chain.
From a Chelsea perspective the offer of a settling agreement which would be funded from funds that they withheld from the sell was a no brainer.

We are yet to find out what the PL will do to Chelsea at the moment the investigation is circa 3 years old not quite the 4 years of the City one. We may be able gain a better perspective at some point when we know more about the Chelsea matter.

I do think had the City case not been subject of an IC the Chelsea matters would have been resolved and my inclination was and still is that a settlement will be the outcome that is as opposed to charges being laid and a full IC set up.

The main reason for that was how UEFA closed the matter down I think they were pretty sure they knew what the information in front of them indicated but knowing and proving aren’t as we know one and the same.

So to your question . I don’t think that we are able to say categorically either way.There really are significant differences between the two cases to at this point make a truly valid judgement but I fully understand why you ask it.

Our current owners clearly won’t be able to speak on behalf of RA nor will they be in possession of the accounting or other records from what UEFa calls “legal entities outside the clubs legal structure”

It’s pretty obvious that City have annoyed the PL when they challenged the PLs ability to conduct arbitration and you have to assume the charges about non co operation tell a story within themselves.

Right I will retire to the drawing room and out a crash helmet on !
 
terraloon said:
The 2023 agreements reached with UEFA on the face of it lenient but most of the issues identified were ruled by UEFA to be time barred .

Here’s a little snippet from the settlement agreement

“Following the completion of the purchase of Chelsea Football Club Limited (the “Club”),
the Club’s new owners proactively notified the UEFA Administration that certain historic
transactions had been identified in the due diligence process initiated before the Club’s
takeover in May 2022 that, although not necessarily connected to the Club according to
the latter, may give rise to football regulatory issues.
These transactions mainly concerned payments in relation to player transfers made by
legal entities outside of the Club’s legal group structure and reporting perimeter,
assumably on behalf of the club.”

Knowing the way UEFa work I can’t believe that if that were sure as opposed to assuming matters they wouldn’t have hesitated to pass the matter up the disciplinary chain.
From a Chelsea perspective the offer of a settling agreement which would be funded from funds that they withheld from the sell was a no brainer.

We are yet to find out what the PL will do to Chelsea at the moment the investigation is circa 3 years old not quite the 4 years of the City one. We may be able gain a better perspective at some point when we know more about the Chelsea matter.

I do think had the City case not been subject of an IC the Chelsea matters would have been resolved and my inclination was and still is that a settlement will be the outcome that is as opposed to charges being laid and a full IC set up.

The main reason for that was how UEFA closed the matter down I think they were pretty sure they knew what the information in front of them indicated but knowing and proving aren’t as we know one and the same.

So to your question . I don’t think that we are able to say categorically either way.There really are significant differences between the two cases to at this point make a truly valid judgement but I fully understand why you ask it.

Our current owners clearly won’t be able to speak on behalf of RA nor will they be in possession of the accounting or other records from what UEFa calls “legal entities outside the clubs legal structure”

It’s pretty obvious that City have annoyed the PL when they challenged the PLs ability to conduct arbitration and you have to assume the charges about non co operation tell a story within themselves.

Right I will retire to the drawing room and out a crash helmet on !
Click to expand...

Well a startling difference is 1 team was prosecuted for accusations that were time barred & another wasn’t.
 
cheekybids said:
Well a startling difference is 1 team was prosecuted for accusations that were time barred & another wasn’t.
Click to expand...
That’s fair comment .After UEFA had their backside kicked at CAS following your appeal to them the written reasons went into detail as to how “ legally “ time barred matters should be viewed .
Most of the years in question re us didn’t need much scrutiny in that respect no doubt it was pretty obvious that some were way out of time ,those that were debatable would following the CAS view be pretty clear could or couldn’t they be included.
 
We all know though, that limitation doesn't apply when there has been concealment of facts, and that was definitely the case with Chelsea. I don't think City were found to have cheated with concealment of facts.
 
Paladin said:
We all know though, that limitation doesn't apply when there has been concealment of facts, and that was definitely the case with Chelsea. I don't think City were found to have cheated with concealment of facts.
Click to expand...
Do we know if they're the same in Swiss law governing UEFA as UK law governing PL?
 
citizen_maine said:
Do we know if they're the same in Swiss law governing UEFA as UK law governing PL?
Click to expand...
As far as I remember, UEFA has limitations built in to its own rules. It does not rely on the laws of any country. Also from recollection, it doesn't go into great detail about when limitation is suspended, so instances of fraud, mistake and concealment might not be relevant.
 
Paladin said:
As far as I remember, UEFA has limitations built in to its own rules. It does not rely on the laws of any country. Also from recollection, it doesn't go into great detail about when limitation is suspended, so instances of fraud, mistake and concealment might not be relevant.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong but as they're based in Switzerland I think they abide by Swiss laws.
 
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