PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Metalartin]

What are the chances of some of the non cooperation charges being: "Bring us Etihad's accounts and any sponsor's accounts which neither your club or the PL have any legal right to ask for... Outside of our own rulebook, which we wrote ourselves"
...
"No? Failure to cooperate!"

Why don't they just have done with it and make the rule they really want: "If your club name is Manchester City FC, you have no legal rights at all. Any charges we bring forward are fact. You are guilty until proven innocent. Because this rule, right here, says so."

 

[SilverFox2]

What are the chances of some this being: "Bring us Etihad's accounts and any sponsor's which neither the club or the PL have any legal right to ask for... Outside of our own rulebook which we wrote ourselves"
...
"No? Failure to cooperate!"

Why don't they just have done with it "If your club name is Manchester City FC, you have no legal rights at all. Anything charges we bring are fact, you are guilty until proven innocent. Because this rule right here says so."

The rules are there even if we were the only ones they choose to apply them to.

Fairness of use of these rules both on and off the playing field is and has been a cross we have borne since Sheikh M first bought City.

I think we all realise this and will no doubt be a major point when an independent adjudicater actually exists. L

 

[ayrshire_blue]

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.

If and when the time comes and we *are* found guilty on that specific charge, does that potentially lead to us being forced to hand over documents from that point forward (bringing potential for further investigations/charges etc)?

 

[Shads]

It goes back to which documents were in effect ruled on.I would the whole set of emails un redacted would be a given
My point was and still is if the PL had a whole list of documents they wanted and the process via arbitration rubber stamped that request then if they exist city would be play with fire if they don’t offer them up even if they don’t think they are relevant

I dont disagree. There remains issues of mitigation that could be used to deflect that charge. The original emails were provided to CAS and only then accepted as evidence. It showed the der spiegel emails to be doctored to cause the worst possible outcome for City. The other interesting issue is time related in respect of how long businesses are required to keep documents. It is 6 years. Therefore requests for documents older than 6 years May no longer be available. They may have been legitimately destroyed for example. That is also not a failure to cooperate.

 

[I'm not really here]

Cross of St Marks looked a bit Nazi Germany haha. How's this?
View attachment 69187

Make that beauty into a two stick Flag

 

[Pontypool Blue]

I must be getting slow in my old age, I’ve only just worked out why everyone’s talking about KC’s when I’d never heard of the term before in my life before this whole carry on. QC definitely sounds better.

SWP - Baby just give it up

 

[BringBackSwales]

One thing that stood out from that Daily Fail article:

"There is no indication that 'Project Longbow' is illegal."

I guess there may be a difference between not being illegal and not being compliant with FFP?

 

[jimbopm]

Can someone with more expertise than me explain the difference between doing something illegal, which I don't believe City have done, and something being done in 'good faith'? Seems like that is going to be very tricky for either side to demonstrate to me? For example, the last few pages of Fordham discussion indicate to me that City acted legally, but perhaps not in 'good faith' by shifting costs to another company. Am I wrong?

 

[Len Rum]

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

Thanks.
On this basis it appears that the image rights issues MIGHT be time barred?
There doesn't appear to have been any withholding any information as it appears to have been widely known about at the time by everyone including UEFA!

 

[M18CTID]

I guess there may be a difference between not being illegal and not being compliant with FFP?

Of course. I'm just viewing that particular issue with regards to allegations of accounting fraud and how it may not come under that particular umbrella.

Only time will tell whether the Fordham stuff will be a major part of the PL's case against us. @Prestwich_Blue puts forward a quite convincing argument that UEFA perhaps looked at this years ago when we were sanctioned in 2014 as to not pursue it following the Der Spiegel articles makes little sense if it was fresh info that they (UEFA) didn't know about