PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
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. 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, this would likely have been done and dusted long ago.
Click to expand...

I think there is no explanation for the first tranche of allegations other than that is exactly what is being alleged. The combination of breaching the rules for filing audited accounts with the PL and for doing so in good faith, can only mean they think the accounts didn't give a true and fair view, which means the auditors were likely misled and the sponsorships must have been inflated (because that is the only issue material enough to change the view given by the accounts).

I still find it almost unbelievable the PL have done that, but I have accepted that is what went on.

The only explanation I can think of is that they just included the entire bucket list of matters arising from their investigation that weren't countered effectively by the club, so that the club would have to do that in the disciplinary process. Or, they are idiots, I suppose.
 
Keith Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

The PL is only required to publish a list of rule breaches for their disciplinary procedures. That is what they have done. There is no published indication about the detail of the alleged activities leading to the breach, but the combination of those rule breaches effectively amounts to allegations of fraud, no matter how the PL wants to portray them. Imho , of course ......

Also, there has been talk of fraud and "cheating" for three years now. There has been nothing to stop the PL from clarifying the situation given the "damage" this is doing to the reputation of the league. But they haven't and the "instigators" of this whole affair - Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal et al- have all apparently filed claims against the club in case the allegations (whatever they are) are proven. Doesn't sound unserious to me ....
 
halfcenturyup said:
I think there is no explanation for the first tranche of allegations other than that is exactly what is being alleged. The combination of breaching the rules for filing audited accounts with the PL and for doing so in good faith, can only mean they think the accounts didn't give a true and fair view, which means the auditors were likely misled and the sponsorships must have been inflated (because that is the only issue material enough to change the view given by the accounts).

I still find it almost unbelievable the PL have done that, but I have accepted that is what went on.

The only explanation I can think of is that they just included the entire bucket list of matters arising from their investigation that weren't countered effectively by the club, so that the club would have to do that in the disciplinary process. Or, they are idiots, I suppose.
Click to expand...
I suppose their motives were still being driven by hubris.

Not sure if the Appeal Process had been made to be UK Legal at the time of the allegations but perhaps they felt their normal control over Appeal Panel members would occur?

Either way they were as you say either misguided or idiots or even both.
 
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...

I desperately want that to be true, but couldn’t the opposite argument apply as well?

We often say that if the PL had a smoking gun, it would be over by now. But equally, if the charges were purely born out of desperation and lacked substance, wouldn’t that also have been resolved by now?
 
rice10 said:
I desperately want that to be true, but couldn’t the opposite argument apply as well?

We often say that if the PL had a smoking gun, it would be over by now. But equally, if the charges were purely born out of desperation and lacked substance, wouldn’t that also have been resolved by now?
Click to expand...
As I've said, if the PL have come out of this very badly, they'd not want to hurry that realisation. Look at the Epstein files, where's there's a lot of shit on some powerful people. They are certainly doing everything they can to keep that out of the public eye.
 
rice10 said:
I desperately want that to be true, but couldn’t the opposite argument apply as well?

We often say that if the PL had a smoking gun, it would be over by now. But equally, if the charges were purely born out of desperation and lacked substance, wouldn’t that also have been resolved by now?
Click to expand...

It's relatively easy to prove that something that happened, did happen. It's much more difficult to show that something that didn't happen, didn't happen.
 
Keith Moon said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, even if the detailed allegations aren’t public, fraud or dishonesty can’t be alleged “by implication” — if that were the case, it would be pleaded explicitly in the charges, and it isn’t.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are wrong or not, but I am pretty sure the only disclosure the PL is required to give is that a disciplinary has been referred to an independent panel, together with a list of rules that have allegedly been breached. They did just that. I don't think there is more to it than that.

1000001261.jpg

Don't forget, we don't know the details of the allegations. We only know what the PL were required to publish according to their own rules.

Anyway, enough. I am intrigued to know from where you are getting these opinions?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Didn't Uefa say that the Etihad deal was at face value, so other than an accounting adminnistration error, does it make any difference. Unless the Epl are trying to screw us with the apt rules that they brought in just after Newcastles takeover
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't know if you are wrong or not, but I am pretty sure the only disclosure the PL is required to give is that a disciplinary has been referred to an independent panel, together with a list of rules that have allegedly been breached. They did just that. I don't think there is more to it than that.

View attachment 183358

Don't forget, we don't know the details of the allegations. We only know what the PL were required to publish according to their own rules.

Anyway, enough. I am intrigued to know from where you are getting these opinions?
Click to expand...
My view is that the Premier League would not have charged City unless it genuinely believed it could win. That means one of two things.

Either the Premier League has stronger evidence than UEFA ever had and believes it can actually prove disguised equity funding, that the sponsorship agreements were not genuine, that City knowingly submitted false information, and so on.

Or the Premier League has largely the same evidence as UEFA, but has chosen a different legal strategy to maximise its chances of success — namely, by framing the charges in a less aggressive way. That avoids unnecessarily raising the evidential threshold and reduces the risk that the Aabar / Etisalat issues (which are clearly the Achilles’ heel) are found to be time-barred.

I also think — unlike many others — that the Premier League and a majority of its clubs do not want City to be punished too severely. A draconian sanction would not only be catastrophic for the club, but could also damage the value of the new TV rights deals that are now entering the negotiation phase.

Against that background, it seems entirely reasonable that the Premier League would choose to hit City with a smaller stick — one that gives it the best chance of winning, while still allowing it to control the wider consequences.
 
Last edited:
foggy1974 said:
Didn't Uefa say that the Etihad deal was at face value, so other than an accounting adminnistration error, does it make any difference. Unless the Epl are trying to screw us with the apt rules that they brought in just after Newcastles takeover
Click to expand...
They did, so it makes it even more bizarre why the PL are seemingly going down this route.
 
Keith Moon said:
My view is that the Premier League would not have charged City unless it genuinely believed it could win. That means one of two things.

Either the Premier League has stronger evidence than UEFA ever had and believes it can actually prove disguised equity funding, that the sponsorship agreements were not genuine, that City knowingly submitted false information, and so on.

Or the Premier League has largely the same evidence as UEFA, but has chosen a different legal strategy to maximise its chances of success — namely, by framing the charges in a less aggressive way. That avoids unnecessarily raising the evidential threshold and reduces the risk that the Aabar / Etisalat issues (which are clearly the Achilles’ heel) are found to be time-barred.

I also think — unlike many others — that the Premier League and a majority of its clubs do not want City to be punished too severely. A draconian sanction would not only be catastrophic for the club, but could also damage the value of the new TV rights deals that are now entering the negotiation phase.

Against that background, it seems entirely reasonable that the Premier League would choose to hit City with a smaller stick — one that gives it the best chance of winning, while still allowing it to control the wider consequences.
Click to expand...

Always remember they got the charges wrong when you consider their confidence.

There’s more than enough evidence over the last few years to question the premier league’s competence.
 
cheekybids said:
Always remember they got the charges wrong when you consider their confidence.

There’s more than enough evidence over the last few years to question the premier league’s competence.
Click to expand...
Sure, but you can’t really question their legal team’s competence. It’s second to none — except, of course, ours.
 
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