PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

blue44 said:
Click to expand...

115 replies.

That must be a sign!!!

Non-cooperation charges are BS basically not given them evidence we don’t have to incriminate ourselves.

I hope this is true, I hope we hold the media to account and end a few careers.but I highly doubt it’s true.
 
Last edited:
I'm just binge watching the Sopranos, at the moment as I've never watched it.

So season 1 episode 4 or 5, when Tony is visiting the clinic where he's seeing the shrink. He see's someone he knows in the clinic.

So he goes into a random room so he's not seen by this guy he knows, as he doesn't want them to know he's seeing a shrink.

However when the guy's gone and he comes out of this random room, the room number "115".

I tell you I........I couldn't fcuking believe it, this program was made in the 1990's, 30+ years ago:-)
 
117 M34 said:
Forest.

Ultimately, the Commission accepted only one of Forest’s heads of mitigation: that it had admitted the complaint in full at the first opportunity and cooperated extensively with the Premier League.

The circumstances and scale of Forest’s breach resulted in a further 3-point deduction being awarded. This was subsequently reduced by 2-points for mitigation.

So their points deduction was reduced by 2 points because they did cooperate.
By that measure, their points deduction did include an element of non cooperation
Click to expand...
But they were guilty by their own admission...
 
117 M34 said:
When everton and forest were given their punishments, didn't one of them get an 8 point fine and it was said that it would have been 6 if they had cooperated?
Click to expand...
Thats only cos they were guilty. Akin to a plea bargain whereby the accused gets a lighter sentence
 
deano ou812 said:
And if we accept a fine for non cooperation the media will have a field day spinning it as see they are guilty after all..we want cleared entirely as all that leaves them with is we paid them off no guilty charge no nothing..Then please the club bring to task those who have overstepped with slanderous comments and articles..
Click to expand...
Sorry…..but even if we are FULLY EXONERATED rival fans and MOST DEFINITELY the MSM…will slyly and covering themselves legally intimate we’re guilty,probably by the old “brown envelope” argument……unfortunately as a fanbase we’re going to have to deal with this and that’s life….i have ALWAYS said we are witnessing the most SUCCESSFUL SMEAR CAMPAIGN in the HISTORY OF WORLD SPORT,and personally IT BREAKS MY FUCKING HEART……I’m a delicate individual,currently dealing with severe depression….but I’m hanging on in there….been city since 77…….and get this,my favourite city player will ALWAYS be Kevin Reeeves…….
 
I also think too many are accepting that the non-cooperation will stick, as a given. It's mainly driven by what happened with the UEFA case IMO. The PL non cooperation is not apples to apples.

Isn't the difference that City orginally were cooperating with the UEFA investigation, then the CFCB were leaking about the verdict wanted by most within the CFCB. This was before their investigation was over, while ignoring 200 page documents of evidence of innocence in favour of whatever they were asking for(which they may or may not have been entitled to). In this context, City felt they were justified in wanting to take this to CAS instead.

This time around, City have said they've cooperated with the PL's investigation, as much as they were required to. I've read a few summaries that say there was a couple of legal battles. Firstly in 2019 starting in August where City challenged the disciplinary commission's independence and impartiality as well as the PL's proposed procedures. Then there was a legal challenge around the details being made public.

www.dailymail.co.uk

ACCUSED: War declared on Manchester City by the Premier League

In a bombshell statement alleging the biggest scandal in the competition's history, officials announced the club would be hauled before an independent commission.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

March 7/8, 2019: UEFA and then the Premier League announce formal investigations into City's alleged FFP breaches.

August 21, 2019: PL issue a complaint against City, seeking disclosure of the documents and information. The club challenges the PL's disciplinary system, claiming the commission set up is not sufficiently independent or impartial.

October 22, 2019: With the documents and information not forthcoming, the PL begin arbitration against the club seeking a declaration that they are contractually obliged to provide them. The club try to stop the arbitration by arguing to the tribunal involved that the PL had no power to start it. They also claim that the tribunal does not appear impartial.

February 14, 2020: UEFA ban City from the Champions League for two seasons and fine them €30m for FFP violations.

June 2, 2020: The tribunal rejects the challenge to its jurisdiction and impartiality.

June 26, 2020: City issue an application in the Commercial Court repeating their argument that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction on the information claim and is tainted with apparent bias.

July 13, 2020: The Champions League ban is overturned on appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The UEFA fine is reduced to €10m for non-cooperation with the ruling body's investigation.

November 2, 2020: Meanwhile, the arbitration continues and the club's argument for not having to pass on the requested information and documents are rejected. The order to provide them is postponed pending the outcome of the Commercial Court case.

March 17, 2021: In the Commercial Court, Mrs Justice Moulder dismisses the club's challenge to the jurisdiction and impartiality of the tribunal. She refuses permission to appeal her judgment.

March 24, 2021: The judge says her judgment should be published, which would reveal the lengths to which City have attempted to resist passing on information to the PL. City successfully seek permission to appeal that decision in the Court of Appeal.

May 12, 2021: The Mail on Sunday writes to City and the Premier League asking to be shown details of the the Mrs Justice Moulder's judgment, including both sides' arguments, in the interests of open justice and to determine whether the newspaper should intervene on the club's appeal. The newspaper is prepared to guarantee nothing is published, but the requests are refused.

June 30, 2021: The Court of Appeal opens its hearing into the club's appeal against publication. The Mail on Sunday sends a barrister to court and is given last-minute permission to attend.

July 20, 2021: The Court of Appeal hands down its decision dismissing the appeal.
Click to expand...

Another summary from casemine with more legal info:
www.casemine.com

Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors, [2021] EWCA Civ 1110 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Get free access to the complete judgment in Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors on CaseMine.
www.casemine.com www.casemine.com

Is it, that the PL will argue that City shouldn't have made those legal appeals. Or is that they were uncooperative throughout? Because since City say they have cooperated, I'm guessing it's about the legal challenges and arguing that was obstruction.

Not wanting a judgement to be made public in July 2021 is pretty irrelevant, because City were being slaughtered in the press no matter what. Could anyone argue, City not wanting yet more negative press ontop of negative press coverage, is not understandable? I don't think so.

The challenge starting in 2019 might be up for debate. Were City wrong to challenge the impartiality and jurisdiction, along with the PL's proposed procedures(whatever that means)?

IF City felt the people on the PL's side, who were asking for information, were not impartial and maybe wanted more assurances that they were indepedent. Not for me. Especially given that they were dealing with UEFA's CFCB at the same time. Who definitely didn't seem independent of UEFA, nor did they seem impartial(neither chamber did). When City learned there would be no route to CAS, they would understandably have extra concerns on the PL case.

It might just be me, but I don't remember hearing anything about an Independent Commission before the PL charged City in February 2023. Was it set up around that time... because even though they say the complaints about indpendence and impartiality were dismissed. That would be a bit of a coincidence.

Also, when you look at the timeline in full and add in the bits they left out for UEFA in late 2019. With the first appeal to CAS and why they appealed. UEFA and the PL probably were hoping to stretch City's legal team thin and hit them around the same time(a double wammy). Which doesn't seem right. That(some seperation) is much more of a feasible motivation, if there was one at all.
 
Last edited:
Cityfan1977 said:
I am sorry about that but I trust you thats why I asked , I am just so tired of this shit I want this to end . Someone to assure me that we are not quilty
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration
That is why I have decided to go to the dark side.
The smear campaign has long passed the point of no return. I want us to be the pantomime villain of the premiere league. People can both hate us and fear us.



View attachment tumblr_nzmuusvSaN1s6c2sxo1_500.gif.webp
 
Last edited:
bluwes said:
Sorry @Ric we ain’t taking anything that could show us guilty of any charge, no matter how minor
Click to expand...
We don't get to choose whether we are guilty or innocent. We have provided our evidence, and it is now for independent arbiters to decide on the truth of the matter. If the evidence against us is compelling, we might just have to accept our punishment for our wrongdoing. This is a possibility, and we should realise this.

Khaldoon pleaded innocence at CAS, but we were still punished.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Perceived wisdom is that non-cooperation can only be sanctioned financially, but there is nothing in the rules iirc that prevents it. I happen to agree with the perceived wisdom in this case, but who knows?

May be wrong, I haven't looked for a while.
Click to expand...
The 2024/25 Premier League Handbook doesn’t explicitly list “non-cooperation” as a standalone offense with a direct penalty of points deduction. However, continual non-cooperation with the Premier League could be considered Misconduct under Rule W.3, as it may involve breaching rules like Rule W.22 (failure to provide requested documents, information, or assistance). If a Disciplinary Commission finds a club guilty of such Misconduct, they have the authority under Rule W.51.4 to impose a points deduction as a sanction, depending on the severity and context of the non-cooperation.

In short: Yes, continual non-cooperation could lead to points deductions, but it would be determined case-by-case by a Commission. For details, see Section W of the handbook (pages 159–190 in the provided PDF).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ1
Mr Ed (The Stables) said:
I'm just binge watching the Sopranos, at the moment as I've never watched it.

So season 1 episode 4 or 5, when Tony is visiting the clinic where he's seeing the shrink. He see's someone he knows in the clinic.

So he goes into a random room so he's not seen by this guy he knows, as he doesn't want them to know he's seeing a shrink.

However when the guy's gone and he comes out of this random room, the room number "115".

I tell you I........I couldn't fcuking believe it, this program was made in the 1990's, 30+ years ago:-)
Click to expand...
I binge watched it last year. Brilliant series. Cant believe i didnt watch it when it first aired.
 
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