PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
Yes, there was, and the court decided it was in the public interest that this should not be done in private.

From what I have read, the panel also have a duty to publish the result promptly after delivering it. By their own process. They give the parties sight of it first, but this is a matter of days, not months.

So all these theories that both parties are sitting on the result, or conducting damage control in the background, appealing it on secret, or managing the fallout to their combied satisfaction, are imho just not possible. Because they would ultimately be effectively unlawful.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but it depends on whether you think the panel can take into account joint concerns of the parties during its deliberation period. This process is part of an arbitration framework, after all.

If we are supposed to accept the panel will publish in an international break, for example, they are probably doing that at the request of the PL with no objection from the club. Same with publishing after the end of the season or before, during or after the world cup?

If so, why can't we think there may be delays for other reasons?
 
halfcenturyup said:
You may be right, but it depends on whether you think the panel can take into account joint concerns of the parties during its deliberation period. This process is part of an arbitration framework, after all.

If we are supposed to accept the panel will publish in an international break, for example, they are probably doing that at the request of the PL with no objection from the club. Same with publishing after the end of the season or before, during or after the world cup?

If so, why can't we think there may be delays for other reasons?
Click to expand...
They have probably agreed to an off season announcement. Also if the club have requested all the e mails between the Premier League and clubs plus possibly other info it could also add to the delay.
 
Fuck the charges/result i want an apology for the Dalot challenge.
Oh and one for them saying Foden's goal was offside for impersonating the 'cheeky girls'.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Just out of interest, which rule requires Mansour to comply with PL investigations?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Mansor is by virtue of being “ a person having control over the club” is classified under the PL rules to be a director and as such in accordance with with W1.1 is subject to PL rules around disciplinary matters.
 
terraloon said:
My understanding is that Mansor is by virtue of being “ a person having control over the club” is classified under the PL rules to be a director and as such in accordance with with W1.1 is subject to PL rules around disciplinary matters.
Click to expand...
He's the major shareholder, not a director. He has no executive or even non-executive function within CFG or City. And Rule W.1.1 only refers to "Officials". So they can't force him to give evidence, but he may voluntarily choose to do so.
 
Last edited:
Lord Blue said:
what is your view on the fact chelsea cheated on 75 counts?

i'm not asking for your view on any mitigation you think you have for owning up (although as i understand it you had been rumbled anyway).

i'm asking if you accept wrongdoing by chelsea.
Click to expand...
We haven’t yet had a ruling on the 74 FA Charges that matter is still on going. Looks almost certain that there will be other sanctions in coming.
It would be churlish to try and suggest we didn’t break the rules and if you look back at my previous posts on here you will see that I believe we got away lightly.
Time line wise it seems that the new owners self reported matters before the press published details. Likely to be the same matters.
It’s worth noting that we haven’t yet agreed already with two bodies namely the PL and UEFA who allow sanctions agreements the FA as I understand it dont
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
He's the major shareholder, not a director. He has no executive or even non-executive function within CFG or City. And Rule W.1.1 only refers to "Officials". So they can't force him to give evidence, but he may voluntarily choose to do so.
Click to expand...
Mate why you bothering explaining something to someone who knows it all.
I wouldn't give him the time of day.
 
terraloon said:
Here’s the PL definition
Click to expand...
Rule A.1.183 requires an "Official" to spend at least 50% of their time working for the club. Sheikh Mansour is therefore not an Official.

I'd also point out that CFG is actually the major shareholder in 'the Club' (i.e. Manchester City) so I suspect that's as far as the PL's remit extends. Newton Investments is the majority shareholder in CFG, which in turn is 100% owned by Sheikh Mansour.

IIRC he supplied written evidence to the CAS hearing and I'm sure will have done something similar for the PL if required.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Rule A.1.183 requires an "Official" to spend at least 50% of their time working for the club. Sheikh Mansour is therefore not an Official.
Click to expand...
Do you accept that under the PL definition he falls under the rules contained under the owners and directors rules ?
 
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