PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

Thanks again for posting Chris. A couple of short follow up questions, for a dummy like myself to possibly understand from this.

If, as you say, we're "in trouble" for non co-operation, what are we possibly/realistically looking at in terms of punishment - if we're cleared of the other stuff? And, perhaps more importantly, if we are found guilty of non co-operation does that have consequences in terms of can they then force us to hand over further documents in effect causing this whole thing to drag on even further after the hearing?

IE, we're forced to hand over further documents and from which they obtain further evidence to reopen or begin *another* investigation?

Cheers.

I suspect it'll play out like the UEFA one, we've now dumped everything (more or less) in their laps for the panel to peruse and they'll fine us for the non-coop charge. There won't be any more requests as they should have everything needed. They can't demand random documents which is where the non-coop charge probably originated.

 

[bluealf]

Why are somethings investigated like City on stolen emails.
Yet when a retired ref says he was told to say he didnt see something, that is brushed under the carpet ?

City investigated for the owner investing in his business.
Ref saying the pl is bent no investigation.

I am missing something ?

Colour of skin and headwear is all wrong

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Why are somethings investigated like City on stolen emails.
Yet when a retired ref says he was told to say he didnt see something, that is brushed under the carpet ?

City investigated for the owner investing in his business.
Ref saying the pl is bent no investigation.

I am missing something ?

Stolen by a self confessed extortionist and then doctored to then be taken out of context by anyone and his dog

 

[Bez]

With regards to the allegations regarding non cooperation from City is that City probably will say they have co-operated. I have no idea whether we have or not, but I am sure it won't be anything like as bad as the PL are alleging. Additionally, it is my understanding that the PL said in 2019 that City were cooperating with the investigation. So, what happened in the subsequent period to warrant the allegations? Not giving the PL what they wanted does not necessarily become evidence of non cooperation. Ultimately it should come down to what is reasonable to provide under the circumstances. No doubt we will find out later this year.

 

[Erling9]

Bring it on, we all know the real reason they target PSG and City and soon Newcastle as well. It's really going to be a giant headscratcher for them once the rags get bought by a middle eastern consortium. They won't know what to do.

 

[Chris in London]

By "the investigation was into, basically, everything", did you mean everything in the DS emails?

No, I mean whatever the terms of reference were in the investigation, which may or may not have been limited to what was in the DS leaked emails.

Thanks again for posting Chris. A couple of short follow up questions, for a dummy like myself to possibly understand from this.

If, as you say, we're "in trouble" for non co-operation, what are we possibly/realistically looking at in terms of punishment - if we're cleared of the other stuff? And, perhaps more importantly, if we are found guilty of non co-operation does that have consequences in terms of can they then force us to hand over further documents in effect causing this whole thing to drag on even further after the hearing?

IE, we're forced to hand over further documents and from which they obtain further evidence to reopen or begin *another* investigation?

Cheers.

I think the best point of comparison is the CAS fine - 10m euros, was it? They may think its less significant, they may think more, but I think that's the best point of comparison.

I think the investigation has run its course and I don't think further disclosure is necessary (with one caveat). We have - eventually - provided all the disclosure that has been requested of us. The 'non-co-operation' charge will not be that we have not provided the material at all, but that we didn't provide it when requested. The charge relates, if you like, to the fact that we didn't provide our disclosure until we were made to.

The other charges have all been brought, and there will only be further disclosure if when we are defending the charges against us we rely on documents that (for instance) have not been disclosed so far. So if we relied on a document the PL haven't already requested, they would be entitled to say 'hand on, we haven't see this, can we also please see all the emails surrounding it.'

The caveat is that the investigation was opened in 2019 (IIRC) so the only things that are relevant to that are documents that pre-date the inquiry. If they open a fresh investigation relating to the period since, the whole process starts again. I have no reason to think they will, but it's important to be clear that the investigation is limited to the things alleged against us as at the time the investigation began.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Sort of.

The way it works is that the PL opened an investigation based on the leaked emails in Der Spiegel. As part of their investigation they were entitled to ask for, and we were obliged to provide, certain documents. We failed to do so, almost certainly having taken legal advice, and quite possibly (given the arguments we ran in the subsequent court case) on the basis that we were concerned about confidentiality being maintained.

It is true that the only disclosable documents within that investigation are documents that relate to the matters being investigated. However the rules in place at the time said this:

1. 
   
   
   

So there isn’t really an option to ‘take the fifth,’ so to speak. If there’s an allegation that we have cheated, the PL has the power to request documents that are relevant to that allegation.

It seems to me very likely that since Der Spiegel accused us of systematic cheating over many years the PL’s inquiry was wide enough to cover everything they asked for. Certainly that appears to have been the conclusion in the arbitration which was upheld by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. So whilst in theory we could have said ‘we aren’t providing X, it’s not relevant to your investigation’ the likelihood is that the investigation was so wide everything the PL asked for was potentially relevant. The question of what charges should be brought gets answered at the end of the investigation, not its beginning, so the charges we eventually faced were not relevant to what information we provided.

So to take the Al Jazira contract as an example, if that was all that was being investigated, we might well have said ‘we aren’t providing you with documents about image rights, they are irrelevant to your investigation’ But since the investigation was into, basically, everything , the disclosure requests were within the PL’s powers.

Our failure to comply with that is why, IMO, we are in trouble on the non-cooperation charge.

The problem is that the PL have clearly been acting in bad faith under pressure from our commercial rivals. I can't see a single reason why we should co-operate in a politically-driven witchunt against us. That's why we are supporting proposals for an independent regulator.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So to take the Al Jazira contract as an example, if that was all that was being investigated, we might well have said ‘we aren’t providing you with documents about image rights, they are irrelevant to your investigation’ But since the investigation was into, basically, everything , the disclosure requests were within the PL’s powers.

Our failure to comply with that is why, IMO, we are in trouble on the non-cooperation charge.

By "the investigation was into, basically, everything", did you mean everything in the DS emails?

This is the point I was trying to make, but Chris made it so much better.

My understanding is that if the Al Jazira contract was the only thing that had been revealed in the Der Spiegel articles, then the PL (or anyone else) couldn't come in and say "Well we think you've cheated on this so we're going to investigate all your sponsorships as well." And I believe we would be within our rights not to hand over anything that wasn't connected to the Mancini/Al Jazira issue (although that net could be wide). They have to be investigating a specific, formulated allegation, not 'fishing'. I'm keen to understand this specific point.

Hance why I've previously described this investigation as UEFA's sloppy seconds, which was the time-barred sponsorship contracts, the Al Jazira contract and the image rights payments. That last one was the only one that worried me initially but once it was clear that UEFA already knew about this back in 2015, and let us know they weren't happy with it, plus Fordham was hardly a secret as they were referenced in our Companies House entry, I was more confident it was nonsense.

The arrangement was seemingly wound up in 2018 and Fordham is now in liquidation. Martyn Ziegler thought that this was some sort of revelation the other day, proving journalists don't do any original research, and it made me think. If UEFA told us in 2015 that they were't happy about this arrangement, what happened between 2015 and 2018? My guess is that we then included the Fordham payments in our FFP submission, with the payments coming back in-house in 2018/19. No money went into Fordham after an allotment of shares of nearly £60m in May 2016. If it was so egregious, and we'd carried on with it, despite UEFA's concerns, then they'd have charged us back in 2019.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is the point I was trying to make, but Chris made it so much better.

My understanding is that if the Al Jazira contract was the only thing that had been revealed in the Der Spiegel articles, then the PL (or anyone else) couldn't come in and say "Well we think you've cheated on this so we're going to investigate all your sponsorships as well. And I believe we would be within our rights not to hand over anything that wasn't connected to the Mancini/Al Jazira issue (although that net could be wide). They have to be investigating a specific, formulated allegation, not 'fishing'. I'm keen to understand this specific point.

Hance why I've previously described this investigation as UEFA's sloppy seconds, which was the time-barred sponsorship contracts, the Al Jazira contract and the image rights payments. That last one was the only one that worried me initially but once it was clear that UEFA already knew about this back in 2015, and let us know they weren't happy with it, plus Fordham was hardly a secret as they were referenced in our Companies House entry, I was more confident it was nonsense.

The arrangement was seemingly wound up in 2018 and Fordham is now in liquidation. Martyn Ziegler thought that this was some sort of revelation the other day, proving journalists don't do any original research, and it made me think. If UEFA told us in 2015 that they were't happy about this arrangement, what happened between 2015 and 2018? My guess is that we then included the Fordham payments in our FFP submission, with the payments coming back in-house in 2018/19. No money went into Fordham after an allotment of shares of nearly £60m in May 2016. If it was so egregious, and we'd carried on with it, despite UEFA's concerns, then they'd have charged us back in 2019.

Just to be clear, there was nothing wrong with the Fordham transaction from an accounting point of view, presumably, and nothing fraudulent about it. It was just a way of selling an asset for revenue up front, as the club needed it for FFP at that time, as opposed to working the asset over a number of years. Much like Barcelona have done with their broadcast deals. Is that right?

 

[halfcenturyup]

No, I mean whatever the terms of reference were in the investigation, which may or may not have been limited to what was in the DS leaked emails.

Fair enough. No-one knows definitively, of course, but is your feeling that they have other issues than those in the DS emails? The opening of the investigation at more or less the same time as UEFA would suggest that isn't the case?