PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...
I doubt that Levy (whoops, how careless of me, I meant the rival exec of course) came up with the charges independently, but they do appear to have been hastily cobbled together and not properly checked.
 
DJBusinesscake said:
If the case against us is so weak and full of errors, why is it taking so long for a decision to be made? Not saying you're wrong @Prestwich_Blue, genuinely just curious.
Click to expand...
My understanding (which may be right or wrong) is that because the PL case was weak, and possibly for more nefarious reasons, they've rushed into this and been severely embarrassed. And them wishing to minimise that may be the reason for the delay.

Edit: and thanks to @wolviedinho for reminding me that the Football Governance Regulator white paper was almost certainly the catalyst, with the PL keen to show it wasn't needed.
 
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...
Well Mr. Moon this is one the best posts I have read in the long history of this thread. If your analysis is correct the dooms day merchants are in for a big disappointment regardless of the outcome. Worst scenario would appear to be after appeal a very small points deduction.
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
Quick question - are the most serious charges stating the accounts are fraudulent, or that the accounts are incorrect only after the FFP adjustments as required by the PL? The former is far more serious than the latter.
 
I’d like to thank Keith Moon for getting this thread back on track. I don’t know whether I speak for many others but I don’t give a flying **** how many watched the Super Bowl or how many crammed into the pub (with me) to watch our game. On this thread I want to know if there is any news about the allegations.

Further thanks go to PB, Chris in London, Wolviedino and SilverFox2 for their analysis of thePL’s motives and what the hell might actually be going on. All i would like now is sllbsn’s views, but he has been the victim of a toxic intolerance which can rear its head on this issue. So, good show chaps. For the first time in a while the discussion has been relevant, serious and in good faith and humour. More of the same,please
 
South Stand Balti said:
Quick question - are the most serious charges stating the accounts are fraudulent, or that the accounts are incorrect only after the FFP adjustments as required by the PL? The former is far more serious than the latter.
Click to expand...
We don't know the exact details of the Heading 1 charges so can't be sure. But with the explicit mention of related parties, it's a fair guess that they're challenging our view that Etihad and the other AD sponsors aren't related parties. Even in the worst case scenario, which is highly unlikely, where the tribunal finds that Etihad was a related party, that's only a technical financial reporting issue at worst, so no one is going to lose any sleep (or points) over that.

I suspect they may also be going back over the UEFA/CAS ground of misreporting shareholder investment as revenue, which would be bizarre if so. If that were the case then we could be found to have over-reported revenue, which is potentially serious. it unless they've found some previously undiscovered smoking gun to support that case, they'll struggle badly to land it. And if they had found that smoking gun, they'll struggle badly to land that. And if they had found that smoking gun, this would likely have been done and dusted long ago.
 
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...

I don't see what option the PL had other than a Section W disciplinary process? I don't see how it was clever, it was their only route to closure in the first instance.

As for fraud and dishonesty, the first tranche of allegations include, for example, specific breaches of the rules over submitting audited accounts, including the over-riding breach of not having acted in good faith. We know for a fact that audited accounts have been filed - so I don't see how they can allege the club acted in bad faith in filing audited accounts without alleging fraud and dishonesty in the preparation of those accounts.


The implications of the first tranche of allegations are pretty clear I think, and they are very serious allegations.
 
South Stand Balti said:
Quick question - are the most serious charges stating the accounts are fraudulent, or that the accounts are incorrect only after the FFP adjustments as required by the PL? The former is far more serious than the latter.
Click to expand...
The former.

It seems to be alleged that we introduced £50m of funding from Sheikh Mansour and dishonestly described it as sponsorship from Etihad.
 
Chris in London said:
The former.

It seems to be alleged that we introduced £50m of funding from Sheikh Mansour and dishonestly described it as sponsorship from Etihad.
Click to expand...
And an allegation made by UEFA which CAS dismissed pretty comprehensively.

Which furthers the theory that the PL charges were born out of desperation, rather than on any solid legal and evidential grounds. CAS said UEFA had good grounds to bring the charges based on the Der Spiegel articles but then having been dismissed by world sport's top arbitration chamber, you'd need something pretty compelling that wasn't available to CAS to bring them in a separate chamber.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And an allegation made by UEFA which CAS dismissed pretty comprehensively.

Which furthers the theory that the PL charges were born out of desperation, rather than on any solid legal and evidential grounds. CAS said UEFA had good grounds to bring the charges based on the Der Spiegel articles but then having been dismissed by world sport's top arbitration chamber, you'd need something pretty compelling that wasn't available to CAS to bring them in a separate chamber.
Click to expand...
Or someone leaning on you
 
Chris in London said:
The former.

It seems to be alleged that we introduced £50m of funding from Sheikh Mansour and dishonestly described it as sponsorship from Etihad.
Click to expand...
Seem to recall something about the Etihad contract allowing us to take more in year 1 but then less in subsequent years as long as the total amount was the same. Imagination?
 
Chris in London said:
The former.

It seems to be alleged that we introduced £50m of funding from Sheikh Mansour and dishonestly described it as sponsorship from Etihad.
Click to expand...

I remember when all this started in 2023 that I couldn't actually believe the PL were making that sort of allegation after the CAS award and got absolutely blasted by you and your fellow professionals who all pointed out, to a man, how serious these allegations were and, counter-intuitively how the club would be making exactly that point as part of their defence.

So I am not sure how the PL trying to frame them as only "regulatory" breaches (not sure what other sorts there are in this situation, actually) would make any difference anyway.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't see what option the PL had other than a Section W disciplinary process? I don't see how it was clever, it was their only route to closure in the first instance.

As for fraud and dishonesty, the first tranche of allegations include, for example, specific breaches of the rules over submitting audited accounts, including the over-riding breach of not having acted in good faith. We know for a fact that audited accounts have been filed - so I don't see how they can allege the club acted in bad faith in filing audited accounts without alleging fraud and dishonesty in the preparation of those accounts.


The implications of the first tranche of allegations are pretty clear I think, and they are very serious allegations.
Click to expand...
As the Premier League has framed the charges, none of the Section 1 allegations necessarily accuse City of fraud or dishonesty. They concern regulatory non-compliance — reporting, classification, transparency, and good-faith obligations — not alleged deliberate deception.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I remember when all this started in 2023 that I couldn't actually believe the PL were making that sort of allegation after the CAS award and got absolutely blasted by you and your fellow professionals who all pointed out, to a man, how serious these allegations were and, counter-intuitively how the club would be making exactly that point as part of their defence.
Click to expand...
yeah, I enjoyed that
 
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