PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Shads]

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?

It’s normal on these types of proceedings to deal with such discreet points of law first. If the issue is time barred then as per CAS there is little point in spending the time on the substantive part of the issue. There will likely be a preliminary part to the hearing on those issues.

 

[The blue phantom]

I can’t believe we have City fans in this thread now, arguing furiously with other City fans, that our club is, actually, guilty of some sort of transgression, to the point of basically wishing it so.

I prefer to trust the words of our executive team, that they have irrefutable evidence of our innocence, and are looking forward to the opportunity to prove it “once and for all”.
And I’ll keep that trust until such time as evidence is presented that renders it invalid. Or, in other words, until hell freezes over.

I get the feeling that a minority of posters maybe pissed off, If/When we get totally exonerated of all charges.

 

[John Wayne]

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.

I think that this is why the club have provided nothing post-2018. We should be able to successfully argue that the grounds for investigation (i.e. the hack and Der Spiegel) deals only with retrospective matters, so to ask for things that occur after opening an investigation go beyond what is reasonable and proportionate.

 

[WRicko]

There is nothing untoward regarding the size of the payments City were, or are, making to the players for image rights. The contracts between the players and the club are open to negotiation regarding the remuneration they will receive, and the two parties can agree whatever sum they deem suitable.

It doesn't matter what the figure is when the contract is signed. There are no rules in place regulating image rights, and is an expense for the club.

Related party regulations concern income from sponsorship deals and have nothing to do with how a club spends its money.

First off I don’t think there is a set rule for image rights but there is actually an accepted principle that a player cannot receive more than a certain % of their income from image rights. HMRC would come after the player if he got all his pay via image rights it’s a way of dodging NI. But that was not what I was saying I was meaning in regard to the sale of the image rights not the payment of them to the players

 

[Centurions]

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

Yes, the hacked emails.

 

[Shads]

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?

In criminal cases the government has the power to subpoena records from non parties. In a case like this it is highly unlikely that they can force eg Etihad to supply records. However if they are helpful to City it is more than likely that those records will be supplied. It is however for the PL to make and prove the case not for City to put themselves in harms way.

 

[terraloon]

The same assumption being made time and time again. PL members do not have to hand over every scrap of paper in the building. Only relevant financial documentation.
I assure you if there was a requirement to send everything then the club would deposit 250,000+ pages of information including coach doodles during matches, the cleaning schedule for the CFA and the listed contents of the broom cupboard for every day in the last decade. It would cost the PL lawyers the leagues entire annual budget to review it all.
Apart from the fact that none of the PL members would ever sign up to an agreement that required them to give all of their documentary secrets…

I wouldn’t suggest that City would have to send every document held but they will have had little choice and I would say playing with fire if they failed to supply everything the PL requested and the arbitration panel ruled on

Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd [2021] EWHC 628 (Comm) (17 March 2021)

The text is a bit long winded but it is pretty clear when it comes to PL rules on such matters and how they are subscribed to by the clubs

 

[terraloon]

And although we may get a kangaroo court.. it speaks to reason that if the panel wants a result that's upheld and not appealed, it will not go into stuff over 6 years unless it really has to.

6 years time bars anything from before 2017.

The charges aren’t time barred .

 

[Shads]

I think that this is why the club have provided nothing post-2018. We should be able to successfully argue that the grounds for investigation (i.e. the hack and Der Spiegel) deals only with retrospective matters, so to ask for things that occur after opening an investigation go beyond what is reasonable and proportionate.

There are myriad arguments and Pannick will submit them all…

 

[WRicko]

I think, without referring to the CAS documentation, that they could go back to 2013/14 onwards. So I doubt it was time-barred.

It seems they talked to us about it, presumably didn't like it but I'd guess it wasn't necessarily against any FFP rules. So what could they charge us with?

I agree but surprised they didn’t claim the sale as inflated not say it was but just seems like the sort of thing they would do unless we showed them some very strong evidence but I thought we were not cooperating