PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

About that, what would come first?

Do they look first at whether the allegation is time-barred, maybe by considering the evidence from the PL, and a level of counter-evidence from the club that is less than full.

Or do they look at all the evidence from both sides and then decide on whether it is dishonest concealment and therefore the question of time-barred or not is settled?

It seems unreasonable to proceed with a detailed investigation on such a serious charge if the allegation isn't supported by a persuasive body of evidence?

Common to consider the case in full and then decide if certain elements are time barred. Depends on how distinct the issue is on limitation. For example, if the Panel could hear all the relevant evidence on concealment without a full hearing and make a preliminary ruling on limitation, that would make sense. But I think the concealment is so wrapped up in the allegations that it will all be heard as one hearing with submissions in closing arguments why limitation should (City) and shouldn't (PL) apply.

 

[Metalartin]

Off topic but I stumbled across this article. What were the financial irregularities that the FA charged Spurs with in the 90s? It says it was something to do with their accounting in the 80s but no more than that.

1993-94: The worst was yet to come. Financial irregularities from the 1980s finally caught up with the club, and the FA came down hard: a £600,000 fine, a ban from the following season’s FA Cup, and harshest of all, a 12-point deduction in next season’s league campaign. (After an appeal, the fine went up by 150%. The points deduction and FA Cup exclusion were lifted).

"How dare they appeal their sanctions". And it seems they were actually guilty too. Someone please remind Simon Jordan of all this, he sucks up to Spurs all the time and it's nauseating.

Other highlights:

1991: They were a then-ludicrous £11million in the hole. Or, as we like to call it, £6million shy of a Paulinho. The Listening Bank (Google it) wasn’t listening to Spurs’ pleas, and Tottenham very nearly went under.

Enter Sugar. Venables had invested £3million of his own money into the club, and Sugar agreed to match it.

Nearly did a Leeds(just like Chelsea before Abramovich saved them) before Leeds did a Leeds. What did all that spending from 1980 to 1990 buy them? 2nd highest gross spend after united, 3 highest netspend after united and liverpool: 3 FA Cups(including 1991), 1 UEFA Cup and some top 4 finishes without actually challenging... In a time before top 4 actually mattered. Then they became a mid table PL club and only broke into the top 4 again at the same time City did.

The ‘Big Five’ clubs in the First Division – Manchester United, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and Spurs – had, in the previous TV deal, managed to grab themselves a bigger piece of the ITV money pie.

Before, the money was split between all the teams in the First Division, but now the five clubs had negotiated themselves 75% of the money, with the other 25% being split between the rest.

This deal indirectly led to the formation of the Premier League, and clubs decided that the broadcasting money earned by the new league would be split 50/25/25 – 50% split equally between the teams, 25% based on where they finished in the previous season, and 25% based on how many times each team was on TV.

The splits are different to what I read elsewhere. Never heard of a "Big Five" before either, "Big Ten" maybe, sounds like a name those clubs decided on themselves in secret to me. The rest of those 5 clubs were far more successful than Spurs going into the PL era(as were Villa). Spurs' attendances weren't any bigger than City's attendances or many other 'Big Ten' clubs' at that time either. The Spurs hype is pure fraudulence.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Common to consider the case in full and then decide if certain elements are time barred. Depends on how distinct the issue is on limitation. For example, if the Panel could hear all the relevant evidence on concealment without a full hearing and make a preliminary ruling on limitation, that would make sense. But I think the concealment is so wrapped up in the allegations that it will all be heard as one hearing with submissions in closing arguments why limitation should (City) and shouldn't (PL) apply.

Fair enough, thanks.

 

[Bluesince1979]

I find that all the more remarkable, that out of the millions of emails there are only an isolated handful taken out of context and at times spliced together, that are supposedly the smoking gun.
I do find that mind boggling, that this is the basis of a case against City.

It doesn’t surprise me, but it always seemed like clutching at straws to me.

Having said that I do think we’ve already lost and the objective of our detractors has been achieved.

There is no proof of innocence. It’s immaterial. I’m growing to hate this game the more I learn about it.

The only victory that would change this for me is for us to get a counter message out there to fans of the rest of the league that a cartel is running this show and the rest of the league are just complicit puppets.

I don’t see that happening though.

Other fans dont care. Theyll believe what they read in the sun/facebook/twitter/barry down the pub and gleefully shout CHEATS. They arent interested in any truth really

 

[slbsn]

I dont think that’s correct. We are only obligated to provide relevant financial documents. Not any document they ask for.
City’s case has always been that they provided relevant financial documents but nothing else is relevant unless it is a specific document that they can point to in terms of the document itself existing and why it is relevant.
This is why I think the failure to cooperate with PL charge will be difficult to uphold. They would have to show that we failed to provide specific documents, not refused to hand over the intricate workings of City’s business model. If they had been specific and not engaged on a fishing expedition then we would have already handed over the documents.

I don't think we will be so fortunate. When an investigation is under way, B.18 "Without prejudice to the League’s powers of inquiry under Rule W.1, each Club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League" [my emphasis]

The power under W.1 is "The Board shall have power to inquire into any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules and for that purpose may require: W.1.1. any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player to appear before it to answer questions and/or provide information; and W.1.2. any such Person or any Club to produce documents."

Again very wide powers and therefore easy to breach if you resist, which we likely have (given the High Court process hearings).

Under W.15 "It shall be no answer to a request from the Board to disclose documents or information pursuant to Rule W.1 that such documents or information requested are confidential."

Taken together, that is a very broad power which unless City can show was unreasonable or, probably, impossible (ie the request was for documents not in our possession, control, or in existence) the likelihood is that charge will be proved regardless where we end up on the substantive stuff.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Off topic but I stumbled across this article. What were the financial irregularities that the FA charged Spurs with in the 90s? It says was something to do with their accounting in the 80s but no more than that.

"How dare they appeal their sanctions". And it seems they were actually guilty too. Someone please remind Simon Jordan of all this, he sucks up to Spurs all the time and it's nauseating.

Other highlights:

Nearly did a Leeds(just like Chelsea before Abramovich saved them) before Leeds did a Leeds.

The splits are different to what I read elsewhere. Never heard of a "Big Five" before either, "Big Ten" maybe, sounds like a name those clubs decided on themselves in secret to me. The rest of those 5 clubs were far more successful than Spurs going into the PL era(As were Villa). Spurs' attendances weren't any bigger than City's attendances or many other 'Big Ten' clubs' at that time either.

Spurs were owned by the fella who made the dishes for Sky...!

 

[waspish]

I don't think we will be so fortunate. When an investigation is under way, B.18 "Without prejudice to the League’s powers of inquiry under Rule W.1, each Club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League" [my emphasis]

The power under W.1 is "The Board shall have power to inquire into any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules and for that purpose may require: W.1.1. any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player to appear before it to answer questions and/or provide information; and W.1.2. any such Person or any Club to produce documents."

Again very wide powers and therefore easy to breach if you resist, which we likely have (given the High Court process hearings).

Under W.15 "It shall be no answer to a request from the Board to disclose documents or information pursuant to Rule W.1 that such documents or information requested are confidential."

Taken together, that is a very broad power which unless City can show was unreasonable or, probably, impossible (ie the request was for documents not in our possession, control, or in existence) the likelihood is that charge will be proved regardless where we end up on the substantive stuff.

What if city say we don’t have that info this company has it, are they able to ask for it from that other company?

 

[Shads]

Can you explain to the lay people amongst us how the premier league and uefa/CAS non compliance charges differ?

The charge itself is almost identical. The difference is that at CAS we openly admitted failure to cooperate so there was no choice but to find the charge met and fine us accordingly. However we argued that the fine should be reduced due to the mitigating factor of the leaks that had been going on.
With regard to the PL we state that we have complied fully and will therefore argue that just because they asked for inappropriate or non specific or non existent documents that we did not provide we did not fail to cooperate. Hope that helps.

 

[BlueRockape]

The PL rules are subject to the Limitation Act. In short, 6 years from cause of action unless the PL prove dishonest concealment such that the PL could never have known until the leaks

You say leaks is that the now proven stolen emails ?
Excuse my thickness and thanks for your posts

 

[Shads]

I don't think we will be so fortunate. When an investigation is under way, B.18 "Without prejudice to the League’s powers of inquiry under Rule W.1, each Club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League" [my emphasis]

The power under W.1 is "The Board shall have power to inquire into any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules and for that purpose may require: W.1.1. any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player to appear before it to answer questions and/or provide information; and W.1.2. any such Person or any Club to produce documents."

Again very wide powers and therefore easy to breach if you resist, which we likely have (given the High Court process hearings).

Under W.15 "It shall be no answer to a request from the Board to disclose documents or information pursuant to Rule W.1 that such documents or information requested are confidential."

Taken together, that is a very broad power which unless City can show was unreasonable or, probably, impossible (ie the request was for documents not in our possession, control, or in existence) the likelihood is that charge will be proved regardless where we end up on the substantive stuff.

Entirely accepted that the power is broad. However as a lawyer who is regularly able to help clients avoid providing documentation under discovery and to defend Motions to Compel that Discovery. It is a reasonable defense to state that the documents requested do not exist or that the request was not specific enough for us to identify those records. These are clearly arguments that Lord Pannick can and will I am No doubt sure make. There is also an argument that documents have to be relevant to the charge. The PL cannot say you are charged with eg failing to pay a player properly so please provide all documents that deal with CFG’s purchase of NYCFC. They are different topics and the documents would not be relevant. The powers are broad but not indefensible.