PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[M18CTID]

Pinto (or whoever) hacked our email servers, not Liverpool's.

He also hacked Benfica's, Bayern Munich's(?), Doyen Sports (hence the Ronaldo alleged rape emails), a bank in the Cayman Isles, the Portuguese police team investigating him plus one of the judges in his case and many, many others.

That doesn't mean he's hacked the entire world.

It's a shame he didn't hack a certain football club registered in the Cayman Isles!

 

[Paladin]

What exactly do you want them to investigate about Liverpool's Standard Chartered sponsorship?

Every large bank in the world has been slapped for breaching anti money laundering controls. No one thinks that makes them unacceptable to do business with. Not the government, not the millions of customers they have and not the Premier League.

HSBC, NatWest, Santander, TSB, Metro Bank, Credit Suisse, Lloyds, Bank of Scotland, UBS, Goldman Sachs....Even title sponsor of the league Barclays.

Not forgetting Jodrell, River, Gordon. Even food banks are providing laundering products these days.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

The image rights for me will be pivotal

Why City , in my opinion, have A problem is quite simply image rights form part of a player’s remuneration package and as such FA and PL rules state clearly that payment of any of a players remuneration can be paid by a third party. If the argument city put forward is that the third party is part of the City group then the FFP issue will kick in.

If and a big if the tribunal do indeed find in the PL favour re image rights the consequences of the Mancini contract issue elevates matters considerably.

As for the sponsorship thing UEFA as witnessed were under prepared and CAS drove a cart and horse through the case put before them.

Correct me if I'm wrong though isn't the main charge we're facing namely that we deliberately mislead the PL over finances for a 9 year period? As I understand it, none of what you're commenting on suggests that they have deliberately mislead anyone, given the image rights company was literally changed to Manchester City football club (image rights) ltd. It suggests it's being plainly open rather than deliberately misleading surely?

Apologies if I've picked you up wrong. I appreciate your part in this discussion with PB.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe but I don’t go along with CAS not being independent. I think they were all unbiased yet one guy thought we had done something wrong.

I think what makes CAS independent is that you have a neutral chairman who both parties have to agree to, and then each side chooses one from a list. They are supposed to be impartial I suppose, but if you want income from being UEFA's go to guy, then you have to be "understanding" of their needs. I am not surprised pretty much everything was 2-1.

Now, the PL chooses its own Chairman I think and he appoints the other two on the panel (or I read somewhere the PL chooses someone and he chooses the three? Not sure). Anyway, is that better? I suppose the PL KC should be independent and so should his choices. But, on the other hand, the club can't contribute to any of the choices.

Make of it what you will. Seems to me it isn't truly independent if one party chooses all the panel.

 

[halfcenturyup]

95%

I reckon 94%, but I am always a glass 6% empty sort of guy.

 

[SSBlue]

Speaking from experience most big multinational organisations are structured in an odd way on paper

I worked for one of the ten biggest organisations in the world and we had an entire team of people looking after things like this. Even taking advantage of currency fluctuations within the cash in the group of companies because of this kind of organisational design. It doesn’t necessarily point to wrongdoing.

But that example refers to breaking the law.

City haven't been accused of breaking the law, we've been accused of breaking arbitrary rules relating to funding sources and disclosure.

For example a lot of posts are citing our accounts being audited as proof of innocence. The auditors were proving that our accounts were legal, they had no remit to check that they complied with specific PL rules.

 

[halfcenturyup]

There is a bloke in jail for the crime. I believe like with the scouting database, the only chance of a prosecution for City is if it was the customers details I.e our personal data including DOB, credit card not “ no left foot & doesn’t track back “.

Yes, I would have thought access to our own IP wouldn't have any personal information consequences. It wasn't a customer data base or something like that.

 

[petrusha]

I think what makes CAS independent is that you have a neutral chairman who both parties have to agree to, and then each side chooses one from a list. They are supposed to be impartial I suppose, but if you want income from being UEFA's go to guy, then you have to be "understanding" of their needs. I am not surprised pretty much everything was 2-1.

Exactly. In the case before the CAS, there was only one arbitrator who could have had any significant motive not to consider matters impartially. And it wasn't the chair of the panel or the guy that City appointed.

UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before the CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so with him, obviously.

I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas was an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knew full well on which side his bread was buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produced a jaw-droppingly inept but very revealing analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This kind of stuff was discussed in the month and 3,000 comments since I posted that! Not sure it’s worth reviving.

Thank God for that. I thought I was stuck in the twilight zone.

 

[Bez]

Exactly. In the case before the CAS, there was only one arbitrator who could have had any significant motive not to consider matters impartially. And it wasn't the chair of the panel or the guy that City appointed.

UEFA's choice as arbitrator was Prof. Ulrich Haas. He's a German academic but has his own law practice in Zurich as well, and he happens to be a regular choice of UEFA as arbitrator in the many cases they fight before the CAS. I'm told by specialist practitioners that, in most arbitration cases, arbitrators aren't especially tied to the party that nominates them as it could be an age before that party is back before the same tribunal. Not so with him, obviously.

I'd suggest, therefore, that Prof. Haas was an exception to the above general rule. I suspect he knew full well on which side his bread was buttered and didn't want to risk his cosy little arrangement with UEFA by voting against them. IIRC, his trainee (or equivalent) subsequently produced a jaw-droppingly inept but very revealing analysis of the case moaning that we'd got away with it.

That's very interesting. Is the analysis of the case by IIRC available to view online?