PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Undeniably true. People get confused by the difference between executive and non-executive. At City as well. And by the use of the word board to just mean an executive committee.

Mind you, at the PL the non-executives seem to work as executives: carrying out FMV assessments, lobbying for the Chairman etc ... So I am not surprised there is confusion.

If the executive asked me, as a non-executive, to do executive work, I would have quit long ago.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
The problem is the PL seems to be a shambles, so all bets are off in terms of them following what we would consider to be normal business practice.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Undeniably true. People get confused by the difference between executive and non-executive. At City as well. And by the use of the word board to just mean an executive committee.

Mind you, at the PL the non-executives seem to work as executives: carrying out FMV assessments, lobbying for the Chairman etc ... So I am not surprised there is confusion.

If the executive asked me, as a non-executive, to do executive work, I would have quit long ago.
Click to expand...

Yes I forgot Fyfield was a NED when she’s claiming to be working long & hard on the Etihad sponsorship.
 
mcfcphil said:
Agreed.
The problem is the PL seems to be a shambles, so all bets are off in terms of them following what we would consider to be normal business practice.
Click to expand...
Fyfield sits on a sub-committee to approve (or not) the recommendations of the Regulatory Committee. She is not preparing the report, she (and another NED) are considering it and asking questions in the way sub-committees often offer independent oversight of an exec function. Not sure there is much to see or unusual in that. The thing that surprised people was that she seemed to take the sub committee responsibilities seriously and carefully considered the information. Not a popular opinion here but if we take City out of it, this seems to me to be something worthy of praise rather than criticism. Nobody wants NEDs that don't even read the papers.
 
slbsn said:
Fyfield sits on a sub-committee to approve (or not) the recommendations of the Regulatory Committee. She is not preparing the report, she (and another NED) are considering it and asking questions in the way sub-committees often offer independent oversight of an exec function. Not sure there is much to see or unusual in that. The thing that surprised people was that she seemed to take the sub committee responsibilities seriously and carefully considered the information. Not a popular opinion here but if we take City out of it, this seems to me to be something worthy of praise rather than criticism. Nobody wants NEDs that don't even read the papers.
Click to expand...

It all seems very convenient what to ignore & what to zoom in on.
 
slbsn said:
I’d say it’s very unsurprising that the largest ever PL sponsorship gets a lot of committee consideration
Click to expand...

That’s one way of looking at it but considering the committee was created with foresight that certain clubs will have the biggest ever sponsorship offers coming in.
 
KS55 said:
“My candle sputtered out at 1 am. I was very tired doing what Masters told me to do, finding the worst possible benchmarking cases.”… Or something similar in her evidence.
Click to expand...

If I remember properly, the tribunal said something along the lines that she had been closer to the operations of the EAG assessment than would be typical for a non-executive director (including communicating directly with Nielsen) and that her role was borderline executive. Half full or half empty? I know what I think.
 
slbsn said:
Fyfield sits on a sub-committee to approve (or not) the recommendations of the Regulatory Committee. She is not preparing the report, she (and another NED) are considering it and asking questions in the way sub-committees often offer independent oversight of an exec function. Not sure there is much to see or unusual in that. The thing that surprised people was that she seemed to take the sub committee responsibilities seriously and carefully considered the information. Not a popular opinion here but if we take City out of it, this seems to me to be something worthy of praise rather than criticism. Nobody wants NEDs that don't even read the papers.
Click to expand...

Yes, that all makes sense.

My original question was in response to people saying Alison Brittain would be under scrutiny if the 115 goes against the Premier League.

I’m not sure that is the case because I’m not sure how involved the chair would be in the decision to move forward with charges against City.

To be clear, I don’t know the answer to the question - just that it isn’t a foregone conclusion Britain’s position becomes untenable in that scenario.
 
mcfcphil said:
Yes, that all makes sense.

My original question was in response to people saying Alison Brittain would be under scrutiny if the 115 goes against the Premier League.

I’m not sure that is the case because I’m not sure how involved the chair would be in the decision to move forward with charges against City.

To be clear, I don’t know the answer to the question - just that it isn’t a foregone conclusion Britain’s position becomes untenable in that scenario.
Click to expand...
In the meantime the Chair position needs deciding with or without the result of the 115+ case or indeed who controls the policies.
 
mcfcphil said:
Yes, that all makes sense.

My original question was in response to people saying Alison Brittain would be under scrutiny if the 115 goes against the Premier League.

I’m not sure that is the case because I’m not sure how involved the chair would be in the decision to move forward with charges against City.

To be clear, I don’t know the answer to the question - just that it isn’t a foregone conclusion Britain’s position becomes untenable in that scenario.
Click to expand...

She is executive isn't she? It isn't clear to me, tbh, but if she is, she will have to answer a few questions too, surely, when the PL can't land the most serious allegations? But, even if she isn't, all the non-executives should be at risk too, by the way, for failing miserably in their roles. It's all an enormous clusterfuck.

Anyway, the PL isn't my problem. They can all fuck off for all I care. Just get the verdict out and let's get on with the game again.
 
mcfcphil said:
Yes, that all makes sense.

My original question was in response to people saying Alison Brittain would be under scrutiny if the 115 goes against the Premier League.

I’m not sure that is the case because I’m not sure how involved the chair would be in the decision to move forward with charges against City.

To be clear, I don’t know the answer to the question - just that it isn’t a foregone conclusion Britain’s position becomes untenable in that scenario.
Click to expand...
I think the executive's position is going to be questionable. The Chair may feel they owe a resignation but I agree it is not a foregone that the Chair resigns. In fact, it is likely the Chair's job to request the CEO and others' resignation.
 
Last edited:
cheekybids said:
That’s one way of looking at it but considering the committee was created with foresight that certain clubs will have the biggest ever sponsorship offers coming in.
Click to expand...
Never bothered the other clubs who had the biggest sponsorship before we did. Or ones that don't even sell their own products in the uk. Or ones with links to organised crime. Or the ones on holiday in Rwanda. I am sure their is more.
 
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