PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
OK, you talked me into it.

I think I've told this one before but working for my original firm (which is now part of City's auditors, BDO) one of my colleagues was doing some 'brown paper bag' accounts for a farmer, which means you get a bundle of documents in a bag and have to sort them out and make sense of them. One of the key things he had to do was prepare livestock accounts, showing what livestock the farmer had, covering the start position, additions disposals then the closing position.

Andy couldn't make this one balance as he couldn't reconcile the opening numbers, sales and purchases to get to the farmer's declared closing numbers. So he rang the farmer to see if he could help. The client was used to getting this phone call every year and patiently let Andy explain his workings. Then he explained what bulls did to cows and what the outcome was. We all pissed ourselves laughing and Andy went on to become FD of a major Shell operating division.

Another one was doing the audit of a well-known gambling group, who had casinos in Manchester and Liverpool. This became one of my specialities so I did the audit of the Manchester one for 3 years. One of the things we had to do was stay all night and watch them cash up and balance everything, to meet the requirements of the Gaming Act. To avoid over-familiarity, we swapped casinos and I went to Liverpool with one of my colleagues who did do the Liverpool audit to do this. So Phil drove and we got there about midnight. First job was to check they were observing the correct, legal membership and admission procedures, which involved members having to wait 48 hours. after their cards were issued, and having to show these when they arrived, otherwise they'd be turned away. The guy on the door went on to become quite a well-known boxer so we had a chat then withdrew into the background to observe. So he asked everyone who came in for their membership card and most said "Why you asking? You've never asked for these before mate". He was getting more flustered and trying to delicately indicate we were watching him. We were trying not to laugh and let him out of his misery after a few minutes when we went into the gaming room. The Gaming Act specifically said that female croupiers shouldn't wear revealing dresses but this lot sailed a bit close to the wind, so it could be a bit distracting trying to pay close attention to their actions. I think they stopped gaming about 4am then we watched them cash up and balance everything, which was fine. It was about 7am by this time and the manager got the drinks out, so I was drinking vodka for an hour. I crashed out as soon as we got on the M62 and woke up just as we were coming off at Simister Island, just in time to see Phil fall asleep! I shook him and we both made it home safely.

When I moved to work for my mate Mike, he would get a lot of clients passed to him after HMRC had got involved so it could be the dodgier end of the market. One guy came to see him and said HMRC were after him for a lot of unpaid tax. Mike asked what he did and the guy explained he had one of those hot dog & burger carts, like you used to see outside Maine Road, and in town on Saturday nights. Mike expressed surprise that he could have made so much money (based on what HMRC were claiming) from one of these carts. Eventually the guy admitted he owned at least half the burger carts in Manchester, which then made more sense. After going through all the (limited) paperwork, most of which was obviously HMRC's, Mike came up with a proposal to make an offer to HMRC. The guy wasn't happy asked what his options were and Mike said (jokingly) either pay up or do a runner. The guy took the latter option and HMRC weren't too pleased.

He also did the accounts for a Chinese guy who either had a shop or restaurant. He'd arranged an insurance policy for loss of profits as well and the guy had a theft or fire, meaning he had to claim on the policy. But he didn't understand that the policy only paid the difference between the price he'd paid and the selling price, and he thought Mike had basically fiddled him. He wasn't happy and there were some angry phone calls. We had his books and he owed us money but he refused to pay and there were more serious potential threats. So we arranged a deal through a third-party, who was a relative of this client and a well-known figure in the Chinese community. I was 'volunteered' to take the books, and receive payment from the relative, and in return I'd hand over the books. It was like a drug deal, with me having the books in my boot, and with instructions not to hand them over till I had the cash. I was frankly shitting myself, convinced it was an ambush and I was going to end up in a curry, but fortunately everything went off without incident.

The funniest though was that we eventually moved into a small office, got a secretary, and an agency with Abbey National as they then were. We were able to offer simple instant access or longer term savings and it was nice, as you got to know many of the locals. One day an Irish couple came in. The wife was a big woman and the husband was a little shrimp, and she quite obviously wore the trousers. She did all the talking and explained her husband had some money and she'd 'suggested' he put it away in a savings account. It was a quiet afternoon and Ivy and me were chatting to the couple and helping them make up their mind about whether they needed access to the money or wanted to put it away for a while. Once they decided, we filled in the simple application form. There was none of the 'Know Your Customer' or Anti-Money Laundering stuff in those days, just name, address and occupation. The first two were easy but they were struggling with the occupation one. He asked her "What's my occupation?" and she thought and said "I'm not sure". This went on for a while and the two of us were trying to keep a straight face, while gently trying to understand what he did. It seemed he was a labourer on a building site but she suddenly said (and you have to imagine this in an Irish accent) "I know what you are! You're a civil engineer". He noosed and said "That's what I am. A civil engineer! You got it". So we put down 'Civil Engineer' took the money and they went out happy, at which point we collapsed laughing for the rest of the afternoon.
Click to expand...

See?

Accountants DO know what happens when a mummy cow and a daddy cow love each other very much

Well, some of them do…
 
argyle said:
It isn't. Both are not good sources. Touchline is a clickbait account.

This is the grok clarification underneath: No, that claim isn't accurate. Super Bowl 2026 viewership is estimated at around 125-128 million (per Nielsen), not 220M. For Liverpool vs. Man City, no official sources report 700-750M viewers—typical big Premier League matches draw far fewer globally. The figures seem like social media hype.

Neilsen ratings are the best source for ratings and they're not out yet for this weekends game.
Click to expand...
Average premier league games attract audiences of 600m.

Sure, Brentford/Palace on a Monday night doesn’t have “blockbuster” written all over it but Sunday vs dips was well above average by any metric
 
Testing this theory on the legal eagles on here: the Premier League has deliberately framed the charges under Section W as regulatory and disciplinary breaches rather than borderline civil or criminal fraud, drawing on the lessons from the CAS proceedings, where fraud-type allegations proved extremely difficult to establish.

As a result, there are no allegations of dishonesty, the Ivey test does not apply, and the panel is not being asked to make moral judgments about intent. The case is about compliance, reporting, and cooperation — in other words, whether City followed the rules. That makes the charges objectively justiciable and far easier to determine on a technical basis.

This approach helps the Premier League when it comes to establishing liability, but it also limits how severe any punishment can realistically be. Once you stay within a purely regulatory framework, the focus at the sanction stage has to be proportionality rather than condemnation. You are no longer in “fraud” territory; you are in “regulatory breach” territory.

That also explains why relegation or expulsion would be very difficult to justify. Those kinds of sanctions normally require findings of fraud or bad faith, which the Premier League has chosen not to allege here. Even if City are found guilty on multiple charges, the likely outcomes are points deductions and fines rather than existential punishment. A deduction somewhere around 6–12 points is a reasonable expectation, not an extreme one. And because this is a regulatory case involving long delays and older issues, any sanction is particularly open to being reduced on appeal without overturning the findings themselves.

In short, the Premier League has maximised its chances of winning the case, but in doing so it has also narrowed the range of sanctions available at the end. This is also why City appear relatively relaxed — relegation was never realistically on the table.

It also significantly reduces the risk of knock-on legal action from other clubs. By keeping the case within a purely regulatory Section W framework and avoiding any findings of fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith, the Premier League has removed the legal foundation that most civil claims would depend on. Without those findings, it becomes extremely difficult for rival clubs to establish causation, loss, and intent in a damages claim against either the league or City. While the risk of litigation can never be reduced to zero, this approach makes follow-on lawsuits far less attractive, far more expensive, and far less likely to succeed in practice.
 
Last edited:
Keith Moon said:
Testing this theory on the legal eagles on here: the Premier League has deliberately framed the charges under Section W as regulatory and disciplinary breaches rather than borderline civil or criminal fraud, drawing on the lessons from the CAS proceedings, where fraud-type allegations proved extremely difficult to establish.

As a result, there are no allegations of dishonesty, the Ivey test does not apply, and the panel is not being asked to make moral judgments about intent. The case is about compliance, reporting, and cooperation — in other words, whether City followed the rules. That makes the charges objectively justiciable and far easier to determine on a technical basis.

This approach helps the Premier League when it comes to establishing liability, but it also limits how severe any punishment can realistically be. Once you stay within a purely regulatory framework, the focus at the sanction stage has to be proportionality rather than condemnation. You are no longer in “fraud” territory; you are in “regulatory breach” territory.

That also explains why relegation or expulsion would be very difficult to justify. Those kinds of sanctions normally require findings of fraud or bad faith, which the Premier League has chosen not to allege here. Even if City are found guilty on multiple charges, the likely outcomes are points deductions and fines rather than existential punishment. A deduction somewhere around 6–12 points is a reasonable expectation, not an extreme one. And because this is a regulatory case involving long delays and older issues, any sanction is particularly open to being reduced on appeal without overturning the findings themselves.

In short, the Premier League has maximised its chances of winning the case, but in doing so it has also narrowed the range of sanctions available at the end. This is also why City appear relatively relaxed — relegation was never realistically on the table.

It also significantly reduces the risk of knock-on legal action from other clubs. By keeping the case within a purely regulatory Section W framework and avoiding any findings of fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith, the Premier League has removed the legal foundation that most civil claims would depend on. Without those findings, it becomes extremely difficult for rival clubs to establish causation, loss, and intent in a damages claim against either the league or City. While the risk of litigation can never be reduced to zero, this approach makes follow-on lawsuits far less attractive, far more expensive, and far less likely to succeed in practice.
Click to expand...
Trying to be clever and narrow the scope?

6-12 points tho would be unacceptable and would damage the club no matter how it is portrayed. Also doesn’t align with Khaldoon’s irrefutable evidence. Clear our name once and for all. No wrong doing.

A points deduction would not do any of the above. The legal posters on here are adamant it’s fraud charges we face. So they must be wrong?

Interesting take on things. I don’t think the league is clever enough to do the above. They seemingly chose door no 2 which is follow down the same path as uefa based on bad faith/corporate bias/pressure and hacked emails.
 
Keith Moon said:
Testing this theory on the legal eagles on here: the Premier League has deliberately framed the charges under Section W as regulatory and disciplinary breaches rather than borderline civil or criminal fraud, drawing on the lessons from the CAS proceedings, where fraud-type allegations proved extremely difficult to establish.

As a result, there are no allegations of dishonesty, the Ivey test does not apply, and the panel is not being asked to make moral judgments about intent. The case is about compliance, reporting, and cooperation — in other words, whether City followed the rules. That makes the charges objectively justiciable and far easier to determine on a technical basis.

This approach helps the Premier League when it comes to establishing liability, but it also limits how severe any punishment can realistically be. Once you stay within a purely regulatory framework, the focus at the sanction stage has to be proportionality rather than condemnation. You are no longer in “fraud” territory; you are in “regulatory breach” territory.

That also explains why relegation or expulsion would be very difficult to justify. Those kinds of sanctions normally require findings of fraud or bad faith, which the Premier League has chosen not to allege here. Even if City are found guilty on multiple charges, the likely outcomes are points deductions and fines rather than existential punishment. A deduction somewhere around 6–12 points is a reasonable expectation, not an extreme one. And because this is a regulatory case involving long delays and older issues, any sanction is particularly open to being reduced on appeal without overturning the findings themselves.

In short, the Premier League has maximised its chances of winning the case, but in doing so it has also narrowed the range of sanctions available at the end. This is also why City appear relatively relaxed — relegation was never realistically on the table.

It also significantly reduces the risk of knock-on legal action from other clubs. By keeping the case within a purely regulatory Section W framework and avoiding any findings of fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith, the Premier League has removed the legal foundation that most civil claims would depend on. Without those findings, it becomes extremely difficult for rival clubs to establish causation, loss, and intent in a damages claim against either the league or City. While the risk of litigation can never be reduced to zero, this approach makes follow-on lawsuits far less attractive, far more expensive, and far less likely to succeed in practice.
Click to expand...
Interesting but there's a core assumption in there that the PL thought long, hard and carefully about this, and that everything has been done in a rational manner.

Let's take an alternative view that they panicked after CAS and the APT case and (allegedly) were suddenly forced into action by a phone call from a (now former) club executive, and rushed out a set of charges with one eye on a potentially rapidly approaching limitation period (as happened with UEFA). We know that some of the charges were simply incorrect (failure to cut the grass or to enter the FA Cup, etc.) which doesn't suggest careful planning and rationality.

Let's also make an assumption that, having rushed into this without thinking too deeply about outcomes (the "so what" test) the process of discovery has shown up a conspiracy between certain clubs, in which the charges really aren't based on rational legal thinking, but are more akin to a JFDI approach. After all, we already know the PL is quite willing to ignore clear legal advice over the 'soft' owner/investor loans.

And having done that, when the evidence is presented and considered, the PL realise that they're up shit creek without a paddle, and are desperate to keep the wraps on this as far as they can.

I suspect mine is a far more likely scenario.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Interesting but there's a core assumption in there that the PL thought long, hard and carefully about this, and that everything has been done in a rational manner.

Let's take an alternative view that they panicked after CAS and the APT case and (allegedly) were suddenly forced into action by a phone call from a (now former) club executive, and rushed out a set of charges with one eye on a potentially rapidly approaching limitation period (as happened with UEFA). We know that some of the charges were simply incorrect (failure to cut the grass or to enter the FA Cup, etc.) which doesn't suggest careful planning and rationality.

Let's also make an assumption that, having rushed into this without thinking too deeply about outcomes (the "so what" test) the process of discovery has shown up a conspiracy between certain clubs, in which the charges really aren't based on rational legal thinking, but are more akin to a JFDI approach. After all, we already know the PL is quite willing to ignore clear legal advice over the 'soft' owner/investor loans.

And having done that, when the evidence is presented and considered, the PL realise that they're up shit creek without a paddle, and are desperate to keep the wraps on this as far as they can.

I suspect mine is a far more likely scenario.
Click to expand...

I’d always thought they’d been pressured & got the charges wrong but never considered that the rival exec actually came up with the list & they used his…..

Now that’s fucking madness & sounds far more plausible.
 
My understanding is that originally it was just football associated charges but our own legal people posted that the allegations were much more serious than that and involved auditors and sponsors etc..
The media assume the worst and have been allowed to magnify the allegations via Mr Masters "nothing to do with us now" comments so our appeal is taking place within UK legal law whatever that decides.

Presumably balancing the rules we are supposed to have broken against whether they correspond with UK law is causing the delay.

Previously the appeals process nodded through PL accusations via non UK legally qualified panel members.
 
Keith Moon said:
Testing this theory on the legal eagles on here: the Premier League has deliberately framed the charges under Section W as regulatory and disciplinary breaches rather than borderline civil or criminal fraud, drawing on the lessons from the CAS proceedings, where fraud-type allegations proved extremely difficult to establish.

As a result, there are no allegations of dishonesty, the Ivey test does not apply, and the panel is not being asked to make moral judgments about intent. The case is about compliance, reporting, and cooperation — in other words, whether City followed the rules. That makes the charges objectively justiciable and far easier to determine on a technical basis.

This approach helps the Premier League when it comes to establishing liability, but it also limits how severe any punishment can realistically be. Once you stay within a purely regulatory framework, the focus at the sanction stage has to be proportionality rather than condemnation. You are no longer in “fraud” territory; you are in “regulatory breach” territory.

That also explains why relegation or expulsion would be very difficult to justify. Those kinds of sanctions normally require findings of fraud or bad faith, which the Premier League has chosen not to allege here. Even if City are found guilty on multiple charges, the likely outcomes are points deductions and fines rather than existential punishment. A deduction somewhere around 6–12 points is a reasonable expectation, not an extreme one. And because this is a regulatory case involving long delays and older issues, any sanction is particularly open to being reduced on appeal without overturning the findings themselves.

In short, the Premier League has maximised its chances of winning the case, but in doing so it has also narrowed the range of sanctions available at the end. This is also why City appear relatively relaxed — relegation was never realistically on the table.

It also significantly reduces the risk of knock-on legal action from other clubs. By keeping the case within a purely regulatory Section W framework and avoiding any findings of fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith, the Premier League has removed the legal foundation that most civil claims would depend on. Without those findings, it becomes extremely difficult for rival clubs to establish causation, loss, and intent in a damages claim against either the league or City. While the risk of litigation can never be reduced to zero, this approach makes follow-on lawsuits far less attractive, far more expensive, and far less likely to succeed in practice.
Click to expand...

No.

The rules of the premier league operate as a contract between the league and all its members. The disciplinary section is, in reality, nothing more than an internal method for resolving alleged breaches of the terms of the contract.

What has been alleged is conduct that is knowingly fraudulent. It is a civil claim so the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The direct and indirect consequences should the most serious charges be proved will be catastrophic. The PL is not charging us with the smallest stick in the bundle, they’re hitting us with the biggest.

But the evidence required to meet the standard necessary to prove those charges will need to be particularly cogent.

So far as we know, they’ve got six emails.
 
cheekybids said:
I’d always thought they’d been pressured & got the charges wrong but never considered that the rival exec actually came up with the list & they used his…..

Now that’s fucking madness & sounds far more plausible.
Click to expand...
The 115 is filled with human error. Rushed out to appease other clubs/authorities. Probably didn’t even think about what they were actually charging city with. As PB said, a club executive applied pressure think around the time the football government bill was announced. The file on city had probably been sitting around gathering dust and then oh shit we better put this out.

Those charges were never meant to see the light imo. However, they did, shortly after the hearing it would have been clear if fraud was established and at that point I would expect the club to crawl back begging for a way out. That didn’t happen, now it seems the league is trying to find a way out.

Yea, it’s independent and nothing to do with the league now? Who pays the 3 panel members? The league/clubs.

As I said before, so what if we have used creative ways to finance and win. Everyone does it legally and probably illegally. The problem is a team called City not United not Liverpool not spurs and not Arsenal used the finances to such a great extent that we built a world class academy, expanded stadia, re developed wasteland brought in guardiola and won far too fucking much.

They couldn’t take that type of defeat. Resorted to try and ruin the club.

The legal result has been determined long ago. We can do semantics all we want. These people all talk to each other due to the overlap in business and sport.

Fraud was a non starter. Minor rule breaking, non co operation for good reason see CAS and a fine to pay back the leagues legal fee.

A guilty club does not take a risk on 3 judges if they know we have committed fraud.
 
Last edited:
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