PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

SM is a director under the definition. A director is an official under the definition.

The 50% only applies to employees of associated undertakings as an "or" to being a director.

Terra is reading it correctly
 
terraloon said:
Do you accept that under the PL definition he falls under the rules contained under the owners and directors rules ?
Click to expand...

Corky said:
SM is a director under the definition. A director is an official under the definition.

The 50% only applies to employees of associated undertakings as an "or" to being a director.

Terra is reading it correctly
Click to expand...
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
Click to expand...
It is a could and surely would have happened by now, or sent a suitable representative.

It is more aimed at Jack Walker types who call all the shots without being "officials" in a company law sense.
 
Corky said:
It is a could and surely would have happened by now, or sent a suitable representative.

It is more aimed at Jack Walker types who call all the shots without being "officials" in a company law sense.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if it didn't happen. I recall he submitted a written document to CAS as well as allowing forensic accountants to check all cash payments from ADUG over £250k. No relevant payments relating to disguised equity via sponsorship were found of course.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
Click to expand...
Very little evidence is ‘required’ in civil proceedings. There are exceptions of course but in terms of evidence each party brings to the table what they seek to rely upon. If they don’t call someone of significance then inferences may be drawn, but the decision on which witnesses to tender for evidence is a matter for each party to the proceedings.

He could have given a hearsay statement and not given live evidence btw. Obviously that would have a bearing on the weight to be attached to that statement. But that is perfectly plausible, if not likely.

Can’t see SM subjecting himself to cross examination.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Fine, but if his evidence was required then I'm sure he'll have provided it, whether voluntarily or under his requirement according to PL rules. The point is entirely moot.
Click to expand...
My point was, and it seems to have been sort of lost in the follow ups, was that RA wasn’t subject to the PL jurisdiction whereas SM is.
 
From this weeks Economist, just for interest:

In the otherwise sunny story of the Premier League there is one big cloud. In 2023 Manchester City, one of England’s most successful clubs, was charged with well over 100 breaches of the league’s rules. Some of City’s alleged transgressions (all resolutely denied by the club) relate to non-co-operation with league officials. Most deal with failures to accurately report the club’s accounts, thus avoiding “financial fair play” regulations that could have curtailed the spending—over £1.9bn ($2.5bn)—that took City from mediocrity to dominance. In the 14 seasons covered by the charges, Manchester City won seven Premier League titles.

To adjudicate the case the Premier League has employed an independent commission of three anonymous judges. The hearing took place behind closed doors in December 2024. A lengthy judgment is still being prepared. The long wait for a verdict has caused frustration and fuelled conspiracy theories among fans. Chief among them are unsubstantiated suggestions of diplomatic interference (Manchester City are owned by Sheikh Mansour, the vice-president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates).

In recent years Everton and Nottingham Forest have received points deductions (of six and four points respectively) for single breaches of the league’s financial rules. If City were to be found guilty, Premier League rules mean they could face a fine, a points deduction or even expulsion from the league. Given the sheer number of charges, the scale of any potential punishment would almost certainly invite an appeal and legal challenges from the club. If City are cleared, receive a light punishment or strike a favourable plea bargain, fans and clubs alike will question the sporting integrity of the competition. It is without doubt the most consequential case in English football’s 163-year history.

An initial decision, rumoured for the summer, is unlikely to put the matter to bed. Any sanctions would have to wait until after the inevitable appeal. That could easily take another year. This looks destined to stretch into extra time plus plenty of injury time.


A few points stood out to me
1) They’ve got the time period wrong.
2) They should have referenced the CAS judgement.
3) Did they not reread the 3rd paragraph, how would City being cleared lead to questions of sporting integrity!
 
No1 was Colin bell said:
Brassed off with awaiting this decision.
Click to expand...
images
 
terraloon said:
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
Click to expand...
Okay so you accept that you cheated. Fair enough.
Not sure that’s right re timeline because Everyman and his dog knew about the dodgy dealings even when RA was there. Chelsea fans just denied it.
 
Lord Blue said:
Okay so you accept that you cheated. Fair enough.
Not sure that’s right re timeline because Everyman and his dog knew about the dodgy dealings even when RA was there. Chelsea fans just denied it.
Click to expand...
Supporters rarely want to believe that their club has done wrong , operated outside the rules the supporters by and large dismiss the rumours as being jealousy.in our case we can’t deny it.

I doubt that there are any clubs that are squeaky clean the rules governing clubs are complicated and many.

I personally will feel a lot happier when the FA matter is resolved no matter what the sanction
 
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